Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. EDMOND LEE and HELEN HUANG v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 173148 2015-04-06	ELSA DEGAYO v. MAGBANUA BRION, J.
Notably, the ownership of the disputed parcel of land has been unequivocally settled in Civil Case No. 16047. In ruling that the subject parcels of land belong to the respondents, the RTC Branch 27 in Civil Case No. 16047 opined that the claim of accretion has no valid basis.[34] What really happened was that the Jalaud River naturally changed its course and moved southward. As a result, it abandoned its previous bed and encroached upon a portion of Lot No. 7328. It further held that the claim of accretion could not be sustained because the 26,419 sqm. portion is ostensibly within the metes and bounds of Lot No. 7328, owned and registered in the name of the respondents.[35] On the other hand, the 26,106 sqm. portion refers to an abandoned river bed, and is thus governed by Article 461 of the Civil Code, which states that River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.
	GR No. 172551 2014-01-15	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES BRION, J.
The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof.[43] Generally, courts are not authorized to "take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge."[44] They may, however, take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if: (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.[45] In either case, the courts must observe the clear boundary provided by Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
	GR No. 160394 2009-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN C. DIZON BRION, J.
Even if Dizon did not bother to present evidence while the LBP did, the RTC-SAC, to be sure, could have validly entered judgment based on the LBP evidence since Dizon effectively waived his right to present evidence. The LBP, however, also did not present sufficient evidence to support the payment of just compensation at P24,638.09 per hectare. While it may be true that LBP conducted an ocular inspection of the subject land, the bases it used in coming up with its valuation were utterly inadequate. The LBP showed a valuation worksheet that only used two factors in determining the just compensation: average gross production and the market value per tax declaration. This method runs counter to Section 17 of RA 6657 which provides for a number of other factors in determining just compensation, namely: the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, sworn valuation by the owner and assessment made by government assessors. In this regard, the RTC-SAC should not have disregarded the guidelines and formula[21] prescribed under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998[22] (AO No. 5-98), which is the prevailing Administrative Order used in the computation of just compensation. As we held in the recent case of Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines: [23]
	GR No. 175422 2009-03-13	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We find that the factors required by the law and enforced by the DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. According to the appraisal company, it "personally inspected the property, investigated local market conditions, and have given consideration to the extent, character and utility of the property; sales and holding prices of similar land; and highest and best use of the property." The value of the land was arrived at using the market data approach, which bases the value of the land on sales and listings of comparable property registered within the vicinity. In fact, as noted by the Court of Appeals, a representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable.[21] (Emphases supplied.)