In Philippine
Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
132767, January 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 139.),
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 the Supreme Court, it likewise
affirmed the CA and declared that:
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 the
administrative action (Land
Bank of the Phils. vs. Severino Listana, G.R. No. 168105, July 27, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.