Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 521 views

    Republic Vs Juan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    This case was about eminent domain and the just compensation owed to Celestino Juan and Ana Tanseco for the expropriation of their 338 hectares of land by the government to use as a site for the La Union Regional Agricultural School. [1] Celestino Juan had previously valued the land at P190,000 including his mortgage, and P170,000 excluding the mortgage. [2] The court found that P190,000 constituted just compensation based on Juan's own valuation and the land's acquisition cost and tax assessment. [3] The court modified the judgment to increase compensation to P200,000 plus 6% interest from May 1, 1963.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic Vs Juan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    521 views2 pages
    This case was about eminent domain and the just compensation owed to Celestino Juan and Ana Tanseco for the expropriation of their 338 hectares of land by the government to use as a site for the La Union Regional Agricultural School. [1] Celestino Juan had previously valued the land at P190,000 including his mortgage, and P170,000 excluding the mortgage. [2] The court found that P190,000 constituted just compensation based on Juan's own valuation and the land's acquisition cost and tax assessment. [3] The court modified the judgment to increase compensation to P200,000 plus 6% interest from May 1, 1963.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    2. Republic vs Juan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case was about eminent domain and the just compensation owed to Celestino Juan and Ana Tanseco for the expropriation of their 338 hectares of land by the government to use as a site for the La Union Regional Agricultural School. [1] Celestino Juan had previously valued the land at P190,000 including his mortgage, and P170,000 excluding the mortgage. [2] The court found that P190,000 constituted just compensation based on Juan's own valuation and the land's acquisition cost and tax assessment. [3] The court modified the judgment to increase compensation to P200,000 plus 6% interest from May 1, 1963.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic Vs Juan

    Uploaded by

    Lei Jeus Taligatos
    This case was about eminent domain and the just compensation owed to Celestino Juan and Ana Tanseco for the expropriation of their 338 hectares of land by the government to use as a site for the La Union Regional Agricultural School. [1] Celestino Juan had previously valued the land at P190,000 including his mortgage, and P170,000 excluding the mortgage. [2] The court found that P190,000 constituted just compensation based on Juan's own valuation and the land's acquisition cost and tax assessment. [3] The court modified the judgment to increase compensation to P200,000 plus 6% interest from May 1, 1963.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Republic vs Juan

    Topic Eminent Domain


    Case No. / Date G.R. No. L-24740 July 30, 1979
    Ponente MAKASIAR, J

    FACTS:

     September 28, 1964 of the Court of First Instance of La Union in Civil Case No. 1835 for
    the expropriation of 338.7480 hectares of land owned by spouses Celestino C. Juan and
    Ana Tanseco as the site for the La Union Regional Agricultural School, directing the
    plaintiff Republic of the Philippines to pay the legal owners Celestino C. Juan and Ana
    Tanseco the amount of P190,000.00 which is the just and reasonable compensation
     Defendants-appellants are the registered owners of two (2) adjoining parcels of land
    located at Barrio Sapilang, Bacnotan, La Union with an aggregate area of 3,387,480
    square meters or 338.7480 hectares, more or less, and covered by Original Certificate of
    Title No. 0-420
     Pursuant to the authorization issued on March 15, 1963 by the President of the
    Philippines through the Executive Secretary (p 15, ROA), the Solicitor General filed on
    April 8, 1963 the complaint for expropriation of the aforesaid parcels of land to be used
    as the site of the La Union Agricultural School, which was to be established by
    authority of Republic Act 2692
     Before the institution of the expropriation proceedings Victor Luis, who was appointed
    principal of the proposed school, recommended the property of defendants as the school
    site. Thereafter, together with Mrs. Avelina L. Osias, he negotiated with the defendants
    for the purchase of their property
     In a reply dated January 28,1963 to the letter of Mr. Victor Luis, appellant Juan stated
    that the selling price of his land was "P170,000.00 net to me exclusive of the amount of
    my obligation to the China Banking Corporation where the property is mortgaged", or
    P190,000.00 including the mortgaged debt of P20,000.00 (pp. 382-384, ROA).
     Appellants-spouses acquired the lots in 1956 (as claimed by appellants) or 1957 (as
    stated in the decision of the trial court) from Felipe Nebrija and his children for only
    P50,000.00.
     The lots in question were taxed on the basis of an assessment of only P42,120.00.
     In his letter dated January 2, 1963 to the Provincial Appraisal Committee, appellant
    Celestino Juan evaluated his lots at approximately P319,374.00.

    Issue: WON the compensation that was given was just and fair.

    Ruling:

    Yes, As a matter of fact, appellant should be bound by his P190,000.00 admission. In


    the light of the above-mentioned circumstances, the said amount of P190,000.00 is already
    just and reasonable. It must be pointed out that the most reliable pieces of evidence in the
    records relative to the just compensation to be paid herein appellants are those hereinbefore
    enumerated, namely, appellants' own evaluation in 1963, the acquisition cost the tax
    assessment. This is so because the Committee failed to arrive at an acceptable valuation, not to
    mention the fact that the individual reports of the commissioners of the Appraisal Committee
    did not undergo the indispensable requirement of hearing before the trial court. It must be
    herein stressed that almost all the evidence enumerated earlier are in the nature of admissions
    by the owner, which kind of evidence under existing jurisprudence occupies a preferred
    position in the realm of proof of just compensation and valuation in eminent domain.

    HELD:

    WHEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS HEREBY MODIFIED AND THE


    PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PAY THE
    DEFENDANTSAPPELLANTS CELESTINO C. JUAN AND ANA TANSECO THE SUM OF TWO
    HUNDRED THOUSAND (P200,000.00) PESOS, WITH INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE OF SIX
    PERCENT (6%) PER ANNUM FROM MAY 1, 1963. NO COSTS.

    Note: Read the case, mej complicated guys 

    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