Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182704 2014-04-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VICTORINO T. PERALTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat,[28] the same doctrine was applied where the Court noted that both the taking of the landowner's property and the valuation occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. Since the acquisition process under P.D. No. 27 remains incomplete and is overtaken by R.A. No. 6657, the process should be completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having suppletory effect only.[29] Similarly, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano,[30] this Court held that Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just compensation. While the lands involved therein were acquired under P.D. No. 27, the Court noted that the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the court (SAC) on November 23, 2000 or long after the passage of R.A. No. 6657.
	GR No. 189125 2013-08-28	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO CASTRO PEREZ, J.
Pursuant to the rule-making power of DAR under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657, a formula was outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998 in computing just compensation[24] for lands subject of acquisition whether under voluntary to sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA)[25] to wit: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
	GR No. 182431 2013-02-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
Following A.O. 13-94, the 6% yearly interest compounded annually shall be reckoned from 21 October 1972 up to the effectivity date of this Order which was on 21 October 1994. However, A.O. 02-04[31] extended the period of application of 6% interest from 21 October 1972 up to the time of actual payment but not later than December 2006. Then, under A.O. 06-08,[32] the application of 6% interest was further until 31 December 2009. It must be noted that the term "actual payment" in the administrative orders is to be interpreted as "full payment" pursuant to the ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Obias[33] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano.[34]
	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
Pursuant to this provision and the rule-making power of DAR under Section 49 of R.A. 6657, a formula was outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998 in computing just compensation[52] for lands subject of acquisition whether under voluntary offer to sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA),[53] to wit: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
Pursuant to the rule-making power of DAR under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657, a formula was outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998 in computing just compensation[39] for lands subject of acquisition whether under voluntary offer to sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA),[40] to wit: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
	GR No. 184719 2012-03-21	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO SERENO, J.
This Court has already categorically declared in LBP v. Domingo Soriano[56] that if the issue of just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of the CARL, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under P.D. 27, viz: In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27, the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 in 1988. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just compensation. As a matter of fact, the factors enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657. The formula outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998 should be applied in computing just compensation, thus:
	GR No. 184406 2012-03-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERFECTO OBIAS PEREZ, J.
The rationale for the interpretation that the payment of interest shall be up to the time of full payment and not up to actual payment as defined by the Administrative Order is well pronounced in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Soriano,[15] we quote:The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.[16]
	GR No. 182431 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that the parcels of land subject matter of this case were acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27, but the complaint for just compensation was filed in the RTC on 1 December 1994 after Republic Act No. 6657 already took into effect.[16] Thus, our pronouncement in LBP v. Soriano[17] finds application. We quote: x x x [I]f just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27. The fixing of just compensation should therefore be based on the parameters set out in Republic Act No. 6657, with Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 having only suppletory effect.
	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]