Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192100 2014-03-12	REPUBLIC v. ASIA PACIFIC INTEGRATED STEEL CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Among the factors to be considered in arriving at the fair market value of the property are the cost of acquisition, the current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape, location, and the tax declarations thereon. The measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss.[30] To be just, the compensation must be fair not only to the owner but also to the taker.[31]
	GR No. 190336 2012-06-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PAZ O. MONTALVAN SERENO, J.
Hence, the DAR unjustly enriched itself when it appropriated the entire 147.6913-hectare real property of respondents Montalvan, because the entire lot was decidedly beyond the area it had intended to subject to agrarian reform under the VOS arrangement. Even the Field Investigation Report issued by the DAR found that the excluded portion together with the five-hectare retention limit was not to be the subject of agrarian reform expropriation. Under the Civil Code,[27] there is unjust enrichment when a person retains the property of another without just or legal ground and against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[28] Hence, although the Court affirms the award of just compensation for the expropriated portion owned by respondents, the Republic cannot hold on to the excluded portion consisting of 75.6913 hectares, despite both portions being included under one new title issued in its favor.
	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Just compensation has been defined as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator."[12] The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.[13] In determining just compensation, the price or value of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the government shall be the basis. If the government takes possession of the land before the institution of expropriation proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of the filing of the complaint.[14]
	GR No. 183984 2011-04-13	ARTURO SARTE FLORES v. SPS. ENRICO L. LINDO CARPIO, J.
There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[23] The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense of another.[24]
	GR No. 176959 2010-09-08	METROPOLITAN BANK v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES: RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION PROVIDENT CASE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Anent the award of attorney's fees to respondents, we find the same to be in order. Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code allows the award of attorney's fees in cases where the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. Attorney's fees may be awarded by a court to one (1) who was compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his or her interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought.[29]