Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE MA. ANSALDO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175356 2013-12-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners emphasize that they are not questioning the 20% discount granted to senior citizens but are only assailing the constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under RA 9257 and the implementing rules and regulations issued by the DSWD and the DOF.[10]
	GR No. 164195 2009-12-04	APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao[55] and Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr.[56] invoked by AFC/HPI contain the declaration that "the value of the property expropriated shall earn interest at the legal rate until full payment is effected."
	GR No. 162474 2009-10-13	VICENTE P. EUSEBIO v. JOVITO M. LUIS PERALTA, J.
With regard to the time as to when just compensation should be fixed, it is settled jurisprudence that where property was taken without the benefit of expropriation proceedings, and its owner files an action for recovery of possession thereof before the commencement of expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.[16] Explaining the reason for this rule in Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez,[17] the Court, quoting Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr.,[18] stated, thus: The reason for the rule, as pointed out in Republic v. Lara,is that --
	GR No. 124795 2008-12-10	FORFOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr.,[43] a case involving the takeover by the Government of two private lots to be used for the widening of a road without the benefit of an action for expropriation or agreement with its owners, we held that the owners therein, having been silent for more than two decades, were deemed to have consented to such taking -- although they knew that there had been no expropriation case commenced -- and therefore had no reason to impugn the existence of the power to expropriate or the public purpose for which that power had been exercised. In said case, we directed the expropriator to forthwith institute the appropriate expropriation action over the land, so that just compensation due the owners may be determined in accordance with the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 155407 2008-11-11	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. VS.LEONILO A. MAGLASANG LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In expropriation proceedings, the value of the land and its character at the time it was taken by the government are the criteria for determining just compensation.[9] This is so because, there are instances when the expropriating agency takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, in which situation just compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking.[10] The reason for the rule, as pointed out in Republic v. Lara,[11] is that
	GR NO. 147245 2005-03-31	REPUBLIC v. CA CARPIO, J.
Thus, in Ansaldo v. Tantuico, Jr.[17] the Court allowed the landowners to seek compensation twenty-six years after the government took their land. In Amigable v. Cuenca, etc., et al.,[18] Amigable filed an action to claim compensation more than thirty years after the government constructed the roads on her lot. In both cases, the property owners were silent for several years before finally bringing their claims to the attention of the authorities. In contrast, in the present case, respondent has steadfastly pursued his claim with NIA since 1972.