Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    KNECHT

    Uploaded by

    Reuel Santiago
    1) The Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing for a parcel of land owned by Rose Packing to be used as the site for the municipal administration compound. 2) Rose Packing filed a motion to dismiss arguing it never received a formal purchase offer and that the property was under litigation, making expropriation complicated. 3) The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the municipality to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property based on PD 1533. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the lower court erred because PD 1533 was declared unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by Section 19 of RA 7

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    KNECHT

    Uploaded by

    Reuel Santiago
    21 views1 page
    1) The Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing for a parcel of land owned by Rose Packing to be used as the site for the municipal administration compound. 2) Rose Packing filed a motion to dismiss arguing it never received a formal purchase offer and that the property was under litigation, making expropriation complicated. 3) The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the municipality to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property based on PD 1533. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the lower court erred because PD 1533 was declared unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by Section 19 of RA 7

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing for a parcel of land owned by Rose Packing to be used as the site for the municipal administration compound. 2) Rose Packing filed a motion to dismiss arguing it never received a formal purchase offer and that the property was under litigation, making expropriation complicated. 3) The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the municipality to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property based on PD 1533. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the lower court erred because PD 1533 was declared unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by Section 19 of RA 7

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    KNECHT

    Uploaded by

    Reuel Santiago
    1) The Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing for a parcel of land owned by Rose Packing to be used as the site for the municipal administration compound. 2) Rose Packing filed a motion to dismiss arguing it never received a formal purchase offer and that the property was under litigation, making expropriation complicated. 3) The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the municipality to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property based on PD 1533. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the lower court erred because PD 1533 was declared unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by Section 19 of RA 7

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE I CHAPTER 2 SEC. 19 EXPROPRIATION KNECHT, INCORPORATED v. MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA G.R. No.

    145254 July 20, 2006 Corona, J. FACTS: Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing in the RTC of Antipolo. The complaint alleged that Rose Packing owned a parcel of land in Brgy. Santo Domingo, Cainta Rizal which was foreclosed by PCIB in whose name it was registered. The requested expropriation was due to the Sangguniang Bayan resolution which sought to purchase the land for the purpose of it being the site of the municipal administration compound. Another Sanggnuniang Bayan Resolution was issued, the said resolution called for the condemnation of said land in the event that negotiations for its voluntary sale would fail. The negotiation did fail, hence, the complaint for expropriation. Thereafter, Rose Packing moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Subsequently it filed for a supplemental motion which elucidates further her reasons for dismissing the complaint. In the said motion it alleged that it never received a formal offer to purchase from the municipality. It also averred that it could no longer be sued in view of its dissolution in 1986. It added that the property sought to be expropriated was under litigation and its expropriation would only complicate matters. The RTC-Antipolo denied Rose Packings motion to dismiss the expropriation case and subsequently ordered the Municipality of Cainta to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property pursuant to the mandate of PD 1533. ISSUE: Whether the Court erred in ordering the Municipality of Cainta to deposit 10% of the provisional value of the property. HELD: YES. There has been an erroneous reliance to PD 1533 in this case. In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, PD 1533 has already been declared unconstitutional. Moreover, the exercise of the power of eminent domain by a local government unit is now governed by Section 19 of Republic Act 7160. For properties under expropriation, the law now requires the deposit of an amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on its current tax declaration.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy