This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that in expropriation proceedings, the value of a property must be determined either as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever comes first.[39] In this case, the Complaint was filed on March 18, 1996, and the trial court issued the Writ of Possession on June 19, 1997.[40] The offers cited in the Commissioners' Report, though, were made between May 1996 to February 1997, a period after the filing of the Complaint on March 18, 1996. Thus, there is no evidence on record of the fair market value of the property as of March 1996. | |||||
|
2006-08-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The rule is that the value of the property must be determined either as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever comes first.[22] In this case, the complaint was filed on April 17, 1979, and the trial court issued the writ of possession on January 10, 1981. The City Treasurer, City Assessor and the AACI based their assessment reports as of 1995 and not as of 1979 or a difference of 16 years. Indeed, the fair market value of the property in 1979 cannot be fixed by the mere expedient of cutting in half the assessment made by the City Treasurer and City Assessor or AACI for that matter as of 1997. Such a process is arbitrary and a grave abuse of the trial court's discretion. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The above provision mandates that the petitioner or the principal party must execute the certification against forum shopping. The reason for this is that the principal party has actual knowledge whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. If, for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized.[14] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Just compensation is "the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, x x x fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government."[40] This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for compensation.[41] | |||||
|
2003-11-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the requirement in the Rules that the certification of non- forum shopping should be executed and signed by the plaintiff or the principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to do so.[18] The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.[19] In the case of natural persons, the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. However, in the case of the corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed, on behalf of the corporate entity, only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations, as artificial persons, cannot personally do the task themselves.[20] In this case, not only was the originally appended certification signed by counsel, but in its motion for reconsideration, still petitioner utterly failed to show that Ms. Rosanna Ignacio, its Personnel Manager who signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping attached thereto, was duly authorized for this purpose. It cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the requirements of procedural rule is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[21] | |||||