Title
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Suntay
Case
G.R. No. 157903
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2007
Landowner disputes DAR's low valuation of expropriated land; Supreme Court rules RTC has exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157903)

Relevant Facts

Federico Suntay was the registered owner of a 3,682.0285-hectare parcel of land in Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-31. In 1972, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) expropriated 948.1911 hectares of his land pursuant to the government's land reform program under Presidential Decree No. 27. The Land Bank, working with the DAR, valued the expropriated land at P4,251,141.68, which the respondent deemed unreasonably low.

Jurisdictional Challenges

Respondent contested the valuation and sought a determination of just compensation from the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD), resulting in a decision that fixed the compensation at P157,541,951.30. The petitioner Land Bank’s attempt to seek judicial determination of just compensation through the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was met with a motion to dismiss by the respondent, claiming it was filed late.

Court Proceedings and Orders

The RTC dismissed petitioner’s petition due to late filing. Following this, the petitioner sought relief through a Notice of Appeal, which was later dismissed on grounds that the proper mode of appeal was a petition for review, according to Section 60 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). This led the petitioner to file a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

Initially, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner relief, ordering the RTC to consider the appeal valid. However, upon reconsideration, citing the legal precedent of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Arlene De Leon, the Court rejected the appeal on grounds that the RTC did not err in its dismissal.

Legal Arguments

The petitioner argued that the RTC made a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the notice of appeal and contended that the RTC acted beyond its jurisdiction by treating the petition for just compensation as an appeal from an RARAD decision. The respondent, conversely, argued that the appeal route taken by the petitioner was incorrect.

Jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Courts

The crucial legal determination involved interpreting the scope of the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts. The Supreme Court clarified that the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over petitions regarding the determination of just compensation for landowners, as outlined in Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657. This position distinguishes the authority of the DAR and RARAD from that of the RTC when addressing compensation for expropriated properties.

Determination of Just Compensation

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.