Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
On January 2, 2006, the Government, et al., filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s December 19, 2005 Decision.[53] Asahikosan, Takenaka, and Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina also filed a motion for leave to intervene and asked the Court’s reconsideration of its December 19, 2005 Decision.[54]
	GR No. 181892 2015-09-08	REPUBLIC v. JESUS M. MUPAS BRION, J.
There are other judicial avenues outside of this Motion for Reconsideration wherein all other claims relating to the airport facilities may be ventilated, proved and determined. Since such claims involve factual issues, they must first be established by the appropriate trier of facts before they can be accorded any respect by or binding force on this Court.[361] [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 175493 2015-03-25	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ LEONEN, J.
This pre-payment must also be paid immediately to the owner of the property before a Writ of Possession may be issued. In Republic v. Gingoyon:[42]
	GR No. 180050 2011-04-12	RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA NACHURA, J.
Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands (Dinagat), the President appointed the interim set of provincial officials who took their oath of office on January 26, 2007. Later, during the May 14, 2007 synchronized elections, the Dinagatnons elected their new set of provincial officials who assumed office on July 1, 2007.[5]
	GR No. 180050 2011-04-12	RODOLFO G. NAVARRO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA NACHURA, J.
The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[20] The second exception attends this case.
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
(4) The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. For both the oil companies and DOE, the last requirement is definitely absent. As a rule, intervention is allowed "before rendition of judgment" as Section 2, Rule 19 expressly provides. Both filed their separate motions after our decision was promulgated. In Republic of the Philippines v. Gingoyon,[52] a recently decided case which was also an original action filed in this Court, we declared that the appropriate time to file the motions-in-intervention was before and not after resolution of the case.[53]
	GR NO. 169453 2006-12-06	CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY CARPIO MORALES, J.
There is no need for the determination with reasonable certainty of the final amount of just compensation before the writ of possession may be issued.[50] The trial court, however, failed to distinguish the "provisional value of the property" from "just compensation" when it ruled, viz:The Court is of the sound observation that the propriety of the granting of the writ of possession will greatly depend on the just compensation mandated by Republic Act No. 8974, hence, it will follow that any deposit to be made therein, in compliance with said law, should be the prevailing fair market value on the basis of the zonal valuation within the locality and virtually agreed upon by both parties. This Court, therefore, opted to rule and so holds that considering the conflicting zonal valuation, a judicial interpretation must first be held to determine the prevailing market value on the basis of the zonal valuation approved by the government agency tasked to fix the same.[51] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR NO. 169453 2006-12-06	CAPITOL STEEL CORPORATION v. PHIVIDEC INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Again, the provisional character of the payment means that it is not final, albeit sufficient under the law to entitle the government to the writ of possession over the expropriated property.[66] For purposes of a writ of possession, there is no need to look into the peculiar and favorable features of the properties to be expropriated, the court is being statutorily bound to rely only on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR. Petitioner, however, may in the determination of just compensation, properly present and introduce evidence bearing on the properties" fair market value.[67]