This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The use of property for public use removed from the owner all beneficial enjoyment of the property.[49] | |||||
|
2010-02-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| When the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.[39] Even under Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the 1964 Rules of Procedure, under which the complaint for expropriation was filed, just compensation is to be determined "as of the date of the filing of the complaint." Here, there is no reason to depart from the general rule that the point of reference for assessing the value of the Subject Property is the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation.[40] | |||||
|
2007-05-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In City of Manila v. Estrada,[12] we held that "compensation" means "an equivalent for the value of land (property) taken." The use of the word "just" is "to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample." Thus, Estrada defined just compensation as "a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained." This definition has been reiterated in Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez[13] and Province of Tayabas v. Perez.[14] Then in Manila Railroad Co. v. Caligsahan,[15] we held that "to be exactly just, the compensation should be estimated at the time of the taking." Subsequently, in Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi,[16] we ruled that just compensation is determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. | |||||