This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-04-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We have in the past been confronted with the same issues under similar factual and procedural circumstances. We find no reason to depart from the doctrines laid down in the earlier cases as we adopted in the assailed decision. In this regard, we reiterate the doctrines laid down in the cases of Forfom Development Corporation (Forfom) v. Philippine National Railways (PNR),[10] Eusebio v. Luis,[11] Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez,[12] and Republic v. Sarabia.[13] | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Even if we squarely deal with the issues of laches and prescription, the same must still fail. Laches is principally a doctrine of equity which is applied to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable situation or in an injustice.[27] This doctrine finds no application in this case, since there is nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents' claim. Both equity and the law direct that a property owner should be compensated if his property is taken for public use.[28] Neither shall prescription bar respondents' claim following the long-standing rule "that where private property is taken by the Government for public use without first acquiring title thereto either through expropriation or negotiated sale, the owner's action to recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe."[29] | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| When a property is taken by the government for public use, jurisprudence clearly provides for the remedies available to a landowner. The owner may recover his property if its return is feasible or, if it is not, the aggrieved owner may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken.[30] For failure of respondents to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised. What is left to respondents is the right of compensation.[31] The trial and appellate courts found that respondents are entitled to compensation. The only issue left for determination is the propriety of the amount awarded to respondents. | |||||
|
2013-07-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The reason for the rule has been clearly explained in Republic v. Lara, et al.,[38] and repeatedly held by the Court in recent cases, thus: x x x "[T]he value of the property should be fixed as of the date when it was taken and not the date of the filing of the proceedings." For where property is taken ahead of the filing of the condemnation proceedings, the value thereof may be enhanced by the public purpose for which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the property may have depreciated its value thereby; or, there may have been a natural increase in the value of the property from the time it is taken to the time the complaint is filed, due to general economic conditions. The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken x x x.[39] | |||||
|
2010-09-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is reminded to adhere strictly to the doctrine that just compensation must be valued at the time of taking. The "time of taking"[89] 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. In the instant case, the records are silent as to the date when title was transferred to the Republic. However, we can take guidance from the findings contained in the final and executory decision in CA-GR SP No. 45486, which ruled on the validity of the DAR acquisition and is binding on both Livioco and LBP. The said Decision states that between 1993 and 1994, "the Republic[,] through DAR[,] took possession of the subject portion of [Livioco's] land and awarded the same to [agrarian reform beneficiaries] who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award sometime in 1994."[90] | |||||
|
2010-02-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Concededly, Javellana also slept on his rights for over 18 years and did not bother to check with the PNB if a deposit was actually made by the petitioner. Evidently, from his inaction in failing to withdraw or even verify the amounts purportedly deposited, private respondent not only accepted the valuation made by the petitioner, but also was not interested enough to pursue the expropriation case until the end. As such, private respondent may not recover possession of the Subject Property, but is entitled to just compensation.[42] It is high time that private respondent be paid what was due him after almost 30 years. | |||||