This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, an action for partition does not preclude the settlement of the issue of ownership. In fact, the determination as to the existence of the same is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition, as held in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia:[40] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stressed that Civil Case No. 04-42 was a complaint for annulment of sale and partition. In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a declaration that he is a co-owner of the subject properties; and second, the conveyance of his lawful shares. An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved.[36] The determination, therefore, as to the existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition. As held in the case of Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia:[37] | |||||
|
2011-03-21 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Our disquisition in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia[28] is definitive. There, we explained that the determination as to the existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition. Thus: The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. x x x | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In an effort to justify its belated filing of the notice of appeal within the reglementary period of fifteen days, petitioner, in its Reply,[46] cited Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia[47] which explained that since no less than two appeals are allowed in an action for eminent domain, as in actions for partition, the period of appeal from an order of condemnation is thirty days counted from notice of said Order, a record of appeal being required, and not the ordinary period of fifteen days prescribed for actions in general. | |||||
|
2009-06-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Essentially, an expropriation suit is commenced because the parties concerned cannot come to an agreement as to the price offered for the lot needed by the expropriating agency. Once expropriation is ruled to be proper, then the first compensation for the lot to be taken must be determined. Once the just compensation is fixed, then the rights of the landowners and the corresponding obligation of the expropriating government agency are contextually defined and settled, and there is really nothing to be done save the enforcement of the corresponding order. As this Court stressed in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia: "The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before [the court], and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too[, as it] would x x x leave nothing more to be done by the [c]ourt regarding [this] issue."[132] | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
|||||
| It is settled that the public nature of the prospective exercise of expropriation cannot depend on the "numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited."[15] The number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use, provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals.[16] Thus, the first essential requirement for a valid exercise of eminent domain is for the expropriator to prove that the expropriation is for a public use. In Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, this Court explicated that expropriation ends with an order of condemnation declaring "that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation."[17] | |||||
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia[62] this Court ruled that the expropriation of lands consists of two stages, to wit: "x x x The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint" x x x. | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Significantly, in Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia[15] this Court ruled that the expropriation of lands consists of two stages, to wit:"x x x The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint" x x x. | |||||