Case Digest: LBP vs Montinola-Escarilla and Co Inc GR No 178046

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
LBP vs Montinola-Escarilla and Co., Inc.
GR No 178046                                                                        June 13, 2012
Facts:
Montinola-Escarilla and Co., Inc., (MECO) is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land covered by OCT No. T-70 with an area of 159.0881 hectares was acquired by the government under RA 6657. LBP initially valued the subject land at P 823,204.08 but MECO rejected the valuation. Pending summary administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation before the RARAD, MECO filed a complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC which appointed 4 Board of Commissioners (BOC) to evaluate and appraise the just compensation for the subject property covering 4.4825 hectares of rainfed rice land and 154.6056 hectares of idle land. Then the RARAD rendered a decision fixing the just compensation at P 823,204.08. The BOC was not able to come up iwth a unified valuation of the subject property.

The RTC fixed the just compensation of the property at P 7,927,660.60 plus attorney's fee, they gave credence to the report submitted by Asian, though it did not followed its valuation and instead fixed a lower values but nevertheless higher than those recommended by the BOC.

The CA in its ruling said that LBP did not consider all the factors in determining just compensation, and adopted the BOC's report and deleted the award attorney's fee for being improper. 

Issue:
What is the proper just compensation for the said property.

Ruling:
The SC ruled that in determining just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its:

  1. character;
  2. price;and
  3. the time of taking
both the RTC and CA considered its actual use at the time of appraisal and reclassified the property and that the case is remanded for determination of just compensation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more