This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
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] | |||||