Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Lubrica Vs LBP

    Uploaded by

    Jerico Godoy
    The case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

    Copyright:

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

    Lubrica Vs LBP

    Uploaded by

    Jerico Godoy
    41 views1 page
    The case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

    Original Title

    Lubrica vs LBP

    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 case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views1 page

    Lubrica Vs LBP

    Uploaded by

    Jerico Godoy
    The case involved two separate lands that underwent land reform. For the first land, the assignee disputed the valuation set by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) after the land was subdivided and given to farmers. For the second land, the heirs disputed the LBP's valuation after the land was inherited. The Supreme Court found that the LBP's actions were invalid because under Philippine law, payment of just compensation is required before the government can take private property under land reform. The owners were deprived of their lands without receiving compensation from LBP first.

    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 1

    JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C.

    SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY


    TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
    Respondent.
    (G.R. NO. 170220: November 20, 2006)

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    2 separate lands that underwent to CARP valuation was the topic of this case. The first land
    underwent to CARP in its holder of the title by the assignee wherein that certain land
    subdivided by the provincial agrarian reform office to its farmer beneficiaries and later on paid
    by the LBP in its fixed amount. Subsequently the second land also underwent to CARP in its
    holder by inheritance, this time, the appropriated value by the LBP disagreed by the decedent.
    A commencement of action against the LBP acted upon this case wherein the provincial office
    until it reached the Court of Appeals favored the respondent bank. Aggrieved, the petitioners
    sought for review to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUES:
    Whether the LBP validly expropriated the property without the completed compensation as to
    the owner of the property?

    HELD:
    The actions of the LBP were invalidated.

    The Court found that petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
    compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away
    from its owners. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are
    conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the
    DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.

    Hence, the Court noted several jurisprudence that pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in
    relation to Executive Order 228 that there must be an expropriation upon the completion of
    just compensation which could be distributed to landless.

    The petition was granted.

    You might also like