Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TERESITA PANLILIO LUCIANO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172551 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES BRION, J.
We stressed the RTC-SAC's duty to apply the DAR formula in determining just compensation in Landbank of the Philippines v. Celada[31] and reiterated this same ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim,[32] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Luciano,[33] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Colarina,[34] to name a few.
	GR No. 171840 2011-04-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The LBP's valuation of lands covered by CARL is considered only as an initial determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, that should make the final determination of just compensation, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and the applicable DAR regulations.[21]
	GR No. 170685 2010-09-22	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
LBP argues that its valuation should be given more weight because it is the recognized agency with expertise on the matter, but this same argument had been struck down in Landbank of the Philippines v. Luciano.[82] The Court ruled that LBP's authority is only preliminary and the landowner who disagrees with the LBP's valuation may bring the matter to court for a judicial determination of just compensation. The RTCs, organized as special agrarian courts, are the final adjudicators on the issue of just compensation.[83]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
LBP's valuation of lands covered by the CARP Law is considered only as an initial determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC, sitting as a SAC, that could make the final determination of just compensation, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the applicable DAR regulations.[68] LBP's valuation has to be substantiated during an appropriate hearing before it could be considered sufficient in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 and the DAR regulations.