LAND BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD, Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 48, San Fernando, Pampanga, and JOSE R.
CAGUIAT represented by Attorneys-in-fact JOSE T. BARTOLOME and VICTORIO
MANGALINDAN, respondents
G.R. No.
127198 | May 16, 2005
FACTS:
On May 14,
1993, private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the
determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands situated in Arayat,
Pampanga, which were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27.
The trial
Court respondents and ordered DAR and LBP to pay the respondents the amount of
P30.00/sq.m. as just compensation for the land acquired by the State.
DAR and
Land Bank filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied by the
trial court for being pro forma as the same did not contain a notice of
hearing. Consequently, Land Bank failed to file a timely appeal and the said
Decision became final and executory.
Land Bank
then filed a Petition for Relief from Order Dated 30 July 1996, citing
excusable negligence as its ground for relief. The affidavit of Land Bank’s
counsel of record notably states that “he simply scanned and signed the Motion
for Reconsideration for Agrarian Case No. 2005, Regional Trial Court of
Pampanga, Branch 48, not knowing, or unmindful that it had no notice of
hearing” due to his heavy workload.
The trial
court denied the petition for relief because Land Bank lost a remedy in law due
to its own negligence.
Land Bank
insist that equity considerations demand that it be heard on substantive issues
raised in its motion for reconsideration.
The Court
gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda.
In the
instant petition for review, Land Bank argues that private respondents should have
sought the reconsideration of the DAR’s valuation of their properties. Private
respondents thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a
petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court.
Land Bank also insists that the trial court erred in declaring that PD 27 and
Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) are mere guidelines in the determination of
just compensation, and in relying on private respondents’ evidence of the valuation
of the properties at the time of possession in 1993 and not on Land.
ISSUE:
Whether the
trial court has jurisdiction to try and hear cases of just compensation under
AR
Whether or
not the trial court committed GADALEJ in ruling for the amount for just
compensation
RULING:
Land Bank
avers that private respondents should have sought the reconsideration of the
DAR’s valuation instead of filing a petition to fix just compensation with the
trial court.
The records
reveal that Land Bank’s contention is not entirely true. In fact, private
respondents did write a letter to the DAR Secretary objecting to the land
valuation summary submitted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office and
requesting a conference for the purpose of fixing just compensation. The letter,
however, was left unanswered prompting private respondents to file a petition
directly with the trial court.
In Philippine
Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, the SC declared that there is nothing
contradictory between the DAR’s primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, which includes the
determination of questions of just compensation, and the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of regional trial courts over all petitions for the determination
of just compensation. The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the
second refers to judicial proceedings.
In
accordance with settled principles of administrative law, 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.
Land Bank’s
contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on
October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should
be based on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of
possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the President,
Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the seizure of the
landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would
take effect on the payment of just compensation.
Under the
factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to
be settled. Considering the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of this
process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded
under the said law.
It would
certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline
provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the just
compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be
determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially
imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the
equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
In this
case, the trial court arrived at the just compensation due private respondents
for their property, taking into account its nature as irrigated land, location along
the highway, market value, assessor’s value and the volume and value of its
produce.
Comments
Post a Comment