|
FRANCISCO
SORIANO AND DALISAY SORIANO, Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 184282
Present: |
|
- versus - |
Chairperson, LEONARDO-de castro, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. |
|
REPUBLIC
OF THE (Represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General), Respondent. |
Promulgated: April 11, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a Rule 45 petition
assailing the
The
facts, as culled from the records, follow:
The
Spouses Francisco and Dalisay Soriano were the registered owners of two parcels
of agricultural land located in Hijo, Maco,
In October
1999, the two parcels of land were compulsorily acquired by the government pursuant
to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) made a
preliminary determination of the value of the subject lands in the amount of P351,169.34
for the first parcel and P70,729.28 for the second parcel. Petitioners,
however, disagreed with the valuation and brought the matter before the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for a summary administrative
proceeding to fix the just compensation.[5]
On
Section
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
Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the notice thereof. Any
party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
On
June 27, 2001, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss Agrarian Case No. 64-2001
and declared that the DARAB Rules of Procedure must give way to the laws on
prescription of actions as mandated by the Civil Code.[11]
The DAR sought reconsideration of the
order, but its motion was denied on
On
Public
respondent erred in denying petitioners motion to dismiss. An
action to fix just compensation for lands placed under R.A. No. 6657 is outside
the purview of the ordinary rules on prescription as contained in Article 1146
of the Civil Code. The rule implementing R.A. No. 6657 is clear and unequivocal
that after a preliminary determination by the board of the just compensation, a
petition should be filed before the SAC within 15 days from receipt of the
boards decision. Considering that the petition was filed beyond the 15-day
period provided by the rules, public respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of spouses
Sorianos petition. The court a quo did
not acquire jurisdiction over the petition which was filed out of time.[13]
Later, the CA
likewise denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, petitioners filed the present petition
alleging that the CA committed serious errors of law, as follows:
I.
THE 1994 DARAB PROCEDURAL RULES PROVIDING FOR
A 15-DAY REGLEMENTARY PERIOD TO BRING THE DECISION OF THE ADJUDICATOR DIRECTLY
TO THE
II.
THE PROVISION IN THE 1994 DARAB RULES [OF
PROCEDURE] PROVIDING FOR A MODE OF APPEAL AND A STRINGENT REGLEMENTARY PERIOD
OF 15 DAYS TO BRING THE DECISION OF THE DARAB IN A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF
LAND VALUATION DIRECTLY TO THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC) HAS NO STATUTORY
BASIS. THUS, IT IS VOID FOR BEING ULTRA
VIRES.[14]
Essentially, the issues for our resolution are whether the CA
erred in setting aside the
Petitioners admit
that their petition was filed late but insist that there exist special and
compelling reasons to relax the otherwise stringent application of the 15-day
reglementary period to file the petition for the fixing of just
compensation. They allege that the
failure to file the petition in time was due to the fault or negligence of
their former counsel, and that the unconscionably low valuation of the LBP, if
not rectified, would unjustly result in the confiscatory deprivation of their
lands through no fault of their own.[15]
They likewise contend that there is no
statutory basis for the promulgation of the DARAB procedure providing for a
mode of appeal, let alone for a reglementary period to appeal.
The petition
lacks merit.
The appellate court
correctly granted the writ of certiorari and nullified the June 27,
2001 Order of the RTC
acting as SAC, as the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss filed by the DAR. Rule XIII, Section 11 of the 1994 DARAB
Rules of Procedure, which
was then applicable, explicitly provides that
Section
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
Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice
thereof.
Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration. [Emphasis
supplied.]
In Phil. Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[16] we explained that the consequence of
the said rule is that the adjudicators decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period.
Considering that Agrarian Case No. 64-2001, filed with the SAC for the fixing of just
compensation, was filed 29 days
after petitioners receipt of the DARABs decision in DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0071-DN-2000 for the lot covered by TCT No. (T-8935) T-3120 and 43 days after petitioners
receipt of the DARABs decision in DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0073-DN-2000, for the
lot covered by TCT No. (T-2906) T-749,
the DARABs decisions had already attained finality.
Petitioners contend
that there is no statutory basis for the promulgation of the DARAB procedure providing for a mode
of appeal and a reglementary period to appeal. On the matter of whether the DARAB Rules of
Procedure laid out an appeal process and the validity of the 15-day
reglementary period has already been laid to rest, the Court, in Republic v. Court of Appeals[17] and subsequent cases[18]
has clarified that the determination of the amount of just compensation by the
DARAB is merely a preliminary administrative determination which is subject to
challenge before the SACs which have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
all petitions for the determination of just compensation under Section 57, R.A.
No. 6657. In Republic
v. Court of Appeals, we ruled
[U]nder the
law, the Land Bank of the
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.[19] (Emphasis
supplied.)
