LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD and JOSE R. CAGUIAT

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

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands, which were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27. The RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for P30 per square meters. Land Bank was not able to file its motion for reconsideration on time because the motion filed by its counsel lacked a notice of hearing. Land Bank argues that the failure of its counsel is due to intense work-pressure and constitutes excusable negligence, so the trial court should have heard the relief in accordance with Sec 1 of Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Land Bank also argues that respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court because they should have first sought reconsideration of the DAR's valuation of their properties.

Issues:

1. Whether or not counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing constitutes excusable negligence entitling Land Bank to a relief from judgment.

2. WON respondents should have sought reconsideration from DAR.

Held:

The petition is unmeritorious.Reasoning: Land Bank's argument that its counsel committed an excusable negligence when he was not able to file the motion on time is untenable. 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.

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.

Alita v CA

Facts:

Private respondents' predecessors-in-interest acquired the subject

parcel of lands through homestead patent under the provisions of

Commonwealth Act No. 141. Private respondents herein are desirous of

personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners refuse to vacate, relying

on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316. On June 18, 1981, private

respondents instituted a complaint for the declaration of P.D. 27 and all

other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders issued in

connection therewith as inapplicable to lands obtained through homestead

law. The RTC dismissed the complaint but on motion for reconsideration it

declared that P.D. 27 is not applicable to homestead lands. On appeal to the

CA, the decision of the RTC was sustained.

Issue:

Whether or not lands acquired through homestead law are covered by

CARP

Held:

Petitioners is correct in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the

emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to

them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a

remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of

the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the

very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act

No. 141. The Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the

homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the

Agrarian Reform statute. Provided, that the original homestead grantees or

their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the

time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they

continue to cultivate said homestead.

Estribillo v DAR

Facts:

Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc. requested that 527.8308

hectares of its landholdings be placed under the coverage of Operation

Land Transfer. Receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners

and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be

covered under Agrarian Reform Program. In 1982, a final survey over the

entire area was conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the

corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were

issued to petitioners, among other persons. In December 1997, HMI filed

with RARAD petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under

Presidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings.

HMI claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the

area was untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. RARAD

rendered a decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded to

petitioners because the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and

neither was there any established tenancy relations between HMI and

petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the DARAB which affirmed the RARAD

Decision. On appeal to the CA, the same was dismissed. Petitioners

contended that the EPs became indefeasible after the expiration of one year

from their registration.

Issue:

Whether or not EPs have become indefeasible one year after their issuance

Held:

After complying with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential

Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree

where the DAR is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title

after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with Presidential

Decree No. 27, the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire

the same protection accorded to other TCTs. The certificate of title becomes

indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the

date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands

covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral

proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person.