Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. VICENTE M. ESTANISLAO AND LUZ B. HERMOSA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao;[44] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[45] LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons;[46] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[47] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[48]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
Further reiterations were made in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao[34] and LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons,[35] to quote: This Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad that seizure of landholdings or properties covered by P.D. No. 27 did not take place on October 21, 1972, but upon the payment of just compensation. Taking into account the passage in 1988 of R.A. No. 6657 pending the settlement of just compensation, this Court concluded that it is R.A. No. 6657 which is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. 228 having only suppletory effect.
	GR No. 180803 2009-10-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. J. L. JOCSON CARPIO MORALES, J.
Discussing the retroactive application of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 for lands yet to be paid by the government although expropriated under P.D. No. 27, this Court in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao[31] ratiocinated: Petitioner, citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, contends that the taking of the subject lots was deemed effected on October 21, 1972, when respondents were, under P.D. No. 27 deprived of ownership over the subject lands in favor of qualified beneficiaries.
	GR No. 164025 2009-05-08	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON TINGA, J.
Thus, the Court ruled in Paris v. Alfeche[17] that when the passage of R.A. No. 6657 supervened before the payment of just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation would be applicable. The same pronouncement has been reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[19] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Domingo[20] and LBP v. Heirs of Cruz.[21]
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao,[48] the Court ruled that taking into account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988 pending the settlement of just compensation, it is that law which applies to landholdings seized under PD No. 27, with said decree and EO No. 288 having only suppletory effect. Prior to that declaration, the Court already decreed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[49] citing Paris v. Alfeche,[50] that:Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (6657) before the completion of the process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.[51]