The above ruling was reiterated
in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals. In that case, petitioner
landowner who was dissatisfied with the valuation made by LBP and DARAB, filed
a petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC (SAC). However, the RTC dismissed
the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary
period for filing appeals from the orders of the DARAB. On appeal, the CA upheld
the order of dismissal. When the case was elevated to this Court, we likewise
affirmed the CA and declared that
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657,
particularly 50 thereof, Rule XIII, 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 v. Court of Appeals, this
rule is an acknowledgment 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, 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.[20] (Emphasis
supplied.)
The Court notes that although the petition for determination of
just compensation in Republic v. Court of
Appeals was filed beyond the 15-day
period, Republic v. Court of Appeals does not serve as authority
for disregarding the 15-day period to bring an action for judicial
determination of just compensation. Republic
v. Court of Appeals, it should be noted,
was decided at a time when Rule XIII, Section 11 was not yet present in the
DARAB Rules. Further, said case did not
discuss whether the petition filed therein for the fixing of just compensation
was filed out of time or not. The Court
merely decided the issue of whether cases involving just compensation should
first be appealed to the DARAB before the landowner can resort to the SAC under
Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657. In any
event, any speculation as to the validity of Rule XIII, Section 11 was
foreclosed by our ruling in Philippine Veterans Bank where we affirmed the order of dismissal of a petition for determination
of just compensation for having been filed beyond the 15-day period under said Section
11. In said case, we explained that
Section 11 is not incompatible with the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the SAC. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Martinez,[21]
we reaffirmed this ruling and stated for the guidance of the bench and bar that
while a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an
appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicators decision but an original action,
the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules;
otherwise, the adjudicators decision will attain finality.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing rulings, we noted in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Umandap[22]
that [s]ince the SAC statutorily exercises original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners, it cannot be said that the decision of the adjudicator, if not
appealed to the SAC, would be deemed final and executory, under all
circumstances. In certain cases, the
Court has adopted a policy of liberally allowing petitions for determination of
just compensation even though the procedure under DARAB rules have not been
strictly followed, whenever circumstances so warrant.[23] Thus, we allowed a petition refiled by LBP
within 5 days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order
dismissing the original petition, during which time said dismissal could still
be appealed to the CA:
x x x The SAC even expressly recognized that the
rules are silent as regards the period within which a complaint dismissed
without prejudice may be refiled. The
statutorily mandated original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC, as well as
the above circumstances showing that LBP did not appear to have been sleeping
on its rights in the allegedly belated refiling of the petition, lead us to
assume a liberal construction of the pertinent rules. To be sure, LBPs intent to question the
RARADs valuation of the land became evident with the filing of the first
petition for determination of just compensation within the period prescribed by
the DARAB Rules. Although the first
petition was dismissed without prejudice on a technicality, LBPs refiling of
essentially the same petition with a proper non-forum shopping certification
while the earlier dismissal order had not attained finality should have been
accepted by the trial court.
In view of the foregoing, we rule
that the RTC acted without jurisdiction in hastily dismissing said refiled
Petition. Accordingly, the Petition for
Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the dismissal should be
granted.[24] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case at bar,
petitioners argue that there exists compelling reason to relax the application
of the rules because the offered compensation package by the LBP for the
expropriated lands is unconscionably low.
We find no merit in
petitioners submission considering that in the valuation of petitioners lands
in the two cases, the PARAD applied the formula laid down in DAR AO No. 06,
series of 1992 as amended by DAR AO No. 11, series of 1994 and further amended
by DAR AO No. 05, series of 1998. It
likewise found that petitioners computed value of their property was
unsubstantiated and hence cannot prevail over LBPs valuation which was
determined pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines then in force.
Petitioners have not
shown any exceptional circumstance warranting a relaxation of the prescribed
period for the filing of a petition for judicial determination of just
compensation. Their petition before the
SAC assailing the separate valuations by the PARAD was filed 29 days
(from receipt of the first decision) and 43 days (from receipt of the second
decision) late, and without any justifiable reason given for the delay. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the CA in granting DARs petition for certiorari and
dismissing Agrarian Case No. 64-2001.
WHEREFORE, the
petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.
The Decision dated
Costs
against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief
Justice Chairperson |
||
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice |
||
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp.
28-40. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices
Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, p. 22. Penned by Judge
Erasto D. Salcedo.
[4] Records, pp. 2, 6-10.
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp. 132-133.
[8] Records, pp. 1-5. The
petition was docketed as Agrarian Case No. 64-2001.
[9]
[10] These rules were
later superseded by the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure adopted on
[11] CA rollo, p. 22.
[12]
[13] Rollo, pp. 38-39.
[14]
[15]
[16] 379 Phil. 141, 148-149 (2000).
[17] G.R.
No. 122256,
[18] Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Suntay, G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007,
535 SCRA 605; Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Martinez, G.R. No.
169008, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 776.
[19] Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 17, at 764-765.
[20] Phil. Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,
supra note 16.
[21] Supra note 18, at 783.
[22]
G.R. No. 166298,
[23]
[24]