This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-25 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But the advance deposit required under Section 19 of the Local Government Code constitutes an advance payment only in the event the expropriation prospers. Such deposit also has a dual purpose: as pre-payment if the expropriation succeeds and as indemnity for damages if it is dismissed. This advance payment, a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of possession, should not be confused with payment of just compensation for the taking of property even if it could be a factor in eventually determining just compensation.[16] If the proceedings fail, the money could be used to indemnify the owner for damages.[17] | |||||
|
2000-11-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, the issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure alone is neither "capricious" nor "oppressive", as the said rule affords owners safeguards against unlawful deprivation of their property in expropriation proceedings, one of which is the deposit requirement which constitutes advance payment in the event expropriation proceeds, and stands as indemnity for damages should the proceedings fail of consummation.[11] The deposit likewise sufficiently satisfies the compensation requirement of the Constitution.[12] Moreover, the owners of the expropriated lands are entitled to legal interest on the compensation eventually adjudged from the date the condemnor takes possession of the land until the full compensation is paid to them or deposited in court.[13] | |||||