Results 21 to 30 of 42
-
August 30th, 2012 09:32 AM #21
IMO, and this is from an outsider,- that is the way the parameters of any deal/sale should be determined,- at the time of the transaction.
The downside of using the old market value is that the buyer will definitely have the attraction to dispose of the merchandise in a jiffy, because of the immediate profit. In the case of the land reform program,- this defeats its very purpose.
16.7K:sampay:>>>:weathermanf2:
-
August 30th, 2012 11:20 AM #22
I guess the risk goes both ways if you apply current fair market values.
The entire crux of this goes to what constitutes "just compensation"? The SC has ruled time and again that it should be at fair market value. I would think its the correct interpretation as land reform did not in any way authorize the destruction of the landowner by absorbing a substantial loss on the taking of his property. In the same vein, distributees cannot assume that the land they're getting will be free.
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
August 30th, 2012 01:40 PM #23Yes.. fair market value at the time of taking.. i think the debate here would be when should it have been taken? nung 2006 upon revokation ng SDO (as ordered / decided upon by then DAR Secretary), or nung 1998 ba yun na di ko rin maalala ano yung event kung bakit naging possible reference yun...
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,407
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
August 30th, 2012 11:00 PM #25di ko ma recall now yung basis to use 1998 valuation.. but.. on the surface.. it didn't seem political to me... unless may mga undercurrents...
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
August 30th, 2012 11:28 PM #26Eto pala..
The SC Final <?> decision which came out last April 2012, was to use 1989 valuation and NOT 2006 valuation... Php 40,000.00 / ha ang assessment ng SC at that time ng value noong 1989...
Cojuangco family prior to that ruling filed for MR / clarification and forwarded the argument that 2006 valuation should instead be used, which was about Php 2.5M / ha...
Justices who voted for 1989 valuation: then CJ Renato Corona, Assoc. Justices Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Teresita Leonarda - de Castro, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Martin Villarama
Justices who voted for 2006 valuation: Assoc. Justices Lucas Bersamin, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited.
So far, naghahanap pa ako ng mga news if there were any more pleadings filed after that April 2012 issuance by either parties that would give reason for this decision to be "revisited"...
-
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
August 30th, 2012 11:30 PM #28Eto pala..
The SC Final <?> decision which came out last April 2012, was to use 1989 valuation and NOT 2006 valuation... Php 40,000.00 / ha ang assessment ng SC at that time ng value noong 1989...
Cojuangco family prior to that ruling filed for MR / clarification and forwarded the argument that 2006 valuation should instead be used, which was about Php 2.5M / ha... incidentally, it was Justice Sereno, in her dissenting opinion in the earlier decision on this case in November 2011 yata, who first floated the option of using 2006 valuation... which Cojuangco family based on in their MR / clarification...
Justices who voted for 1989 valuation: then CJ Renato Corona, Assoc. Justices Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Teresita Leonarda - de Castro, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Martin Villarama
Justices who voted for 2006 valuation: Assoc. Justices Lucas Bersamin, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited.
So far, naghahanap pa ako ng mga news if there were any more pleadings filed after that April 2012 issuance by either parties that would give reason for this decision to be "revisited"... but a statement by the IBP, after Sereno's appointment somehow indicated that final and executory na daw ito.. at least as far as this case is directly concerned.. but I read somewhere that there are still ways to affect a change on this ruling indirectly: Constitutional changes that would affect the principle of just compensation and land reform, and decisions on similarly situated cases with HLI that are currently pending with the SC, which can be decided by SC that runs against the HLI decision, which in turn would require a "revisit" of the current HLI decision...Last edited by wowiesy; August 30th, 2012 at 11:52 PM.
-
BANNED BANNED BANNED
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
- Posts
- 13,919
January 18th, 2018 04:02 AM #29mahina taste ni chief justice sereno....
ang gusto suburban or landcruiser..... masyadong old school..... parang lacoste poloshirt lang..... dito lang sa pinas sikat...
dapat ang pinili nya sekoya.... porma na lang talbog yang dalawa....
-
see my pahabol statement above. i mean, i can go on vacation anytime. but my spouse has her...
Traffic!