Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SANTA LORO VDA. DE CAPIN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 193023 2011-06-22	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. YUNITA TUAZON BRION, J.
The determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a function addressed to the discretion of the courts, and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government. [35] This judicial function has constitutional raison d'être; Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. In National Power Corporation v. Santa Loro Vda. de Capin, et al., [36] we noted with approval the disquisition of the CA in this matter: The [herein petitioner] vehemently insists that its Charter [Section 3A (b) of R.A. 6395] obliges it to pay only a maximum of 10% of the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. To uphold such a contention would not only interfere with a judicial function but would also render as useless the protection guaranteed by our Constitution in Section 9, Article III of our Constitution that no private property shall be taken for public use without payment of just compensation.
	GR No. 173289 2010-02-17	ELAND PHILIPPINES v. AZUCENA GARCIA PERALTA, J.
Clearly, the facts pleaded by the respondents in their motion for summary judgment have been duly disputed and contested by petitioner, raising genuine issues that must be resolved only after a full-blown trial. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial.[50] In the present case, the petitioner was able to point out the genuine issues. A "genuine issue" is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.[51]
	GR No. 183297 2009-12-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. OMAR G. MARUHOM NACHURA, J.
The term just compensation had been defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.[18]