This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. It is one of the harshest proceedings known to the law. x x x The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the condemnor. When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.[38] | |||||
|
2012-06-25 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the Court has held that when the property owner rejects the offer but hints for a better price, the government should renegotiate by calling the property owner to a conference.[12] The government must exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain by agreement the land it desires. Its failure to comply will warrant the dismissal of the complaint. Article 35 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code provides for this procedure. Thus: Article 35. Offer to Buy and Contract of Sale (a) The offer to buy private property for public use or purpose shall be in writing. It shall specify the property sought to be acquired, the reasons for its acquisition, and the price offered. | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The RTC compounded its error when, acting on the motions for reconsideration filed by the parties, it issued the assailed 31 May 2004 Order, denying petitioner's right of expropriation over Lot Nos. 21609-A, 21609-D, 21609-F, 21609-G, 21609-H, 21609-I and 21609-J, on the ground that the same were already used by respondents for their businesses and/or residences. Subject to the direct constitutional qualification that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,"[57] the power of eminent domain is, after all, the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose[58] thru a method that partakes the nature of a compulsory sale.[59] The fact that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspis for their own private purposes is, consequently, not a valid reason to deny exercise of the right of expropriation, for as long as the taking is for a public purpose and just compensation is paid. | |||||
|
2006-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| All things considered and in view of the distinctive circumstances attendant to the present case, we are constrained to render a limited pro hac vice ruling.[21] Clearly it was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the law on secrecy on foreign currency deposits to perpetuate injustice. This Court is of the view that the allowance of the inquiry would be in accord with the rudiments of fair play,[22] the upholding of fairness in our judicial system and would be an avoidance of delay and time-wasteful and circuitous way of administering justice.[23] | |||||