Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Alsua
Case
G.R. No. 167361
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2007
The Court ruled that the service of the order of dismissal to the security guard of LBP is considered valid service for the purpose of counting the reglementary period for the filing of the motion for reconsideration, and upheld the dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute within a reasonable length of time, emphasizing the importance of following court processes and the finality of decisions.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 167361)

Facts:

  • The case is Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Fernando Alsua, G.R. No. 167361, decided on April 2, 2007.
  • Respondents include Clotilde S. Alsua, Roberto S. Alsua, Ma. Elena S. Alsua, and Ramon Alsua, heirs of Fernando Alsua.
  • Fernando Alsua owned approximately 50 hectares of agricultural land in Catomag, Guinobatan, Albay.
  • The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initiated compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
  • Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the land at P2,361,799.91, which was rejected by the respondents.
  • The DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) later set the compensation at P4,806,109.05, which was also opposed by the respondents.
  • On April 11, 2002, LBP filed a petition for just compensation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City.
  • The RTC dismissed the petition on December 4, 2002, due to LBP's failure to prosecute in a reasonable time.
  • The dismissal order was delivered to LBP's counsel on December 12, 2002.
  • LBP's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2002, citing excusable negligence, but it was denied as late and lacking merit.
  • LBP appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's dismissal, prompting LBP to petition the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied LBP's petition for review on certiorari.
  • The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 17, 2004, and Resolution dated March 4, 2005.
  • It ruled that the service of the dismissal order to the security guard was valid.
  • ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The ruling highlighted the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and the finality of court decisions.
  • The Court clarified that registered mail must be delivered to the addressee or a person capable of receiving it.
  • The security guard was considered capable of receiving the order on behalf of LBP's counsel...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.