Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CITY OF MANILA v. CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA ET AL.

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 177611 2012-04-18	REPUBLIC v. RODOLFO L. LEGASPI PEREZ, J.
Our review of the documents attached to the pleadings filed in connection with the petition before the CA and this Court also failed to yield any basis for the RTC's pronouncement that UPV excluded the area occupied by the Villa Marina Resort from its exercise of the right of expropriation. This is belied by petitioner's motion for continuation of the condemnation proceedings for the seven remaining lots into which Lot No. 1 of Psu-193912 Amd. had been subdivided,[60] UPV's 13 April 1998 letter-protest against respondent Rodolfo Legaspi, Sr.'s occupation of the property,[61] its motion for the grant of a writ of possession of the entire lot[62] and the motions for reconsideration of petitioner and UPV filed from the condemnation order dated 17 November 2003.[63] Considering that the site of the Villa Marina Resort appears to have already been earmarked for UPV's proposed National Institute of Marine Biotechnology,[64] the RTC clearly abused its discretion when it ruled that the exclusion of 31,617 square meters from the original 40,133 sought to be expropriated would not adversely affect UPV's operations. Granted that no part of the ground of a public cemetery can be taken for other public uses under a general authority,[65] there is, likewise, no showing in the record of the location and area of the public cemetery of Miag-ao in relation to the subject property.
	GR NO. 172243 2007-06-26	REPUBLIC v. PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
During the first stage, if the defendant had denied or objected to the plaintiff's right to expropriate, a hearing would have been held to decide upon whether the land was private, and whether the purpose was, in fact, public.[4] However, once the objections and defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate are overruled, an order of expropriation may issue. With all the more reason must this be so when, as in this case, there is no contest or objection by either of the herein respondents as to the petitioner's right to expropriate.
	GR NO. 152230 2005-08-09	JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. MUNICIPALITY OF PASIG CALLEJO, SR., J.
The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights.[42] It is one of the harshest proceedings known to the law. Consequently, when the sovereign delegates the power to a political unit or agency, a strict construction will be given against the agency asserting the power.[43] The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor.[44] When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.[45]
	GR No. 155746 2004-10-13	DIOSDADO LAGCAO v. JUDGE GENEROSA G. LABRA CORONA, J.
The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a landowner's right to private property, which is as much a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and liberty.[14] Whether directly exercised by the State or by its authorized agents, the exercise of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private rights.[15] For this reason, the need for a painstaking scrutiny cannot be overemphasized.