RECENT JURISPRUDENCE

REMEDIAL LAW
LAND
BANK
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA
CELADA
G.R.
No.
164876,
23
January
2006,
YnaresSantiago, J. (First Division)
The RTC, sitting as a SAC, has
original
and
exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions
for the determination
of
just
compensation
to
landowners. This original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC would be undermined if
DAR
would
vest
in
administrative officials original
jurisdiction in compensation
cases and make the RTC an
appellate
court for the review of
administrative
decision.
Although the new rules speak
of directly appealing the
decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs
sitting as SACs, the original
and exclusive jurisdiction to
determine such cases is in the
RTCs.
Celada owns an agricultural
land, 60% of which was

identified in 1998 by the

Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) as
suitable
for
compulsory
acquisition
under
the
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Upon
indorsement to it for field
investigation and valuation,
Land Bank
valued the said land at
P299,569.61. DAR offered the
same amount to Celada as
just compensation.
Celada, however, rejected the
offer. The matter was then
referred
to
the
DAR
Adjudication Board
(DARAB)
for
summary
administrative hearing on the
determination
of
just
compensation.
During the pendency of the
DARAB case, Celada filed a
petition
for
judicial
determination
of just compensation, alleging
that the current market value
of her land was at least
P2,129,085.00. In
its answer, Land Bank raised
the affirmative defense of
non-exhaustion
of
administrative remedies. It
contended that Celada must
first await the outcome of the
DARAB case before taking any
judicial

recourse.
Meanwhile,
the
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator
affirmed the valuation made
by Land
Bank. Thereafter, the Special
Agrarian Court (SAC), where
Celadas petition was filed,
rendered
judgment fixing the value of
the land at P354,847.50,
finding that Celadas evidence
showed that the
neighboring lands of similar
classification were paid higher
than what was quoted by
Land Bank. It
denied
Land
Banks
affirmative defense. The Court
of Appeals dismissed Land
Banks appeal.
Land Bank maintains that the
SAC
erred
in
assuming
jurisdiction
over
Celadas
petition for
judicial determination of just
compensation
despite
the
pendency
of
the
administrative proceedings
before the DARAB. It also
contends that the SAC erred
in
fixing
the
just
compensation of the land
based on the valuation of
neighboring lands instead of
its actual land use.
ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the SAC

erred in assuming jurisdiction
over the petition for judicial
determination
of
just
compensation
pending
administrative
proceedings
before the DARAB;
2.) Whether or not the SAC
erred in fixing the just
compensation of the land
based on the
valuation of neighboring lands
HELD:
The petition is GRANTED.
SAC
correctly
jurisdiction
determination
compensation

assumed
over
of
just

The SAC did not err in

assuming jurisdiction over the
petition for determination of
just
compensation
despite
the
pendency
of
the
administrative
proceedings
before the DARAB. As the
Court held in Land Bank of the
Philippines
v.
Court
of
Appeals, the RTC, sitting as a
SAC, has original
and exclusive jurisdiction over
all
petitions
for
the
determination
of
just
compensation to

landowners. This original and

exclusive jurisdiction of the
RTC would be undermined if
DAR RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW
would vest in administrative
officials original jurisdiction in
compensation
cases
and
make the RTC
an appellate court for the
review
of
administrative
decision. Although the new
rules speak of directly
appealing the decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs
sitting as SACs, the original
and exclusive
jurisdiction to determine such
cases is in the RTCs.
It should be emphasized that
the taking of property under
the CARP is an exercise of the
power of eminent domain by
the State. The valuation of
property or determination of
just
compensation is a judicial
function.
Thus,
the
SAC
properly took cognizance of
Celadas petition for
determination
of
just
compensation.
SAC erred in fixing just
compensation
based
on
valuation of neighboring lands

The SAC, however, erred in

setting aside Land Banks
valuation of the land on the
sole basis
of the higher valuation given
for neighboring properties. It
did not apply the DAR
valuation formula
which considers capitalized
net income, comparable sales
and market value per tax
declaration as
components of land value.

