ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
MENESES vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005 .
G. R. No. 156304 (Anacleto Meneses et al vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, et al.)
R E S O L U T I O N
Before us is petitioners' motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated January 20, 2003 denying their motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari for lack of: (a) service of a copy of the motion on the Court of Appeals and (b) an affidavit of service of copies of the motion on respondents.
Petitioners filed their petition for review on certiorari on January 30, 2003, which was also denied for failure to take the appeal within the reglementary period in view of the denial of their motion for extension of time to file petition.
In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners state that before the motion for extension was filed on December 23, 2002, they had paid the docket and other lawful fees and copies of the motion were served on the counsels of respondents through registered mail; they admit to have inadvertently omitted serving a copy of the motion to the Court of Appeals; that when they filed their petition for review on certiorari on January 30, 2003, long before copy of the Resolution, denying their motion for extension, was received on March 6, 2003, they served copies of the petition with the Court of Appeals and the other respondents; that to deny the motion based on technicality would deprive them of their right to seek redress of an injustice they sustained considering that the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court which did not fix the just compensation for the subject land; that they appeal for consideration to be given the opportunity to present evidence to show that they had been unjustly deprived of their right to just compensation.
Respondent Land Bank filed its Comment contending that petitioners did not point out any exceptional circumstances to warrant the relaxation of the rules on the execution of an affidavit of service and service of a copy of the motion of extension on the Court of Appeals, thus praying for the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Respondent DAR Secretary failed to file his comment despite receipt of our Resolutions requiring him (1) to file comment on petitioners' motion for reconsideration and (2) to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for failure to file comment, thus for purposes of petitioners' motion for reconsideration, respondent DAR Secretary's comment is now deemed waived.
On the other hand, despite receipt of some of the private respondents farmer beneficiaries of our Resolution requiring them to file comment on the motion for reconsideration, they had not done so. In Land Bank of the Philippines vs. CA, [1] cralaw it was held that under section 18 of RA 6667. [2] cralaw it is only the landowner, the DAR and the Land Bank who are the parties involved in the determination of just compensation as the participation of the farmer beneficiary for the proper compensation to the landowner was not mentioned at all. Thus, their comment may be dispensed with.
In the interest of substantial justice considering that the principal issue raised by petitioners is the failure of the trial court to determine the just compensation of their land which had been subjected to the operation land transfer of the government since 1972, we resolve to GRANT the motion for reconsideration, REINSTATE the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners and REQUIRE respondents Land Bank of the Philippines and DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman to file their respective comments thereto.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw 321 SCRA 629, 640-641.
[2] cralaw Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17 and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court as the just compensation for the land.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
