Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF MANILA v. ALEGAR CORPORATION

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179334 2015-04-21	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
Constitutionally, "just compensation" is the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described as the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as between the one who receives and the one who desires to sell, it being fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to modify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. [Emphasis supplied.][15]
	GR No. 191945 2015-03-11	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SOCORRO T. POSADA LEONEN, J.
The payment of a provisional value may also serve as indemnity for damages in the event that the expropriation does not succeed. In City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation:[72]
	GR No. 191945 2015-03-11	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SOCORRO T. POSADA LEONEN, J.
[T]he advance deposit required under Section 19 of the Local Government Code[73] constitutes an advance payment only in the event the expropriation prospers. Such deposit also has a dual purpose: as pre-payment if the expropriation succeeds and as indemnity for damages if it is dismissed. This advance payment, a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of possession, should not be confused with payment of just compensation for the taking of property even if it could be a factor in eventually determining just compensation. If the proceedings fail, the money could be used to indemnify the owner for damages.[74] (Emphasis supplied) The National Power Corporation was only required to pay the provisional value so that it could take possession of respondents' properties. Ordinarily, the government, in accordance with Rule 67 or Republic Act No. 8974, would have already taken possession of the property before the proper amount of just compensation could be determined by the court.