This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Such important principle was reiterated in the more recent Republic v. Bacas,[10] where the Court stated that even "[g]ranting that the persons representing the government were negligent, the doctrine of estoppel cannot be taken against the Republic."[11] Again, in National Power Corporation v. Samar,[12] the Court admonished the trial court to disregard even the panel of commissioners' recommended valuation of the land if such valuation is not the relevant value at the time the NPC took possession of the property.[13] The cases cited by the lower court to justify its ruling that petitioner is bound by the recommendation made by its counsel before the trial court, are all inapplicable to the present case as said cases do not involve agencies or instrumentalities of the State. | |||||
|
2015-03-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as petitioner aptly points out, respondent failed to provide any other proof of acts of dominion over the subject land other than the fact that she, together with her husband and children, planted fruit-bearing trees and constructed their home thereon considering the vastness of the same. As enunciated in Republic v. Bacas, et al.:[25] | |||||