This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We held in the recent case of Republic v. Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation[5] that: [A]n order of expropriation denotes the end of the first stage of expropriation. Its end then paves the way for the second stage--the determination of just compensation, and, ultimately, payment. An order of expropriation puts an end to any ambiguity regarding the right of the petitioner to condemn the respondents' properties. Because an order of expropriation merely determines the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of such exercise, its issuance does not hinge on the payment of just compensation. After all, there would be no point in determining just compensation if, in the first place, the plaintiff's right to expropriate the property was not first clearly established.[6] | |||||