Second Division: Decision

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005]
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.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review[1] dated December 6, 1996 assailing the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court[3] dated July 5, 1996 which ordered the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) and petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) to pay private
respondents the amount of P30.00 per square meter as just compensation for the
States acquisition of private respondents properties under the land reform program.
The facts follow.
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 Presidential Decree
No. 27 (PD 27). The petition named as respondents the DAR and Land Bank. With
leave of court, the petition was amended to implead as co-respondents the registered
tenants of the land.
After trial, the court rendered the assailed Decision the dispositive portion of which
reads:
Respondent Department of Agrarian Reform is also ordered to pay petitioners the

amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Attorneys Fee, and to pay
the cost of suit.
Land Bank then filed a Petition for Relief from Order Dated 30 July 1996,[6] citing
excusable negligence as its ground for relief. Attached to the petition for relief were two
affidavits of merit claiming that the failure to include in the motion for reconsideration a
notice of hearing was due to accident and/or mistake. [7] The affidavit of Land Banks
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[8] due to his heavy
workload.
The trial court, in its Order[9] of November 18, 1996, denied the petition for relief
because Land Bank lost a remedy in law due to its own negligence.
According to Land Bank, private respondents should have sought the
reconsideration of the DARs 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 Banks evidence of the value thereof as of the time of acquisition
in 1972.
The petition is unmeritorious.
At issue is whether counsels failure to include a notice of hearing constitutes
excusable negligence entitling Land Bank to a relief from judgment.
As can clearly be gleaned from the foregoing provision, the remedy of relief from
judgment can only be resorted to on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence. Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded against.[14]
Measured against this standard, the reason profferred by Land Banks
counsel, i.e., that his heavy workload prevented him from ensuring that the motion for
reconsideration included a notice of hearing, was by no means excusable.
Indeed, counsels admission 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 speaks volumes of
his arrant negligence, and cannot in any manner be deemed to constitute excusable
negligence.
The failure to attach a notice of hearing would have been less odious if committed
by a greenhorn but not by a lawyer who claims to have mastered the intricate art and
technique of pleading.[15]
Aside from ruling on this procedural issue, the Court shall also resolve the other
issues presented by Land Bank, specifically as regards private respondents alleged
failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the question of just compensation.
Land Bank avers that private respondents should have sought the reconsideration
of the DARs valuation instead of filing a petition to fix just compensation with the trial
court.
The records reveal that Land Banks contention is not entirely true. In fact, private
respondents did write a letter[18] 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.
At any rate, in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[19] we declared that
there is nothing contradictory between the DARs 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.[20]
Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of
just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice.
Land Banks 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, Malacaang, Manila
v. Court of Appeals,[21] we 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 Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) [22] before the
completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the
process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD
27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v.
Alfeche.[23]
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs 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.[24]
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, assessors value and the volume and value of its produce. This
Court is convinced that the trial court correctly determined the amount of just
compensation due private respondents in accordance with, and guided by, RA 6657
and existing jurisprudence.

Second Division: Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Division: Decision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Division: Decision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ELI G. C.

Respondent Department of Agrarian Reform is also ordered to pay petitioners the

You might also like