Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. LEODIGARIO SARABIA

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.
In Forfom Development Corporation [Forfom] v. Philippine National Railways [PNR],[33] PNR entered the property of Forfom in January 1973 for public use, that is, for railroad tracks, facilities and appurtenances for use of the Carmona Commuter Service without initiating expropriation proceedings.[34] In 1990, Forfom filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property and/or damages against PNR. In Eusebio v. Luis,[35] respondent's parcel of land was taken in 1980 by the City of Pasig and used as a municipal road now known as A. Sandoval Avenue in Pasig City without the appropriate expropriation proceedings. In 1994, respondent demanded payment of the value of the property, but they could not agree on its valuation prompting respondent to file a complaint for reconveyance and/or damages against the city government and the mayor. In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez,[36] in the early 1970s, petitioner implemented expansion programs for its runway necessitating the acquisition and occupation of some of the properties surrounding its premises. As to respondent's property, no expropriation proceedings were initiated. In 1997, respondent demanded the payment of the value of the property, but the demand remained unheeded prompting him to institute a case for accion reivindicatoria with damages against petitioner. In Republic v. Sarabia,[37] sometime in 1956, the Air Transportation Office (ATO) took possession and control of a portion of a lot situated in Aklan, registered in the name of respondent, without initiating expropriation proceedings. Several structures were erected thereon including the control tower, the Kalibo crash fire rescue station, the Kalibo airport terminal and the headquarters of the PNP Aviation Security Group. In 1995, several stores and restaurants were constructed on the remaining portion of the lot. In 1997, respondent filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against the storeowners where ATO intervened claiming that the storeowners were its lessees.
	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
During the hearing on November 24, 2006, Cojuangco, et al. filed their Submission and Offer of Evidence of Defendants,[74] formally offering in evidence certain documents to substantiate their counterclaims, and informing that they found no need to present countervailing evidence because the Republic's evidence did not prove the allegations of the Complaint. On December 5, 2006, after the Republic submitted its Comment,[75] the Sandiganbayan admitted the exhibits offered by Cojuangco, et al., and granted the parties a non-extendible period within which to file their respective memoranda and reply-memoranda.
	GR NO. 158609 2007-07-27	SPS. MARIAN B. LINTAG AND ANGELO T. ARRASTIA v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
For this purpose, the RTC must bear in mind that it is the value of the land at the time of the taking or at the time of the filing of the complaint, whichever came first, not the value of the land at the time of the rendition of judgment which should be considered.[31] In this case, where the institution of an expropriation action preceded the taking of the subject property, just compensation is based on the value of the land at the time of the filing of the complaint. This is provided by the Rules of Court, the assumption of possession by the expropriator ordinarily being conditioned on its deposit with the National or Provincial Treasurer of the amount equivalent to the value of the property as provisionally ascertained by the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings.[32]
	GR NO. 168732 2007-06-29	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM AZCUNA, J.
Just compensation has been understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss[21] and is ordinarily determined by referring to the value of the land and its character at the time it was taken by the expropriating authority.[22] There is a "taking" in this sense when the owners are actually deprived or dispossessed of their property, where there is a practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of their property, or when they are deprived of the ordinary use thereof. There is a "taking" in this context when the expropriator enters private property not only for a momentary period but for more permanent duration, for the purpose of devoting the property to a public use in such a manner as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.[23] Moreover, "taking" of the property for purposes of eminent domain entails that the entry into the property must be under warrant or color of legal authority.[24]
	GR NO. 137162 2007-01-24	CORAZON L. ESCUETA v. RUFINA LIM AZCUNA, J.
[9] Republic v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 157847, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 142, 150, citing Santiago v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 20241, November 22, 1974, 61 SCRA 146, 149.
	GR NO. 168071 2006-12-18	LUCIANO TAN v. RODIL ENTERPRISES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, we find a categorical admission on the part of petitioner, not only as to his liability, but also, as to the amount of indebtedness in the form of rentals due. The Order of the MeTC dated 27 June 2000 was clear that the petitioner agreed in open court to pay the amount of P440,000.00, representing petitioner's unpaid rentals from September 1997 to June 2000; and that petitioner will pay the monthly rentals computed at P13,750.00 on or before the 5th day of each month after 30 June 2000. The petitioner's judicial admission in open court, as found by the MeTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals finds particular significance when viewed together with his Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals, wherein petitioner stated that the rentals due on the premises in question from September 1997 up to the present amounted to P467,500.00, as of the date of filing the Motion. Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. An admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not.[40] A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact, which said party cannot thereafter disprove.[41]