Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 179334 2013-07-01	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. SPS. HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON PERALTA, J.
The instant case stemmed from an action for recovery of possession with damages filed by respondents against petitioners. It, however, revolves around the taking of the subject lot by petitioners for the construction of the MacArthur Highway. There is taking when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for a permanent duration, or for the purpose of devoting the property to public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.[24]
	GR No. 202690 2013-06-05	HENRY L. SY v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Nonetheless, citing the case of Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez (MIAA),[23] it awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00 and attorney's fees equivalent to one percent (1%) of the amount due because of the City's taking of the subject property without even initiating expropriation proceedings.[24] It, however, denied Sy's claim of back rentals considering that the RTC had already granted legal interest in his favor.[25]
	GR No. 165828 2011-08-24	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MACABANGKIT BERSAMIN, J.
Granting rentals is legally and factually bereft of justification, in light of the taking of the land being already justly compensated. Conformably with the ruling in Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez,[44] in which the award of interest was held to render the grant of back rentals unwarranted, we delete the award of back rentals and in its place prescribe interest of 12% interest per annum from November 21, 1997, the date of the filing of the complaint, until the full liability is paid by NPC. The imposition of interest of 12% interest per annum follows a long line of pertinent jurisprudence,[45] whereby the Court has fixed the rate of interest on just compensation at 12% per annum whenever the expropriator has not immediately paid just compensation.
	GR Nos. 180772 and 180776 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO PEREZ, J.
Certainly, the trend of recent rulings bolsters this interpretation. In Forform Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways,[23] the Philippine National Railways was directed to file the appropriate expropriation action over the land in question, so that just compensation due to its owner may be determined in accordance with the Rules of Court, with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment is made. The Court in Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez[24] ordered just compensation for the portion of respondent's lot actually occupied by the runway, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking until full payment is made.
	GR No. 168967 2010-02-12	CITY OF ILOILO v. LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA DEL CASTILLO, J.
We stress, however, that the City of Iloilo should be held liable for damages for taking private respondent's property without payment of just compensation. In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez,[43] the Court held that a government agency's prolonged occupation of private property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings undoubtedly entitled the landowner to damages: Such pecuniary loss entitles him to adequate compensationin the form of actual or compensatory damages, which in this case should be the legal interest (6%) on the value of the land at the time of taking, from said point up to full payment by the MIAA. This is based on the principle that interest "runs as a matter of law and follows from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good position as money can accomplish, as of the date of the taking x x x.
	GR No. 124795 2008-12-10	FORFOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Where actual taking was made without the benefit of expropriation proceedings, and the owner sought recovery of the possession of the property prior to the filing of expropriation proceedings, the Court has invariably ruled that it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation.[51] In the case at bar, the just compensation should be reckoned from the time of taking which is January 1973. The determination thereof shall be made in the expropriation case to be filed without delay by the PNR after the appointment of commissioners as required by the rules.
	GR No. 146091 2008-07-28	MARIA PAZ V. NEPOMUCENO v. CITY OF SURIGAO CORONA, J.
In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that where actual taking is made without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and the owner seeks recovery of the possession of the property prior to the filing of expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation.[8] As pointed out in Republic v. Lara,[9] the reason for this rule is:The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken. This is the only way the compensation to be paid can be truly just; i.e., "just" not only to the individual whose property is taken, "but to the public, which is to pay for it."