Phil Veterans Bank vs CA, Sec of Agrarian Reform, DARAB, and LBP G.R. No. 132767.

January 18, 2000 FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank owned four parcels of land. The lands were taken by the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to landless farmers pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by respondents Land Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), petitioner filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court Special Agrarian court for a judicial determination of the just compensation for its property. However, petition was filed after the 15-day prescription period as provided in Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6657. Thus, the RTC held that the DARAB decision was final and executory. Petitioner argues that DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for the taking of lands under the CARP, because such jurisdiction is vested in RTCs designated as Special Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the fixing of just compensation can be filed beyond the 15-day period of appeal provided from the decision of the DAR adjudicator. Issue: Can a DARAB decision be appealed beyond the prescribed 15-day period? Answer: The Court ruled on the negative. Reasoning: To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, Rule XIII, No. 11 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides: Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration. In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action. Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ACIL CORPORATION, Respondents. G.R. No. 122256 FACTS: Private respondent Acil Corporation owned several hectares of land, which the government took pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Private respondents certificates of title were cancelled and new ones were issued and distributed to farmerbeneficiaries. The lands were valued by the Land Bank of the Philippines at P19,312.24 per hectare for the riceland and P4,267.68 per hectare for brushland, or for a total of P439,105.39. Private respondent rejected the governments offer, pointing out that nearby lands planted to the same crops were valued at the higher price of P24,717.40 per hectare. The matter was brought before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) who, sustained the initial valuation made by the LBP. Private respondent then filed a Petition for Just Compensation in the Regional Trial Court sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, praying that DAR be ordered to pay P24,717.40 per hectare. However, the RTC dismissed its petition on the ground that private respondent should have appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), pursuant to the latters Revised Rules of

Procedure, before recourse to it (the RTC) could be had. In addition the RTC found that, in violation of the DARABs rules of procedure the petition had been filed more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the decision of the PARAD. Issue: WON in cases involving claims for just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 an appeal from the decision of the provincial adjudicator to the DARAB must first be made before a landowner can resort to the RTC. Answer: The contention has no merit. Reasoning: Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 grants the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform," except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Sec 57 also provides that the Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision. Thus, under the law, the Land Bank is charged with the initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking. Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant to 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR makes an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held and afterward the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid for the land. If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD and JOSE R. CAGUIAT G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005

FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands, which were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27. The RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for P30 per square meters. Land Bank was not able to file its motion for reconsideration on time because the motion filed by its counsel lacked a notice of hearing. Land Bank argues that the failure of its counsel is due to intense work-pressure and constitutes excusable negligence, so the trial court should have heard the relief in accordance with Sec 1 of Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Land Bank also argues that respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court because they should have first sought reconsideration of the DAR's valuation of their properties. Issues:
1. Whether or not counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing constitutes excusable negligence entitling Land Bank to a relief from judgment. 2. WON respondents should have sought reconsideration from DAR.

Answer: The petition is unmeritorious. Reasoning: Land Bank's argument that its counsel committed an excusable negligence when he was not able to file the motion on time is untenable. Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial function. Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice.