This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the second, it is well to recall that in Lagcao v. Judge Labra,[54] we declared that the foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character. As a rule, the determination of whether there is genuine necessity for the exercise is a | |||||