Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. OMAR G. MARUHOM

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
At the outset, it should be noted that Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court states, "No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." A second motion for reconsideration, as a rule, is prohibited for being a mere reiteration of the issues assigned and the arguments raised by the parties.[11]
	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. 186192 2010-08-25	HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN v. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE NACHURA, J.
It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and the end of the suit and is the life of the law. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. Litigation must end sometime and somewhere. An effective and efficient administration of justice requires that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must, therefore, guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[25] Petitioners have been deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of their property for a considerable length of time. Now that they prevailed before this Court, it would be highly unjust and inequitable under the particular circumstances that payment of just compensation be withheld from them. We, therefore, write finis to this litigation.