Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 166518 2009-06-16	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO PUNO, J.
It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment continues even after the judgment had become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment.[10] The present case is no exception. Therefore, notwithstanding the final resolution on the validity of the expropriation made by this Court on June 19, 2003 in G.R. No. 154411, the RTC, Branch 19 can still rule on the motions for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and payment of interest. As the CA correctly stated: "...the duty of the court does not end with the tender of the decision. Equal is the duty of the court to enforce said decision to the fullest of its intent, tenor and mandate. To sustain a contrary view would not only trivialize the decision, but would also render it meaningless; the justice sought by the aggrieved party and supposedly conferred by the court turned inutile."[11]
	GR NO. 166964 2005-10-11	PATRICIA L. TIONGSON v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Expropriation proceedings, or the procedure to enforce the state's right of eminent domain, are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. There are two stages in every action for expropriation: first, condemnation of the property after determination that its acquisition is for public purpose; and, second, the ascertainment of just compensation.[7]
	GR No. 145013 2005-03-31	SPS. BERTO VILLORENTE AND LERMA T. VILLORENTE v. APLAYA LAIYA CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indubitably, the Conversion Order of the DAR was a final order, because it resolved the issue of whether the subject property may be converted to non-agricultural use. The finality of such Conversion Order is not dependent upon the subsequent determination, either by agreement of the parties or by the DAR, of the compensation due to the tenants/occupants of the property caused by its conversion to non-agricultural use. Once final and executory, the Conversion Order can no longer be questioned. [15]
	GR No. 106804 2004-08-12	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA CARPIO, J.
In the recent case of National Housing Authority v. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo,[47] the Court compelled the National Housing Authority ("NHA") to pay just compensation to the landowners even after the NHA had already abandoned the expropriation case. The Court pointed out that a government agency could not initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a person's property, and then just decide not to proceed with the expropriation. Such a complete turn-around is arbitrary and capricious and was condemned by the Court in the strongest possible terms. NHA was held liable to the landowners for the prejudice that they had suffered.