This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-03-16 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Zoning classification is an exercise by the local government of police power, not the power of eminent domain. A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines, and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs.[26] | |||||
|
2006-05-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the Notice of Land Valuation that was sent by the DAR to petitioners on June 14, 1993, offered to compensate petitioners for their property in the total amount of P4,826,742.35 based on the valuation made by the LBP. Said amount was rejected by petitioners, prompting the DAR to open a Trust Account in the aforestated amount with the LBP in favor of petitioners. Pursuant to this, the LBP certified that the amount of P4,826,742.35 had been "reserved/earmarked" to cover the value of the subject property. This, however, did not operate to effect payment for petitioners' property in question as the law requires payment of just compensation in cash or Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) bonds, not by trust account.[28] | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This brings us to the second self-evident point. Water is life, and must be saved at all costs. In Collado v. Court of Appeals,[36] we had occasion to reaffirm our previous discussion in Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[37] on the primordial importance of watershed areas, thus: "The most important product of a watershed is water, which is one of the most important human necessities. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but also cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational" responsibility that needs to be answered now.[38] | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While the injunction and ejectment cases were still in process, it appears that in August, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage to SRRDC, informing petitioners that the property covered by TCT Nos. T-81949, T-84891 and T-92014 is scheduled for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).[22] SRRDC filed its "Protest and Objection" with the MARO on the grounds that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes, as it was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above, and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.[23] Thereafter, as narrated in the Decision of the Court dated October 12, 2001 in G.R. No. 112526, the following proceedings ensued:On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered the protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Certification of the Department of Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna. | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE DARAB HAS JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE SRRDC PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT TO CARP COVERAGE.[29] On October 12, 2001, the Court rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 112526 only, setting aside the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234 and ordering the remand of the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the nature of the land. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follows:IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234. | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Initially, the LBP forwarded the two Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders (CACF) covering the subject properties to the DARAB for summary proceedings for the sole purpose of determining just compensation. SRRDC then sent a letter to the LBP claiming that the subject properties were exempt from CARP coverage and subject of a pending petition for land conversion. As a consequence, the DARAB asked the DAR Secretary to first resolve the issues raised by SRRDC before it can proceed with the land valuation proceedings. In response, the DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations and the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted its report stating that: (1) the property is subject to compulsory acquisition by virtue of the Notice of Coverage issued on August 11, 1989, and Notice of Acquisition issued on December 12, 1989, and that it was subject to CARP coverage per Section IV D of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990; and (2) there was no pending petition for land conversion involving the subject property. When SRRDC petitioned the DARAB to resolve the issue of exemption from coverage, it was only then that the DARAB took cognizance of said issue.[91] | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| enjoyment of property devoted to park and recreational purposes."[26] In Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,[27] the Court had occasion to discourse on watershed areas. The Court resolved the issue of whether the parcel of land which the Department of Environment and | |||||