Case
Digest
on
PHIL.
VETERANS BANK V. CA
18 Jan. 2000
Facts:
Ps land was taken by DAR
pursuant
to the
Comprehensive
Agrarian
Reform Law. P contended that
DAR adjudicators have
no jurisdiction to determine
the just compensation for the
taking of lands under CARP
because such jurisdiction is
vested inthe RTC.
Issue:
Whether the DAR or RTC has
jurisdiction
Held:

DAR has jurisdiction. There is

nothing contradictory
between the DARs primary
jurisdiction over agrarian
reform mattersand exclusive
original jurisdiction over all
matters
involving
the
implementation
of agrarian
reform,
which
includes
thedetermination of questions
of just compensation, and the
RTCs original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions
for t
hedetermination
of
just
compensation
to
the
landowner. 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
reasonablecompensation
to
be paid for the lands taken
under
CARP,
but
such
determination is subject to
challenge in the courts.case
digests,
case
digests
of
supreme court de

Land Bank v CA and Jose

Pascual
Facts:
Private
respondent
Jose
Pascual owned three parcels
of
land
located
in
Guttaran,Cagayan.
Pursuant
to the Land Reform Program
of the Government under PD
27
and
EO
228,the
Department
of
Agrarian
Reform placed these lands
under its Operation Land
Transfer. After receiving notice
of the decision of the PARAD
regarding the value of just
compensation,
privaterespondent
accepted
the valuation. However, when
the judgment became final
and executory, petitioner LBP
as the financing arm in the
operation of PD 27 and EO

228 refused to pay thusforcing

private respondent to apply
for a Writ of Execution with
the
PARAD
which
the
latter issued on 24 December
1992. Still, petitioner LBP
declined to comply with the
order. Privaterespondent filed
an action for Mandamus in the
Court of Appeals to compel
petitioner to pay thevaluation
determined by the PARAD
which the appellate court
granted.
Issue:Whether or not the LBP
can
refuse
to
pay
the
landowner of the value of just
compensation

PARAD provided that the

farmer beneficiaries concur
thereto.
These
factssufficiently prove that
petitioner LBP agreed with the
valuation of the land. The only
thing thathindered it from
paying the amount was the
non-concurrence
of
the
farmer-beneficiary. But aswe
have already stated, there is
no need for such concurrence.
Without
such
obstacle,
petitioner can
now
be
compelled to perform its legal
duty through the issuance of a
writ of mandamus

Held:

Once the Land Bank agrees

with the appraisal of the DAR,
which bears the approval
of the landowner, it becomes
its legal duty to finance the
transaction. In the instant
case, petitioner participated
in the valuation proceedings
held in the office of the PARAD
through
its
counsel,Atty.
Eduard Javier. It did not appeal
the decision of PARAD which
became final and executory.As
a matter of fact, petitioner
even stated in its Petition that
it is willing to pay the
valuedetermined
by
the

LBP
vs.
Raymunda
Martinez,
(G.R.
No.
169008, July 31, 2008)

Although the proceedings before the

SAC is not appellate in nature the
petition for the fixing of just
compensation should be filed within 15
days period from receipt of the adverse
DARAB decision.
Sec. 60, RA 6657

"An appeal may be taken from the

decision of the Special Agrarian
Courts by filing a petition for
review with the Court of
Appeals within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of notice of the

decision; otherwise, the decision

shall become final.

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
Bank of the Philippines and the
DARAB, petitioner filed a
petition for determination of the
just compensation for its property
with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 2, Tagum, Davao on
January 26, 1994. The RTC
dismissed the petition on the
ground that it was filed beyond
the 15-day reglamentary period
for filing appeals from the orders
of the DARAB. The Decision was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Hence, this Petition for Review.

An appeal from the decision of

the Court of Appeals, or from any
order, ruling or decision of the
DAR, as the case may be, shall be
by a petition for review with the
Supreme Court within a nonextendible period of fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy of
said decision."

