Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
On October 5, 1994, Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government – through the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) – for the construction and development of the NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-and-transfer (BOT) arrangement. The DOTC and the MIAA invited the public to submit competitive and comparative proposals to AEDC’s unsolicited proposal in accordance with the BOT Law[3] and its implementing rules.[4]
	GR No. 179334 2015-04-21	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it should be stressed that the matter of the validity of the State's exercise of the power of eminent domain has long been settled. In fact, in our assailed decision, We have affirmed the ruling of the CA that the pre-trial order issued on May 17, 2001 has limited the issues as follows: (1) whether or not the respondents-movants are entitled to just compensation; (2) whether or not the valuation would be based on the corresponding value at the time of the taking or at the time of the filing of the action; and (3) whether or not the respondents-movants are entitled to damages.[8] Moreover, it was held that for failure of respondents-movants to question the lack of expropriation proceedings for a long period of time, they are deemed to have waived and are estopped from assailing the power of the government to expropriate or the public use for which the power was exercised.[9] What is, therefore, left for determination in the instant Motion for Reconsideration, in accordance with our Decision dated July 1, 2013, is the propriety of the amount awarded to respondents as just compensation.
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[4] Petitioner is of the opinion that the CA erred in affirming the factual findings of the trial court. He now comes to this Court raising both procedural and substantive issues.