ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter MTJ-93-850 October 2, 1996 - ROBERTO CARPIO v. RODOLFO R. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116236 October 2, 1996 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116347 October 3, 1996 - NATIVIDAD PONDOC v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118091 October 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO VIERNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120894 October 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORENO BAYANI

  • G.R. No. 122668 October 3, 1996 - JESSIE DE LEON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94548 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO COGONON

  • G.R. No. 106722 October 4, 1996 - JOSEMARIA G. ESTRADA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108936 October 4, 1996 - SOL LAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117323 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 117514 October 4, 1996 - MT. CARMEL COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119007 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO G. SORIA

  • G.R. No. 119290 October 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PIASIDAD

  • G.R. No. 90655 October 7, 1996 - DANIEL V. ZARATE, JR. v. NORMA C. OLEGARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996 - ROMULO A. CORONEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102713 October 9, 1996 - EDWARD LITTON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117950 October 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARADAM DE MANUEL

  • G.R. No. 119417 October 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OMAR CLETO VARONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116172 October 10, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC.-CEBU v. BIENVENlDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1227 October 11, 1996 - RENATO L. LIRIO v. ARTURO A. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 104624 October 11, 1996 - SAN PEDRO HOSPITAL OF DIGOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108919 October 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. CORDERO

  • G.R. No. 89075 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO GEROLAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108433 October 15, 1996 - WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118320 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO E. CABODOC

  • G.R. No. 119014 October 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOJO P. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79543 October 16, 1996 - JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111401 October 17, 1996 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120385 October 17, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120961 October 17, 1996 - DISTILLERIA WASHINGTON, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121574 October 17, 1996 - METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107741 October 18, 1996 - FRANCISCO BERNARTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109834 October 18, 1996 - CECILE SAN JUAN DITCHING, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110007 October 18, 1996 - HOLY CROSS OF DAVAO COLLEGE, INC. v. JEROME JOAQUIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120008 October 18, 1996 - PHIL. ADVERTISING COUNSELORS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ- 95-1051 October 21, 1996 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. BRICCIO A. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 106427 October 21, 1996 - INTER-ASIA SERVICES CORP. (INT’L.) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108461 October 21, 1996 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., ET AL. v. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116013 October 21, 1996 - ANANIAS SOCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105961 October 22, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO SUMAOY

  • G.R. No. 113926 October 23, 1996 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST CO. v. RTC-MAKATI, BR. 61, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97935 October 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL T. ALIPOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113926 October 23, 1996 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST CO. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-MAKATI, BR. 61, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98310 October 24, 1996 - MATUGUINA INTEGRATED WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106817 October 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN RAPANUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114129 October 24, 1996 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118347 October 24, 1996 - VICENTE LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101213-14 October 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY APILO

  • G.R. No. 112148 October 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO JUBILAG

  • G.R. No. 115953 October 28, 1996 - GENOVEVA LIGOT SEMPIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116175 October 28, 1996 - PEDRO V. SOLIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120506 October 28, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120730 October 28, 1996 - RAMON J. BERNARDO, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-956 October 30, 1996 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ARTURO A. ALAGABAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102772 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO C. DEOPANTE

  • G.R. No. 107968 October 30, 1996 - ELIAS S. CIPRIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110296 October 30, 1996 - MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113116 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 121506 October 30, 1996 - MACTAN CEBU INT’L. AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121519 October 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122256 October 30, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123643 October 30, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 122256   October 30, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS. ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 122256. October 30, 1996.]

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ACIL CORPORATION, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    Private respondent Acil Corporation owned several hectares of land in Linoan, Montevista, Davao del Norte, which the government took pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Private respondent’s certificate of title were cancelled and new ones were issued and distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.

    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 P 439,105.39. It appears, however, that in the Statement of Agricultural Landholdings ("LISTASAKA") which private respondent had earlier filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), a lower "Fair Value Acceptable to Landowner" was stated and that based on this statement, the Land Bank of the Philippine valued private respondent’s lands uniformly at P15,311.79 per hectare and fixed the amount of P390,557.84 as the total compensation to be paid for the lands.

