Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Martinez

A petition for the fixing of just compensation filed with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), although an original action and not an appeal from the decision of an agrarian reform adjudicator, must be filed within the 15-day period prescribed under Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure; failure to do so renders the adjudicator's decision on land valuation final and executory.

The case arises from the compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondent Raymunda Martinez's 62.5369-hectare land in Barangay Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988). After LBP's initial offer of just compensation was rejected by Martinez, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings and fixed a higher compensation amount. The dispute centers on the effect of LBP's failure to timely file a petition for fixing just compensation with the SAC within the reglementary period.

• On November 16, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) compulsorily acquired respondent Raymunda Martinez's 62.5369-hectare land in Barangay Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988).
• Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) offered P1,955,485.60 as just compensation for the acquired land.
• Respondent rejected the offer as unjust and confiscatory, prompting the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), to conduct summary administrative proceedings for preliminary determination of just compensation under Section 16(d) of CARL.
• On September 4, 2002, PARAD Virgilio M. Sorita rendered judgment finding inconsistencies in LBP's computation and ordering LBP to pay respondent P12,179,492.50 as just compensation.
• Petitioner received a copy of the PARAD decision but filed a petition for fixing just compensation with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82, only 26 days after receipt, beyond the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
• Respondent filed an answer and moved to dismiss the SAC petition for being filed out of time, contending that the PARAD decision had become final after the lapse of 15 days.
• Respondent also filed a motion for writ of execution before the PARAD, which was granted on November 11, 2003.
• The PARAD denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution on February 23, 2004.
• On March 12, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to quash the February 23, 2004 resolution with the PARAD.
• While the motion to quash was pending, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on April 6, 2004 assailing the PARAD resolutions.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on September 28, 2004 for forum-shopping, noting petitioner failed to disclose the pendency of the motion to quash filed with the PARAD.
• The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on July 15, 2005.
• In its August 14, 2007 Decision, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, ruling that (1) the petition could not be filed without the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) entering appearance or giving conformity, (2) petitioner committed forum-shopping, and (3) the PARAD did not gravely abuse discretion as its decision attained finality after the 15-day period.
• Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 20, 2007 and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on November 8, 2007, raising among other grounds an alleged conflict with the Court's October 11, 2007 Decision in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903).

• Petitioner's lawyers are authorized to appear in the case by virtue of a letter of authority issued by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) dated April 17, 2006.
• Petitioner did not commit deliberate forum-shopping when it filed a motion to quash with the PARAD and simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
• The PARAD gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of execution to implement its decision.
• Respondent's defense of res judicata or the alleged finality of the PARAD's decision was never pleaded in her answer before the SAC and was therefore deemed waived.
• The PARAD had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution due to the pending petition for determination of just compensation with the SAC.
• The Court's August 14, 2007 Decision in this case is contrary to its October 11, 2007 Decision in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) regarding whether the petition for determination of just compensation was filed out of time.

• The filing of the motions for reconsideration is dilatory considering that the arguments raised therein have already been answered by the Court in the August 14, 2007 Decision.

• Procedural: Whether the Court should grant the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and reverse its August 14, 2007 Decision.
• Substantive Issues: Whether there is a conflict between the Court's August 14, 2007 Decision in this case and its October 11, 2007 Decision in LBP v. Suntay regarding the period for filing a petition for fixing just compensation with the SAC; whether a petition for fixing just compensation with the SAC, though an original action, must be filed within the 15-day period under Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure; and whether the PARAD decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period.

• Procedural: The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with finality. The grounds raised were identical to those in previous pleadings and had already been sufficiently passed upon, except for the alleged conflict with the Suntay case which the Court resolved.
• Substantive: The Court resolved the apparent conflict between its decisions by declaring that the better rule is that stated in Philippine Veterans Bank, reiterated in Lubrica, and in the August 14, 2007 Decision in this case. While a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator's decision will attain finality. The Suntay ruling, which allowed a belated filing, is inconsistent with settled doctrine. This rule accords with law, jurisprudence, and principles of justice and equity, as belated petitions should not leave dispossessed landowners in uncertainty as to the true value of their property.

• Finality of PARAD Decisions on Land Valuation — Decisions of agrarian reform adjudicators on land valuation attain finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, unless a petition for fixing just compensation is filed with the Special Agrarian Court within said period.
• Nature of Petition for Fixing Just Compensation — A petition for fixing just compensation filed with the Special Agrarian Court is an original action exercising original and exclusive jurisdiction under Section 57 of RA 6657, not an appeal from the PARAD decision; however, it must be filed within the 15-day reglementary period to prevent the PARAD decision from becoming final.
• Forum Shopping — Filing a motion to quash with the PARAD while simultaneously filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals constitutes forum-shopping, especially when the pendency of the motion to quash is not disclosed.
• Representation of Government-Owned Corporations — A petition for review on certiorari by a government-owned corporation like Land Bank of the Philippines cannot be filed without the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) entering its appearance as principal legal counsel or giving its conformity to the filing.

• "While a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicator's decision but an original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules; otherwise, the adjudicator's decision will attain finality."
• "Verily, a belated petition before the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a year, or even a decade after the land valuation of the DAR adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed landowner in a state of uncertainty as to the true value of his property."
• "This rule is not only in accord with law and settled jurisprudence but also with the principles of justice and equity."

• Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals (379 Phil. 141 (2000)) — Controlling precedent holding that the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for fixing just compensation because it was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in the DARAB Rules.
• Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica (G.R. No. 159145, April 29, 2005) — Controlling precedent ruling that the adjudicator's decision had already attained finality because LBP filed the petition for just compensation beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
• Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903, October 11, 2007) — Distinguished as inconsistent; held that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for determination of just compensation as filed out of time, treating it as an original action not subject to the 15-day period.
• Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (331 Phil. 1070 (1996)) — Cited in Suntay; emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SAC is original and exclusive, not appellate; decided at a time when Rule XIII, Section 11 was not yet present in the DARAB Rules.

• Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), Section 16(d) — Provides for summary administrative proceedings by the DARAB for preliminary determination of just compensation.
• Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), Section 57 — Grants the Special Agrarian Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over just compensation cases.
• Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure — Prescribes the 15-day period for appeal or finality of adjudicator's decisions.
• Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that willful and deliberate forum-shopping constitutes direct contempt of court and cause for administrative sanctions.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs petitions for certiorari.