Meralco v. City Assessor GR No. 166102, Capitol Wireless Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas G.R. no. 180110, Property
Full description
Admin (4-6)
Public Offcr & AdminFull description
DigestFull description
Borja vs Comelec Case DigestFull description
Constitutional Law II - A , Atty. Tagarda-Mabilen
Case
law, obligations, oblicon, case digestFull description
case digest if alih vs castroFull description
law
Oblicon Case Digest
Classroom use; EvidenceFull description
G.R. No. L-51369, July 29, 1987Full description
case digest
succession case digestFull description
1US vs Valdez (Case Digest)Full description
Lee vs Tambago AC No. 5281Full description
MERALCO VS PINEDA (1992) FACTS
Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws of the Philippines
For the purpose of constructing a transmission line from Barrio Malaya to Pililia, Rizal, petitioner needed portions of land of the private respondents with an aggregate area of 237, 321 sqm; parties failed to reach an agreement despite despite negotiations and offers to pay compensation
Petitioner then filed a complaint for eminent domain with the Court of First Instance of Rizal
Court authorized petitioner to take and enter property sought to be expropriated
Respondents filed for Motion for Withdrawal of deposit claiming they are entitled but were subsequently denied
Petitioner then sold to NAPOCOR its power plants and transmission lines including the one in questions pursuant to a government policy
The court then appointed commissioners for the appraisal of the land
Commissioners’ work was suspended when petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss because of their said sale to NAPOCOR
Respondents filed another motion for payment and courts granted and another sum thereafter
Petitioner then filed for a Motion for Reconsideration Reconsideration and alleged that “at this stage” the respondents are not yet entitled to payment of just compensation as there is no appraisal yet and that court, upon awarding a fraction of sum, based it only on a witness of a credible real estate broker instead of employing the assistance of three commissioners to determine just compensation
ISSUE
Whether the court can dispense the employment of three commissioners in the ascertainment of just compensation
HELD
No
Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: the court shall appoint 3 commissioners to ascertain just compensation and render judgment based on their reports
2 stages of expropriation: expropriation: 1. Determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise power of eminent domain 2. Determination of the court of just compensation for the property sought done with the assistance of 3 commissioners commissioners
A trial before commissioners in a mandatory and substantive right, indispensable indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue o f just compensation
Reasons for court to disregard findings of commissioners: 1. Where the commissioners applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them 2. Where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence 3. Where the amount is either grossly inadequate and excessive