This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| This irregularity does not, however, proceed without any consequence. As correctly observed by the CA, citing as basis the MIAA case, exemplary damages and attorney's fees should be awarded to the landowner if the government takes possession of the property for a prolonged period of time without properly initiating expropriation proceedings. The MIAA ruling was applied in the more recent case of City of Iloilo v. Judge Lolita Contreras-Besana,[47] wherein the Court said: We stress, however, that the City of Iloilo should be held liable for damages for taking private respondent's property without payment of just compensation. In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez, the Court held that a government agency's prolonged occupation of private property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings undoubtedly entitled the landowner to damages: | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| A government agency's prolonged occupation of private property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings entitles the landowner to damages.[34] Temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered, but its amount cannot be proved with certainty from the nature of the case.[35] These damages may be allowed when the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered some pecuniary loss but, from the nature of the case, definite proof of that pecuniary loss cannot be adduced.[36] When the court is convinced that there has been such a loss, the judge is empowered to calculate moderate damages, rather than let the complainant suffer without redress from the defendant's wrongful act.[37] | |||||
|
2012-06-25 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| One. The RTC did not deny the City its right to be heard on its action when that court dismissed the same. An expropriation proceeding of private lands has two stages: first, the determination of plaintiff's authority to exercise the power of eminent domain in the context of the facts of the case and, second, if there be such authority, the determination of just compensation. The first phase ends with either an order of dismissal or a determination that the property is to be acquired for a public purpose.[10] | |||||