Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DAR, DARAB (Davao City) and LBP compensation must be filed in the appropriate
courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision
Facts: of the DAR adjudicator, otherwise such decision
Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) owned 4 parcels of becomes final and executory, pursuant to Section 51
land in Tagum, Davao, and these lands were taken of R.A. No. 6657.
by the DAR for distribution to landless farmers
pursuant to Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CA affirmed this decision. CA added that the
(RA No. 6657). jurisdiction over the land valuation is lodged in the
DARAB. PVB filed for reconsideration but was
Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by denied too.
LBP and DARAB, PVB filed a petition with the RTC
for a determination of just compensation for the Issue: Whether the jurisdiction over the fixing of just
properties. The petition was dismissed on the compensation is under DARAB.
ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary
period for filing appeals from the orders of the Held: DAR has jurisdiction
DARAB.
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly
PVB argues that DAR adjudicators have no Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB
jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for Rules of Procedure provides:
the taking of lands under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, because such Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment
jurisdiction is vested in RTC designated as Special of Just Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on
Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the land valuation and preliminary determination and
fixing of just compensation can be filed beyond the payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to
15-day period of appeal provided from the decision the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional
of the DAR adjudicator. 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.
There is nothing contradictory between the "agrarian
reform matters" under the jurisdiction of DAR and the "all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform"
[which includes just compensation] and the RTC’s
“original and exclusive jurisdiction” over all petitions for
the determination 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 reasonable compensation to be paid for the
lands taken under CARP, but such determination is
subject to challenge in the courts. The first is an
administrative proceeding while the second is judicial.
Issues:
(1) whether or not petitioner may file the instant appeal attorney's fees shall accrue to a Special fund of
solely through its legal department; the OGCC, and shall be deposited in an
authorized government depository as trust
Ruling liability and shall be made available for
1. No. Court explained in one of its resolutions that expenditure without the need for a Cash
nothing in the LBP charter expressly authorizes the Disbursement Ceiling, for purposes of
LBP Legal Department to appear in behalf of LBP in upgrading facilities and equipment, granting of
any court or quasi-judicial proceeding and that the employee's incentive pay and other bene ts, and
Administrative Code of 1987 mandates the OGCC, not defraying such other incentive expenses not
the LBP Legal Department, to act as the principal law provided for in the General Appropriations Act
office of the LBP, thus: as may be determined by the Government
Corporate Counsel. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 10. Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel. — The Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) shall act as the
principal law of office of all government-owned
or controlled corporations, their subsidiaries,
other corporate offsprings and government
acquired asset corporations and shall exercise
control and supervision over all legal
departments or divisions maintained separately
and such powers and functions as are now or
may hereafter be provided by law. In the
exercise of such control and supervision, the
Government Corporate Counsel shall
promulgate rules and regulations to effectively
implement the objectives of the Office.
The OGCC is authorized to receive the
attorney's fees adjudged in favor of their client
government-owned or controlled corporations,
their subsidiaries/other corporate offsprings and
government acquired asset corporations. These
LBP vs HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ LBP, through the head of the LBP Evaluation
G.R. No. 175175. September 29, 2008 Division of Land Owner's Compensation
Department, and the Chief of PARAD-Cagayan,
FACTS: states that they computed the valuation of
Eleuterio Cruz is the registered owner of an respondents' landholdings based on the formula
unirrigated riceland situated in Lakambini, Tuao, set forth in PD 27, EO 228 and AO 13, series of
Cagayan. 1994 and arrived at the value of P106,935.76 and
Of the total 13.7320 hectares of respondents' that the subject landholding was tenanted and
landholding, an area of 13.5550 hectares was covered by production agreements between the
placed by the government under the coverage of owner and various tenants.
the operation land transfer program under PD 27. LBP also contended that the subject landholding
LBP pegged the value of the acquired landholding had an average production of 25 and 40 cavans per
at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines set forth hectare annually.
under PD 27 and EO 228. However, the heirs of Eleuterio Cruz
Respondents rejected LBP's valuation and counterclaimed that the subject landholding was
instituted an action for a summary proceeding for planted with rice two or three times a year and
the preliminary determination of just had a production capacity of 80 to 100 cavans per
compensation before the PARAD. hectare and that the current market value of the
In 1999, the PARAD rendered a decision fixing the property was between P150,000.00 to P200,000.00
just compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per per hectare.
hectare. The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner LBP,
LBP sought reconsideration but was unsuccessful. fixing the just compensation to P80,000.00.
