This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Zonal valuation is just one of the indices of the fair market value of real estate. By itself, this index cannot be the sole basis of "just compensation" in expropriation cases.[28] As this Court ruled in Leca Realty Corporation v. Rep. of the Phils.[29]: The Republic is incorrect, however, in alleging that the values were exorbitant, merely because they exceeded the maximum zonal value of real properties in the same location where the subject properties were located. The zonal value may be one, but not necessarily the sole, index of the value of a realty. National Power Corporation v. Manubay Agro-Industrial held thus: | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner would also have us review the bases of the courts below in awarding just compensation for the building for consequential damages. The uniform findings of the trial court and the appellate court are entitled to the greatest respect. They are binding on the Court in the absence of a strong showing by petitioner that the courts below erred in appreciating the established facts and in drawing inferences from such facts.[54] We find no cogent reason to deviate from this. | |||||
|
2013-06-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Further, it is observed that the RTC simply glossed over the issue regarding the proper classification of the subject properties as either residential or agricultural lands when the said matter should have been circumspectly resolved considering that land classification accounts for a significant discrepancy in the valuation of the property. Based on the evidence on record, the residential lots in Barangay San Ramon, Dinalupihan, Bataan have a zonal valuation ranging from P2,000.00 (for all other streets) to P6,000.00 per square meter (for those situated within the vicinity of the national highway and San Juan to Payumo Streets).[48] On the other hand, petitioner claims . that agricultural lands command a zonal valuation of only P20.00.[49] Moreover, a property's zonal valuation cannot, by and of itself, be considered as the sole basis for "just compensation"; hence, the RTC was duty bound to look at other indices of fair market value.[50] Unfortunately, records show that it did not. | |||||
|
2013-01-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact may not be raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition may only raise questions of law. This rule applies in expropriation cases.[50] Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on this Court. An evaluation of the case and the issues presented leads the Court to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to deviate from the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts. | |||||