Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORFOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
Certainly, the trend of recent rulings bolsters this interpretation. In Forform Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways,[23] the Philippine National Railways was directed to file the appropriate expropriation action over the land in question, so that just compensation due to its owner may be determined in accordance with the Rules of Court, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment is made. The Court in Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez[24] ordered just compensation for the portion of respondent's lot actually occupied by the runway, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment is made.
	GR No. 168967 2010-02-12	CITY OF ILOILO v. LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We commiserate with the private respondent. The school was constructed and has been in operation since 1985. Petitioner and the residents of Iloilo City have long reaped the benefits of the property. However, non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowners to recover possession of their expropriated lot.[41]
	GR No. 162474 2009-10-13	VICENTE P. EUSEBIO v. JOVITO M. LUIS PERALTA, J.
These issues had been squarely addressed in Forfom Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways,[7] which is closely analogous to the present case. In said earlier case, the Philippine National Railways (PNR) took possession of the private property in 1972 without going through expropriation proceedings. The San Pedro-Carmona Commuter Line Project was then implemented with the installation of railroad facilities on several parcels of land, including that of petitioner Forfom. Said owner of the private property then negotiated with PNR as to the amount of just compensation. No agreement having been reached, Forfom filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property and/or Damages with the trial court sometime in August 1990.
	GR No. 181562-63 2009-10-02	SPS. CIRIACO AND ARMINDA ORTEGA v. CITY OF CEBU NACHURA, J.
Likewise, in the recent cases of National Power Corporation v. dela Cruz[9] and Forfom Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways,[10] we emphasized the primacy of judicial prerogative in the ascertainment of just compensation as aided by the appointed commissioners, to wit: Though the ascertainment of just compensation is a judicial prerogative, the appointment of commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own estimate of the value, it may only do so for valid reasons; that is, where the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. Thus, "trial with the aid of the commissioners is a substantial right that may not be done away with capriciously or for no reason at all."