Issue:
Whether or not the Special
Agrarian Courts are considered
appellate courts in the
determination of just
compensation

Philippine Veterans Bank vs.

Court of Appeals, The
Secretary of DAR, DARAB,
Davao City and Land Bank
of the Philippines
G.R. No. 132767 (January
18, 2000)
Facts:

Petitioner Philippine Veterans

Bank owned four parcels of land
in Tagum, Davao which were

Held:

No.
To implement the provisions of
R.A. No. 6657, particularly
Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII,
Section 11 of the 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."

As we held in Republic vs. Court

of Appeals, this Rule is an
acknowledgement by the DARAB
that the power to decide just
compensation cases for the taking
of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is
vested in the Courts. It is error to
think that, because of Rule XIII,
Sec. 11, the original and exclusive
jurisdiction given to the courts to
decide petitions for determination
of just compensation has thereby
been transformed into an appellate
jurisdiction. It only means that, 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.

LAND VALUATION; FINALITY

OF DARAB DECISION ON
LAND VALUATION

Land Bank of the Philippines

vs. Raymunda Martinez
G.R. No. 169008 (August 14,
2007)
Facts:

After compulsory acquisition by

the Department of Agrarian
Reform, on November 16, 1993,
of respondent Martinez's 62.5369-

hectare land in Barangay

Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon,
pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657, or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
(CARL), petitioner Land Bank of
the Philippines offered
P1,955,485.60 as just
compensation, for which
respondent rejected. Thus, the
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board, through its
Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator conducted summary
administrative proceedings for the
preliminary determination of just
compensation in accordance with
Section 16 (d) of the CARL.
On September 4, 2002, PARAD
Virgilio M. Sorita, rendered
judgment ordering the LBP to pay
landowner-protestant
RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ for
her property covered with the
total amount of TWELVE
MILLION ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED NINETY
TWO and 50/100 Pesos
(Php12,179,492.50).
A petition for the fixing of just
compensation was then filed by
LBP's counsel before the Special
Agrarian Court (SAC) of the
Regional Trial Court of Odiongan,
Romblon.
Meanwhile, respondent, still
asserting the finality of PARAD
Sorita's decision, filed before the
Office of the PARAD a motion for
the issuance of a writ of
execution, which was eventually
granted on November 11, 2003.

The PARAD denied LBP's motion

for reconsideration and ordered
the issuance of a writ of execution
on February 23, 2004.
LBP, on March 12, 2004, moved
to quash the said February 23,
2004 PARAD resolution. On April
6, 2004, even as the motion to
quash was yet unresolved, LBP
instituted a petition for certiorari
before the CA. The CA, on
September 28, 2004 dismissed the
petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the PARAD,

gravely abused its discretion
when it issued a writ of execution
despite the pendency of LBP's
petition for fixing of just
compensation with the SAC?

Held:

In this case, petitioner moved to

quash the PARAD resolutions and
at the same time petitioned for
their annulment via certiorari
under Rule 65. In both
proceedings, the parties are
identical and the reliefs prayed for
are the same. In the two actions,
petitioner also has a singular
stance: the PARAD resolutions
should not be executed in view of
the pendency of the petition for
fixing of just compensation with
the SAC. Thus a situation is
created where the two fora could
come up with conflicting
decisions. This is precisely the

evil sought to be avoided by the

rule against forum-shopping.
We find petitioner not entitled to
the grant of a writ of certiorari by
the appellate court because the
Office of the PARAD did not
gravely abuse its discretion when
it undertook to execute the
September 4, 2002 decision. Rule
XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB
Rules of Procedure.
In Philippine Veterans Bank v.
Court of Appeals and in
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, we
explained the consequence of the
said rule to the effect that the
adjudicator's decision on land
valuation attains finality after the
lapse of the 15-day period.
Considering therefore that, in this
case, LBP's petition with the SAC
for the fixing of just
compensation was filed 26 days
after its receipt of the PARAD's
decision, or eleven days beyond
the reglementary period, the latter
had already attained finality. The
PARAD could very well issue the
writ of execution.