Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173520 2013-01-30	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. RODOLFO ZABALA AND LILIA BAYLON DEL CASTILLO, J.
Legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.[1] Thus they are not binding on courts and, at best, are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount of just compensation.[2]
	GR No. 166973 2009-02-10	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN ONG CO TINGA, J.
As a final note, the function for determining just compensation remains judicial in character. In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,[38] and National Power Corporation v. Purefoods,[39] we ruled:The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation.[40]
	GR No. 175725 2008-10-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ANGEL SUAREZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
The nature, as well as the character of the land at the time of taking is thus the principal criterion in determining just compensation. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its improvements and capabilities, must thus be considered.[14]
	GR No. 164195 2007-12-19	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Clearly, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Banal belongs to a different factual milieu, for the RTC therein acting as SAC failed to conduct a hearing with notice and participation of all the parties, in keeping with the ideals of fair play. In this case, the RTC, as SAC, conducted the requisite hearing, received the evidence of the parties, conducted ocular inspection and gave due regard to all the factors to be considered in determining the correct amount of just compensation when it rendered its valuation of the properties of AFC and HPI.[16]