Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
With respect to the amount of interest on just compensation, we decisively ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[342] that the just compensation due to the property owner is effectively a forbearance of money, and not indemnity for damages.[343] Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[344] we awarded a legal interest of 12% per annum on just compensation. The Court upheld the imposition of the 12% interest rate in just compensation cases, as ruled in Republic, in Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[345] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[346] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[347] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[348] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[349] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[350] The Court reiterated the Republic ruling in Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[351] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera,[352] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Goduco,[353] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Santiago, Jr.[354]
	GR No. 179334 2015-04-21	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
In the exercise of the authority herein granted, the Monetary Board may prescribe higher maximum rates for loans of low priority, such as consumer loans or renewals thereof as well as such loans made by pawnshops finance companies and other similar credit institutions although the rates prescribed for these institutions need not necessarily be uniform. The Monetary Board is also authorized to prescribe different maximum rate or rates for different types of borrowings, including deposits and deposit substitutes, or loans of financial intermediaries.[24]
	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
We here reiterate our consolidated ruling in DAR v. Manuel Goduco and Land Bank v. Goduco,[49] that when the reform process is still incomplete because the payment has not been settled yet and considering the passage of R.A. 6657, just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. As we so rule, we also repeat what was there said: One final but important point: As we at the outset clarified, the repeated rulings that the land reform process is completed only upon payment of just compensation relate to the issue of the applicable law on just compensation. The disposition that the seizure of the landholding would take effect on the payment of just compensation since it is only at that point that the land reform process is completely refers to property acquired under P.D. No. 27 but which remained unpaid until the passage of R.A. 6657. We said that in such a situation R.A. 6657 is the applicable law. But if the seizure is during the effectivity of R.A. 6657, the time of taking should follow the general rule in expropriation cases where the "time of taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same and deprived the landowner of the use and enjoyment of his property xxx. We here repeat Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco.[50]