Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 211 views

    Republic v. Salem

    Uploaded by

    Jaysean Javier
    The Supreme Court ruled that title to expropriated property does not pass to the expropriating entity until just compensation has been fully paid to the property owner. In this case, the respondent had deposited the full purchase price for the property with the petitioners prior to its expropriation by the government. As such, the respondent was determined to be the rightful owner of the expropriated property, and the petitioners would be unjustly enriched if paid compensation for property they had already been paid for. The court ordered the compensation be given to the respondent instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. Salem

    Uploaded by

    Jaysean Javier
    211 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that title to expropriated property does not pass to the expropriating entity until just compensation has been fully paid to the property owner. In this case, the respondent had deposited the full purchase price for the property with the petitioners prior to its expropriation by the government. As such, the respondent was determined to be the rightful owner of the expropriated property, and the petitioners would be unjustly enriched if paid compensation for property they had already been paid for. The court ordered the compensation be given to the respondent instead.

    Original Title

    123.-Republic-v.-Salem.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that title to expropriated property does not pass to the expropriating entity until just compensation has been fully paid to the property owner. In this case, the respondent had deposited the full purchase price for the property with the petitioners prior to its expropriation by the government. As such, the respondent was determined to be the rightful owner of the expropriated property, and the petitioners would be unjustly enriched if paid compensation for property they had already been paid for. The court ordered the compensation be given to the respondent instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    211 views2 pages

    Republic v. Salem

    Uploaded by

    Jaysean Javier
    The Supreme Court ruled that title to expropriated property does not pass to the expropriating entity until just compensation has been fully paid to the property owner. In this case, the respondent had deposited the full purchase price for the property with the petitioners prior to its expropriation by the government. As such, the respondent was determined to be the rightful owner of the expropriated property, and the petitioners would be unjustly enriched if paid compensation for property they had already been paid for. The court ordered the compensation be given to the respondent instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    123. Republic v.

    Salem
    TITLE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALEM
    INVESTMENT CORPORATION, MARIA DEL CARMEN ROXAS DE
    ELIZALDE, CONCEPCION CABARRUS VDA. DE SANTOS, defendants-
    appellees. MILAGROS AND INOCENTES DE LA RAMA, petitioners,

    GR # 137569

    DATE June 23, 2000

    PONENTE MENDOZA, J.

    NATURE/ Title not cancelled until paid;


    KEYWORDS

    FACTS On February 17, 1983, Batas Pambansa Blg. 340 was passed authorizing
    the expropriation of parcels of lands in the names of defendants in this
    case, including a portion of the land, consisting of 1,380 square meters,
    belonging to Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama.

    Petitioners entered into a contract with respondent whereby they agreed to


    sell to Guerrero the entire property. Petitioners received partial payment of
    the purchase price, the balance remaining to be paid upon release of the
    title from Philippine Veterans Bank.

    The land being sold to respondent was then subjected to expropriation by


    the government, giving a deposit representing 10% of the market value of
    the property. Respondent filed a motion to intervene, alleging the said
    property was already sold to him, and a case was filed against him for
    specific performance against the De La Ramas.

    The Regional Trial Court ruled that respondent was the rightful owner of the
    expropriated property and ordered payment to him of the just
    compensation for the taking of the land. The decision was subsequently
    affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

    ISSUE(S) Whether or not respondent is the owner of the expropriated property;

    RULING(S) The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall
    pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just
    compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both
    here and in other democratic jurisdictions. It is settled that although the
    right to expropriate and use land taken for a canal is complete at the time
    of entry, title to the property taken remains in the owner until payment is
    actually made.

    Citing Kennedy v. Indianapolis, the US Supreme Court cited several cases


    holding that title to property does not pass to the condemnor until just
    compensation had actually been given. In Rubottom v. McLure, it was held
    that actual payment to the owner of the condemned property was a
    condition precedent to the investment of the title property in the State
    albeit not to the appropriation of it to public use.

    The case of Kennedy further said that the right to enter on and use the
    property is complete, as soon as the property is actually appropriated
    under the authority of law for a public use, but that the title does not pass
    from the owner without his consent, until just compensation has been
    made to him.

    In payment of the purchase price, respondent had already deposited the


    full amount necessary to cover the price computed on the property. The
    amount payable to him from the plaintiff was already offset on the price of
    the property, hence his deposit sufficiently covered the remaining balance
    of the property.

    We take note of the fact that the De la Ramas have withdrawn and
    appropriated for themselves the amount paid by Guerrero. This amount
    represented the purchase price of the entire 4,075 square meters of land,
    including the expropriated portion, which was the subject of their
    agreement. The payment, therefore, to them of the value of the
    expropriated portion would unjustly enrich them.

    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