This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Even without the reservation made by Jesus Cabahug in the Grant of Right of Way, the application of Gutierrez to this case is not improper as NPC represents it to be. Where the right of way easement, as in this case, similarly involves transmission lines which not only endangers life and limb but restricts as well the owner's use of the land traversed thereby, the ruling in Gutierrez remains doctrinal and should be applied.[25] It has been ruled that the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land if, as here, the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the introduction of structures or objects which, by their nature, create or increase the probability of injury, death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary.[26] Measured not by the taker's gain but the owner's loss, just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.[27] | |||||
|
2011-11-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| A rule in statutory construction is that the word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from other things enumerated unless the context requires a different interpretation.[22] | |||||
|
2011-11-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| FARM insists that the issue of constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is the lis mota of the case, raised at the earliest opportunity, and not to be considered as moot and academic.[25] | |||||
|
2011-01-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner.[10] | |||||
|
2009-06-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's reliance on Section 3A[22] of RA 6395 has been struck down by this Court in a number of cases.[23] Easement of right of way falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. In installing the 230 KV Talisay-Compostela transmission lines which traverse respondent's lands, a permanent limitation is imposed by petitioner against the use of the lands for an indefinite period. This deprives respondent of the normal use of the lands. In fact, not only are the affected areas of the lands traversed by petitioner's transmission lines but a portion is used as the site of its transmission tower. Because of the danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath the high-tension live wires, the landowner will not be able to use the lands for farming or any agricultural purposes. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. In this case, this simply means the property's fair market value at the time of the filing of the complaint, or that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as price to be given and received therefor. The measure is the not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss.[50] | |||||