Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 171836 2014-08-11	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Considering, however, that the land was acquired in 1989 and the only surviving petitioner is now an octogenarian and is in need of urgent medical attention, we find these special circumstances justifying in the acceleration of the final disposition of this case. This Court deems it best pro hac vice to commission the CA as its agent to receive and evaluate the evidence of the parties. The CA's mandate is to ascertain the just compensation due in accordance with this Decision, applying Section 17 of RA 6557 and applicable DAR regulations. As explained in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gallego, Jr., the remand of cases before this Court to the CA for the reception of further evidence is not a novel procedure. It is sanctioned by Section 6, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. In fact, the Court availed of this procedure in quite a few cases.[89] Withdrawal of proceeds, pending determination of correct just compensation
	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
The premise is erroneous because the DARAB does not "exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the SAC in just compensation cases. The determination of just compensation is judicial in nature."[30]
	GR No. 181626 2011-05-30	SANTIAGO PAERA v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
Although uncommented, petitioner's adoption of new theories for the first time before this Court has not escaped our attention. Elementary principles of due process forbid this pernicious procedural strategy - it not only catches off-guard the opposing party, it also denies judges the analytical benefit uniform theorizing affords. Thus, courts generally refuse to pass upon freshly raised theories.[10] We would have applied this rule here were it not for the fact that petitioner's liberty is at stake and the OSG partially views his cause with favor.
	GR Nos. 181566 and 181570 2011-03-09	DAVAO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
We stated in Heirs of Roque F. Tabuena v. Land Bank of the Philippines[22] that "once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of private agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the indispensable role of LBP begins."[23] In Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[24] we thoroughly explained the important role of LBP in expropriation proceedings under RA 6657. We held that LBP is not merely a nominal party in the determination of just compensation, but an indispensable participant in such proceedings. As such, LBP possessed the legal personality to institute a petition for determination of just compensation in the SAC. We ruled: There is likewise no merit in petitioners' allegation that LBP lacks locus standi to file a case with the SAC, separate and independent from the DAR. In Heirs of Roque F. Tabuena v. Land Bank of the Philippines, we ruled that the LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedings under RA 6657, and thus, has the legal personality to question the determination of just compensation, independent of the DAR. x x x
	GR No. 182431 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
In Heirs of Vidad v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[31]this Court extensively discussed the role of LBP in the implementation of the agrarian reform program.
	GR No. 176410 2010-09-01	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CONRADO O. COLARINA NACHURA, J.
The recent case of Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad and Agvid Construction Co., Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines[15] is most propinquity on the same point: LBP's valuation of lands covered by the CARP Law is considered only as an initial determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the RTC, sitting as a SAC, that could make the final determination of just compensation, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the applicable DAR regulations. LBP's valuation has to be substantiated during an appropriate hearing before it could be considered sufficient in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 and the DAR regulations.
	GR No. 183688 2010-08-18	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO NACHURA, J.
The issues raised in the instant case are not novel. We have ruled in a number of cases that if just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law even if the property was acquired under P.D. No. 27.[12] The fixing of just compensation should, therefore, be based on the parameters prescribed in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory effect.[13] Specifically, Section 17[14] of R.A. 6657 is the principal basis of the computation for just compensation.[15] The factors set forth in this section have been translated into a basic formula outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998,[16] thus: [17]