Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
The terse statement by the OIC-Regional Director that the Dakila property would still be subject to Republic Act No. 6657 should Presidential Decree No. 27 be inapplicable[59] did not meet the requirements under Republic Act No. 6657. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657 identified rice and corn lands subject to Presidential Decree No. 27 for priority distribution in the first phase and implementation of the CARP. Insofar as the interplay of these two laws was concerned, the Court has said that during the effectivity of the Republic Act No. 6657 and in the event of incomplete acquisition under Presidential Decree No. 27, the former should apply, with the provisions of the latter and Executive Order No. 228[60] having only suppletory effect.[61]
	GR No. 171685 2010-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. GLENN Y. ESCANDOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It is settled that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function.[16] The DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. In the exercise of their functions, the courts still have the final say on what the amount of just compensation will be.[17]
	GR Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, mandates that the redistribution of agricultural lands shall be subject to the payment of just compensation. The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on this subject reveal that just compensation should not do violence to the Bill of Rights, but should also not make an insurmountable obstacle to a successful agrarian reform program. Hence, the landowner's right to just compensation should be balanced with agrarian reform.[19]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
In fact, RA 6657 does not make DAR's valuation absolutely binding as the amount payable by LBP. A reading of Section 18 of RA 6657 shows that the courts, and not the DAR, make the final determination of just compensation.[53] It is well-settled that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. The courts will still have the right to review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.[54]
	GR No. 176487 2009-08-25	REPUBLIC v. FAR EAST ENTERPRISES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We agree with petitioner that the courts have judicial discretion to determine the classification of lands, because such classification is one of the relevant standards for the assessment of the value of lands, subject of expropriation proceedings. It is one factor that the courts consider in determining just compensation. The determination of just compensation is a function addressed by the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.[56] However, we would like to make it clear that Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974 lists the relevant standards that are to be considered in determining just compensation for and not classification of lands, as petitioner would like us to believe.