    Private respondent rejected the government’s offer, pointing out that nearby lands, planted to the same crops were valued at the higher prices of P24,717.40 per hectare. The matter was brought before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) who, on October 8, 1992, sustained the initial valuation made by the LBP.

    On December 12, 1992, private respondent filed a Petition for just Compensation in the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte, sitting as a special Agrarian Court. Private respondent prayed 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 latter’s Revised Rules of Procedure, before recourse to it (the RTC) could be had., In addition the RTC found that, in violation of the DARAB’s rules of procedure the petitioner had been filed more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the decision of the decision of the PARAD.

    Private respondent moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied on October 13, 1994. Private respondent therefore filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending that a petition for just compensation under R.A. No 6657 56-57 falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC. His contention was sustained by the Court of Appeals which, in its decision 1 of October 4, 1995, set aside the order of dismissal of the RTC. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.

    In turn the government, represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform, filed this petition for review for review on certiorari, raising as the issue whether 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 under 57. Petitioner sustain the affirmative proposition. They cite 50 of R.A. No. 6657 which in pertinent part provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). . . .

    and argue that the fixing of just compensation for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is a" [matter] involving the implementation of agrarian reform" within the contemplation of this provision. They invoke 16(f) of R.A. No. 6657, which provides that : "any party who disagrees to the decision [of the DAR] may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation." as confirming their construction of 50.

    The contention has no merit.

    It is true that 50 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. It is also true, however, that 57 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions, for determination of just compensation to landowner, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.

    The Special Agrarian Court shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for decision.

    Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Court, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." 2 The provision of 50 must be construed in harmony with this provision by considering cases involving the determination of just compensation and criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the plenitude of power conferred on the DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for such are taking under R.A. No 6657) and over criminal cases. Thus in EPZA v. Dulay 3 and Sumulong v. Guerrero 4 we held that the valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which cannot be vested in administrative agencies, while in Scoty’s Department Store v. Micaller 5 we struck down a law granting the then Court of Industrial Relations jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of the Industrial Peace Act.

    Petitioners also cite Rule II, 5 and Rule XIII, 1 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure in support of their contention that decisions of agrarian reform adjudicators may only be appealed to the DARAB. These rules provide:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Rule II, 5. Appellate Jurisdiction. — The Board shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter or affirm resolutions, orders, decisions, and other dispositions of its [regional and provincial agrarian reform adjudicators].

    Rule XIII, 1. Appeal to the Board. — a) An appeal may be taken from and order or decision of the Regional or Provincial Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, by giving or stating a written or oral appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution, order or decision appeal from, and serving a copy thereof on the opposite or adverse party, if the appeal is in writing.

    b). An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the Adjudicator to be signed by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the opposite or adverse party within ten (10) days from the taking of oral appeal.

    Apart from the fact that only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies — rules of procedure cannot — it is noteworthy that the New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which was adopted on May 30, 1994, now provide that in the event a landowner is not satisfied with a decision of an agrarian adjudicator, the landowner can bring the matter directly to the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian Court. Thus Rule XIII, 11 of the new rules provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    11. 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 Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration. (Emphasis supplied)

    This is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the decision of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is a power vested in the courts.

    Thus, under the law the Land Bank of the Philippine 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. 6 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 7 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 8 This in essence is the procedure for the determination of compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657. In accordance with it, the private respondent’s cases was property brought it in the RTC, and it was error for the latter court to have dismissed the case. In the terminology of 57, the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners." 9 It would subvert this "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials and make the RTC and appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.

    Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to 57 and therefore would be void. What adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question.

    WHEREFORE the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero, Puno and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Per Justice Cesar D. Francisco, and concurred in by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and Oswaldo D. Agcaoili.

    2. Quismundo v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 609 (1991); Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 558 (1990).

    3. 149 SCRA 305(1987).

    4. 154 SCRA 461 (1987).

    5. 99 Phil. 762 (1956).

    6. Sec. 1, E.O. No. 405 (June 14, 1990).

    7. Sec. 15(d), R.A. No. 6657.

    8. Vinzons-Magana v. Estrella, 201 SCRA 356 (1991); Association of Small Landowners in the Philippine, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 366 (1989).

    9. Sec. 57, R.A. No. 6657.

    G.R. No. 122256   October 30, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS. ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED