This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Just compensation is defined as “the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.” The word “just” is used to qualify the meaning of the word “compensation” and to convey the idea that the amount to be tendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.[181] On the other hand, the word “compensation” means “a full indemnity or remuneration for the loss or damage sustained by the owner of property taken or injured for public use.”[182] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Eminent domain refers to the inherent power of the State to take private property for public use. This power has two basic limitations: (1) the taking must be for public use; and (2) just compensation must be given to the owner of the property taken.[39] Notably, in agrarian reform cases, the taking of private property for distribution to landless farmers is considered to be one for public use.[40] Anent just compensation, the same is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated. The term "just" qualifies the word "compensation" because the return deserved by the owner of the property must be real, substantial, full and ample.[41] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Having said that, we must point out that NAPOCOR entered the property without the owners' consent and without paying just compensation to the respondents. Neither did it deposit any amount as required by law prior to its entry. The Constitution is explicit in obliging the Government and its entities to pay just compensation before depriving any person of his or her property for public use.[52] Considering that in the process of installing transmission lines, NAPOCOR destroyed some fruit trees and plants without payment, and the installation of the transmission lines went through the middle of the land as to divide the property into three lots, thereby effectively rendering the entire property inutile for any future use, it would be unfair for NAPOCOR not to be made liable to the respondents for the disturbance of their property rights from the time of entry until the time of restoration of the possession of the property. There should be no question about the taking. In several rulings, notably National Power Corporation v. Zabala,[53] Republic v. Libunao,[54] National Power Corporation v. Tuazon,[55] and National Power Corporation v. Saludares,[56] this Court has already declared that "since the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property." | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently ruled that just compensation cannot be arrived at arbitrarily; several factors must be considered such as, but not limited to, acquisition cost, current market value of like properties, tax value of the condemned property, its size, shape, and location. But before these factors can be considered and given weight, the same must be supported by documentary evidence.[16] The amount of just compensation could only be attained by using reliable and actual data as bases for fixing the value of the condemned property. A commissioners' report of land prices which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court.[17] | |||||