This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We need to scrape off the procedural lamina to reach the basic issue that it coated: the correctness of the valuation by the courts below of the property of Castro which he offered to sell to the DAR. Vital to the resolution of the issue is the fact stated by Castro in his petition below that "on June 20, 1994, [he] voluntarily offered to sell (VOS) the above described land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)"[18] such that his petition was precisely captioned "In the Matter of Judicial Determination of Just Compensation of Land Sold Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) Under RA 6657, Identified as Lot No. 2636, CAD. 537-D, with an area of 9.3390 Has. located at Brgy. Mahayag, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur."[19] The petition is a prayer for just compensation, under RA No. 6657, of a parcel of land taken when offered in 1994. The determination of compensation under such circumstances has been the subject of various decisions of this Court. We stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Goduco,[20] referring to Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[21] Land of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[22] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. DAR:[23] | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This formula has been repeatedly applied in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido;[41] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Esther Rivera;[42] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Department of Agrarian Reform.[43] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The "taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding."[35] In computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, the RTC should take into consideration the "value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time of the rendition of judgment."[36] "The 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic."[37] | |||||