Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao;[44] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[45] LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons;[46] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[47] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[48]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
Further reiterations were made in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao[34] and LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons,[35] to quote: This Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad that seizure of landholdings or properties covered by P.D. No. 27 did not take place on October 21, 1972, but upon the payment of just compensation. Taking into account the passage in 1988 of R.A. No. 6657 pending the settlement of just compensation, this Court concluded that it is R.A. No. 6657 which is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. 228 having only suppletory effect.