Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Co,[333] the Court suppletorily applied Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court in determining the value of the property sought to be expropriated for purposes of implementing national infrastructure projects. Under the Rules of Court, just compensation shall be determined from the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. Thus, where the filing of an action precedes the taking of the property, just compensation shall be computed as of the time of the filing of the complaint.[334]
	GR No. 181218 2013-01-28	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF SPS. PEDRO BAUTISTA AND VALENTINA MALABANAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
On the other hand, Mecate's April 25, 2005 Commissioner's Report evidently failed to consider factors other than the value of the subject portion as reflected in the tax declarations, the BIR zonal valuation, and its classification as an agricultural land. Although Mecate professes to base her Report on the fair market value of the property, current values of like properties, the property's actual or potential uses, and location, still in reality these factors were not taken into account in arriving at the conclusions contained in her Report. To make matters worse, Mecate based her Report on the 1998 Appraisal Committee Report of the Lipa City Appraisal Committee, which is clearly obsolete and does not reflect 2004 property values. The Complaint for expropriation was filed in 2004; thus, just compensation should be based on 2004 valuations. "Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint." [53]
	GR No. 189127 2012-04-25	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. BERNARDO AND MINDALUZ SALUDARES SERENO, J.
We have ruled that "when petitioner takes private property to construct transmission lines, it is liable to pay the full market value upon proper determination by the courts."[34]
	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that "the 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[15] It should be noted, however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLI's submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval which should be considered as the effective date of "taking" as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands.
	GR No. 193023 2011-06-22	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. YUNITA TUAZON BRION, J.
In sum, we categorically hold that private land taken for the installation of transmission lines is to be paid the full market value of the land as just compensation. We so ruled in National Power Corporation v. Benjamin Ong Co, [40] and we reiterate this ruling today: As earlier mentioned, Section 3A of R.A. No. 6395, as amended, substantially provides that properties which will be traversed by transmission lines will only be considered as easements and just compensation for such right of way easement shall not exceed 10 percent of the market value. However, this Court has repeatedly ruled that when petitioner takes private property to construct transmission lines, it is liable to pay the full market value upon proper determination by the courts. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 168967 2010-02-12	CITY OF ILOILO v. LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.[39] Even under Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the 1964 Rules of Procedure, under which the complaint for expropriation was filed, just compensation is to be determined "as of the date of the filing of the complaint." Here, there is no reason to depart from the general rule that the point of reference for assessing the value of the Subject Property is the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation.[40]