In 2000, petitioner LBP filed a petition for the Not satisfied, petitioner LBP elevated the case
determination of just compensation before the before the CA to determine just compensation and
RTC of Tuguegarao City. the total land area as well as the amount of just
compensation adjudged by the RTC.
CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this
recourse.
BELLOSILLO, J:
PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent
Facts: nullifying the AGP recommended by the PARO.
Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3) Instead, the PARAD applied the 1976 AGP and the
parcels of land located in Gattaran, Cagayan. AGP stated in private respondent's Tax
Pursuant to the Land Reform Program of the Declarations to determine the correct
Government under PD 27 and EO 228, the compensation and "Government Support Price"
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed (GSP) of P300 for each cavan of palay and P250 for
these lands under its Operation Land Transfer each cavan of corn.
(OLT). PARAD ordered petitioner LBP to pay private
In compliance with EO 228, the Provincial respondent P1,961,950.00.
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the DAR in an After receiving notice of the decision of the
Accomplished OLT Valuation Form recommended PARAD, private respondent accepted the
Average Gross Productivity (AGP) should be 25 valuation. However, when the judgment became
cavans per hectare for unirrigated lowland rice. final and executory, petitioner LBP as the
Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian financing arm in the operation of PD 27 and EO
Reform (SAR) also conducted its own valuation 228 refused to pay thus forcing private respondent
proceedings apart from the PARO.Private to apply for a Writ of Execution with the PARAD
respondent Jose Pascual, opposing the which the latter issued on 24 December 1992. Still,
recommended AGP of the PARO. petitioner LBP declined to comply with the order.
Secretary Ernesto Garilao Jr. of the DAR wrote a Issue:
letter to petitioner LBP requiring the latter to pay
Whether DARAB of the DAR has jurisdiction to
the amount stated in the judgment of the PARAD.
determine the value of lands covered by OLT under PD
Again, petitioner LBP rejected the directive of
27?
Secretary Garilao. Petitioner LBP Executive Vice
President, Jesus Diaz, then sent a letter to Whether private respondent Pascual should file a case in
Secretary Garilao arguing that (a) the valuation of the Special Agrarian Court to compel Petitioner
just compensation should be determined by the Landbank to pay just compensation?
courts; (b) PARAD could not reverse a previous
Held:
order of the Secretary of the DAR; and, (c) the
valuation of lands under EO 228 falls within the FIRST ISSUE
exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR
and not of the DARAB. Yes. It is the DARAB which has the authority to
Petitioner LBP having consistently refused to determine the initial valuation of lands involving
comply with its obligation despite the directive of agrarian reform although such valuation may only be
the Secretary of the DAR and the various demand considered preliminary as the final determination of just
letters of private respondent Jose Pascual, the compensation is vested in the courts.
latter finally filed an action for Mandamus in the
Thus, petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD
Court of Appeals to compel petitioner to pay the
946 is still in effect cannot be sustained. It seems that the
valuation determined by the PARAD.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing
The appellate court also required petitioner LBP to Memorandum Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the
pay a compounded interest of 6% per annum in DARAB to refrain from hearing valuation cases involving
compliance with DAR Administrative Order No. PD 27 lands.
13, series of 1994.
Petitioner's MR was denied. Hence, this petition. SECOND ISSUE
No. Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides already stated, there is no need for such concurrence.
that the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction Without such obstacle, petitioner can now be compelled
over the final determination of just compensation cases, it to perform its legal duty through the issuance of a writ of
must be noted that petitioner Landbank never contested mandamus.
the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation
stated in its decision became final and executory. There Decision is AFFIRMED.
was therefore no need for private respondent Pascual to
file a case in the Special Agrarian Court.
HELD:
The Court ruled in the affirmative, according to the
Court when the law specifically provides a mode of
appeal, the Court must observe the said mode and apply
the same in all cases governed by the said law.
LBP did not observed the mode of appeal provided
by section 60 of RA 6657. Therefore, the decision of SAC
became final and executory.