Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 157753 2007-02-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JUAN H. IMPERIAL QUISUMBING, J.
We must stress, at this juncture, that the taking of private lands under the agrarian reform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding.[24] In a number of cases, we have stated that just compensation in expropriation proceedings represents the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. To compensate is to render something which is equal in value to that taken or received.[25]
	GR NO. 170945 2006-09-26	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SAN PEDRO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The trial court fixed the just compensation for the property as follows: (1) P499.00 per sq m on the 17,195 sq m agricultural portion of the subject land; and (2) P800.00 per sq m on the 6,565 sq m residential portion of the lot. Noticeably, the trial court did not blindly accept the recommendation of majority of the commissioners of P800.00 per sq m for the residential lot and P700.00 per sq m for the agricultural lot. Indeed, the trial court took into account the evidence of the parties, in tandem with the findings and recommendation of the majority of the commissioners. Considering that such valuation of the trial court as affirmed by the CA is reasonable as it is and supported by the evidence on record, we find no compelling reason to disturb the same.[51]
	GR NO. 165546 2006-02-27	SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. ROSANNA H. AGUAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by the Court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[38] In an appeal via certiorari, the Court may not review the factual findings of the CA.[39] It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[40] However, the Court may review findings of facts in some instances, such as, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency, or when the findings of facts of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[41] The Court finds these instances present in this case.