Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 193964 2015-12-02	ENGINEER BEN Y. LIM v. SULPICIO G. GAMOSA PEREZ, J.
is of no moment. The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment.[45]
	GR No. 182249 2013-03-05	TRADE v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BRION, J.
For example, in Grego v. Commission on Elections,[32] we held that it was improper for the COMELEC, a constitutional body bestowed with rule-making power by the Constitution, to use the word "shall" in the rules it formulated, when the law it sought to implement uses the word "may." While rules issued by administrative bodies are entitled to great respect, "[t]he conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. [T]he function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. x x x [A]dministrative regulations cannot extend the law [nor] amend a legislative enactment; x x x administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law[,]" and in a conflict between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation, the former must prevail.[33]
	GR No. 177190 2011-02-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN VELASCO JR., J.
The LBP posits that under Sec. 16(e) of RA 6657, and as espoused in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[18] it is the purchase price offered by the DAR in its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an accessible bank in the name of the landowner before taking possession of the land, not the valuation of the PARAD.
	GR No. 183279 2010-01-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD VELASCO JR., J.
Hence, we find it unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated.[18] (Emphasis ours.)
	GR No. 174649 2008-09-26	LEOPOLDO JEREMIAS v. ESTATE OF LATE IRENE P. MARIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While this Court may commiserate with the plight of Leopoldo and the heirs of Ruben, this Court cannot sanction their intrusion into the properties of the respondent without violating the laws and established jurisprudence. And while it is the declared duty of this Court to protect the weak and those who have less in life, such duty should not be utilized to trample on the rights of the landowners whenever truth and justice happen to be on their side.[25] As aptly articulated in Gelos v. Court of Appeals:[S]ocial justice or any justice for that matter is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.[26]
	GR NO. 149621 2006-05-05	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO R. TANTOCO v. CA AZCUNA, J.
This is in line with the pronouncement made by this Court in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[29] wherein it upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals in "ordering the LBP to immediately deposit " not merely "earmark," "reserve" or "deposit in trust" " with an accessible bank designated by respondent DAR in the names of the following petitioners the following amounts in cash and in government financial instruments..."[30]