Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182472 2014-11-24	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JAIME K. IBARRA PERALTA, J.
It is, therefore, on equitable considerations that We base the retroactive application of RA No. 6657 for it would be highly inequitable on the part of the landowners to compute just compensation using the values not at the time of the payment but at the time of the taking in 1972, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefitted from the land.[19]
	GR No. 182209 2012-10-03	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EMILIANO R. SANTIAGO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Based on the foregoing, when the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled, such just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under Republic Act No. 6657.[46]
	GR No. 172230 2011-02-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAGIN FERRER MENDOZA, J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manuel O Gallego, Jr.,[8] the Court handed down the same ruling. Thus: The Court has already ruled on the applicability of agrarian laws, namely, P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, in prior cases concerning just compensation.
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
Considering, however, that the land was acquired in 1989 and the only surviving petitioner is now an octogenarian and is in need of urgent medical attention,[75] we find these special circumstances justifying in the acceleration of the final disposition of this case. This Court deems it best pro hac vice to commission the CA as its agent to receive and evaluate the evidence of the parties.[76] The CA's mandate is to ascertain the just compensation due in accordance with this Decision, applying Section 17 of RA 6557 and applicable DAR regulations. As explained in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr.,[77] the remand of cases before this Court to the CA for the reception of further evidence is not a novel procedure. It is sanctioned by Section 6, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.[78] In fact, the Court availed of this procedure in quite a few cases.[79]
	GR No. 165428 2009-11-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TERESITA PANLILIO LUCIANO PERALTA, J.
The mandatory application of the above-mentioned guidelines in determining just compensation was reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[22] wherein we ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for the determination of just compensation strictly in accordance with DAR AO 6-92, as amended.[23]