Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

APO FRUITS CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 160143 2014-07-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BENECIO EUSEBIO BRION, J.
Similarly in Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[30] we debunked the very same attempt of the LBP to distinguish just compensation paid in what it calls as "traditional" exercise of eminent domain from the just compensation paid in the context of an agrarian reform eminent domain exercise. There, we categorically declared that "nothing is inherently contradictory in the public purpose of land reform and the right of landowners to receive just compensation for the expropriation by the State of their properties."
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
In a line of cases, the Court has then entertained and granted second motions for reconsideration "in the higher interest of substantial justice," as allowed under the Internal Rules when the assailed decision is "legally erroneous," "patently unjust" and "potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties." In Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET, Inc.),[59] we also explained that a second motion for reconsideration may be allowed in instances of "extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained."[60] In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[61] we allowed a second motion for reconsideration as the issue involved therein was a matter of public interest, as it pertained to the proper application of a basic constitutionally-guaranteed right in the government's implementation of its agrarian reform program. In San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC,[62] the Court set aside the decisions of the LA and the NLRC that favored claimants-security guards upon the Court's review of San Miguel Corporation's second motion for reconsideration. In Vir-Jen Shipping and Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.,[63] the Court en banc reversed on a third motion for reconsideration the ruling of the Court's Division on therein private respondents' claim for wages and monetary benefits.
	GR No. 182431 2013-02-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTHER ANSON RIVERA PEREZ, J.
It is true that LBP approved the amount of P265,494.20 in favor of the landowners on 23 August 2004.[18] However, that amount is way below the amount that should have been received by the landowners based on the valuations adjudged by the agrarian court, CA and this Court. To be considered as just compensation, it must be fair and equitable and the landowners must have received it without any delay.[19]
	GR Nos. 180880-81 2012-09-18	KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD v. PIONEER INSURANCE MENDOZA, J.
Verily, "under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land."[28] This rule notwithstanding, the Court En Banc had re-opened and accepted several cases for review and reevaluation for special and compelling reasons. Among these cases were Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque,[29] Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[30] League of Cities of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,[31] and Navarro v. Ermita.[32]
	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Although Tadeco did not require compensation for the shares of stock corresponding to the value of the agricultural lands in relation to the outstanding capital stock of HLI, its inability to receive compensation cannot be attributed to the government. The second paragraph of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 explicitly states that "[u]pon certification by DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. x x x"[17] On the basis of this statutory provision, Tadeco could have exacted payment for such shares of stock corresponding to the value of the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita in relation to the outstanding capital stock of HLI, but it did not do so.
	GR No. 169903 2012-02-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
More recently, we brushed aside the LBP's attempt to differentiate just compensation paid in what it terms as "traditional" exercise of eminent domain and eminent domain in the context of agrarian reform in Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[20] thus: To our mind, nothing is inherently contradictory in the public purpose of land reform and the right of landowners to receive just compensation for the expropriation by the State of their properties. That the petitioners are corporations that used to own large tracts of land should not be taken against them. As Mr. Justice Isagani Cruz eloquently put it: