This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| All told, We hold that putting to rest the issue on the validity of the exercise of eminent domain is neither tantamount to condoning the acts of the DPWH in disregarding the property rights of respondents-movants nor giving premium to the government's failure to institute an expropriation proceeding. This Court had steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that its first and fundamental duty is the application of the law according to its express terms, interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible.[49] To entertain other formula for computing just compensation, contrary to those established by law and jurisprudence, would open varying interpretation of economic policies — a matter which this Court has no competence to take cognizance of. Time and again, we have held that no process of interpretation or construction need be resorted to where a provision of law peremptorily calls for application.[50] Equity and equitable principles only come into full play when a gap exists in the law and jurisprudence.[51] As we have shown above, established rulings of this Court are in place for full application to the case at bar, hence, should be upheld. | |||||