Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Knecht Inc V Municipality of Cainta

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    The Municipality of Cainta filed an expropriation complaint against PCIB and Rose Packing to acquire land for a municipal administration compound. The negotiation for the voluntary sale of the land failed. The RTC ordered the deposit of 10% of the assessed value of the property, relying on a presidential decree. However, the Supreme Court held that the presidential decree was unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by the Local Government Code, which requires a deposit of 15% of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration.

    Copyright:

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

    Knecht Inc V Municipality of Cainta

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    83 views1 page
    The Municipality of Cainta filed an expropriation complaint against PCIB and Rose Packing to acquire land for a municipal administration compound. The negotiation for the voluntary sale of the land failed. The RTC ordered the deposit of 10% of the assessed value of the property, relying on a presidential decree. However, the Supreme Court held that the presidential decree was unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by the Local Government Code, which requires a deposit of 15% of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration.

    Original Description:

    tax

    Original Title

    KNECHT INC V MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA

    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 Municipality of Cainta filed an expropriation complaint against PCIB and Rose Packing to acquire land for a municipal administration compound. The negotiation for the voluntary sale of the land failed. The RTC ordered the deposit of 10% of the assessed value of the property, relying on a presidential decree. However, the Supreme Court held that the presidential decree was unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by the Local Government Code, which requires a deposit of 15% of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration.

    Copyright:

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

    Knecht Inc V Municipality of Cainta

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    The Municipality of Cainta filed an expropriation complaint against PCIB and Rose Packing to acquire land for a municipal administration compound. The negotiation for the voluntary sale of the land failed. The RTC ordered the deposit of 10% of the assessed value of the property, relying on a presidential decree. However, the Supreme Court held that the presidential decree was unconstitutional and expropriation by local governments is now governed by the Local Government Code, which requires a deposit of 15% of the fair market value based on the current tax declaration.

    Copyright:

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

    KNECHT INC.

    V CAINTA

    FACTS

    The Municipality of Cainta filed a complaint for expropriation against PCIB and Rose Packing in the RTC.
    In its complaint, the Municipality of Cainta alleged that Rose Packing owned a parcel of land in Cainta,
    Rizal which was foreclosed by PCIB in whose name it was then registered. The expropriation complaint
    was based on Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Resolution No. 89-020 which sought to purchase the land as the
    site of the municipal administration compound and SB Resolution No. 89-021 which called for the
    condemnation of said land if the negotiation for its voluntary sale failed. The negotiation did fail, hence,
    the complaint for expropriation. (Rose Packing is the predecessor-in-interest of Knecht)

    ISSUE

    WON the RTC can issue the expropriation proceeding

    HELD

    YES. We, however, have to correct the erroneous reliance of RTC-Antipolo on Presidential
    Decree (PD) 1533 in the expropriation case of the Municipality of Cainta. Its order dated June
    16, 1992 in Civil Case No. 90-1817 mandated the deposit of 10% of the assessed value of the
    property.

    In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, a 1987 case, we struck down PD 1533 as
    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