PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, vs CA, Secretary of
DAR, DARAB (Davao City) and LBP
Facts:
 Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) owned 4 parcels of
land in Tagum, Davao, and these lands were taken
by the DAR for distribution to landless farmers
pursuant to Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(RA No. 6657).
 Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by
LBP and DARAB, PVB filed a petition with the RTC
for a determination of just compensation for the
properties. The petition was dismissed on the
ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary
period for filing appeals from the orders of the
DARAB.
 PVB argues that DAR adjudicators have no
jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for
the taking of lands under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, because such
jurisdiction is vested in RTC designated as Special
Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the
fixing of just compensation can be filed beyond the
15-day period of appeal provided from the decision
of the DAR adjudicator.
 Respondents argue that actions for the fixing of just
compensation must be filed in the appropriate
courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision
of the DAR adjudicator, otherwise such decision
becomes final and executory, pursuant to Section 51
of R.A. No. 6657.
 CA affirmed this decision. CA added that the
jurisdiction over the land valuation is lodged in the
DARAB. PVB filed for reconsideration but was
denied too.
Issue: Whether the jurisdiction over the fixing of just
compensation is under DARAB.
Held: DAR has jurisdiction
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly
Section 50 thereof, Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB
Rules of Procedure provides:
Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment
of Just Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on
land valuation and preliminary determination and
payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to
the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional
Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any
party shall be entitled to only one motion for
reconsideration.
There is nothing contradictory between the "agrarian
reform matters" under the jurisdiction of DAR and the "all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform"
[which includes just compensation] and the RTC’s
“original and exclusive jurisdiction” over all petitions for
the determination of just compensation to the landowner.
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 CARP, but such determination is
subject to challenge in the courts. The first is an
administrative proceeding while the second is judicial.

Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court

was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII,
Section 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the
trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of
Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ, respondent.
G.R. No. 169008. August 14, 2007.]
 After compulsory acquisition by the (DAR), on
Novembern16, 1993, of respondent Martinez's
62.5369-hectare land in Barangay Agpudlos, San
Andres, Romblon, petitioner Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) offered P1,955,485.60 as just
compensation.
 Martinez rejected offer.
 After DARAB AND PARAD conducted summary
administrative proceedings for the preliminary
determination of just compensation in accordance
with Section 16 (d) of the CARL ordered the payment
of Php12,179,492.50
 A petition for the fixing of just compensation 5
docketed as Agrarian Case No. 696 was then led by
LBP's counsel before the Special Agrarian Court
(SAC), the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan,
Romblon, Branch 82.
 Martines asserts that that the petition filed by LBP was
of out time which led him to file a motion for writ of
execution which was granted on November 11, 2003.
 Ascertaining that the petition before the SAC was led
by LBP 26 days after it received a copy of PARAD
decision, the Office of the PARAD denied LBP's

motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance
of a writ of execution on February 23, 2004.
 LBP instituted a petition for certiorari before the CA
contended that the Offce of the PARAD gravely
abused its discretion when it issued the writ of
execution despite the pendency with the SAC of a
petition for the fixing of just compensation.
 CA dismissed LBP petition finding LBP guilty of
forum-shopping for not disclosing the pendency of the
Motion to Quash dated March 12, 2004.
 Thus, LBP, through its legal department, elevated the
case to this Court on September 9, 2005 via a petition
for review on certiorari 16 under Rule 45, contending,
among others, that it did not commit deliberate forum
shopping for what it led with the Offie of the PARAD
was a motion to quash, which is not an initiatory
pleading, and that the decision of the PARAD cannot
be executed due to the pending petition for fixing of
just compensation with the SAC.
Issues:
 (1) whether or not petitioner may file the instant appeal attorney's fees shall accrue to a Special fund of
solely through its legal department; the OGCC, and shall be deposited in an
authorized government depository as trust
Ruling liability and shall be made available for
1. No. Court explained in one of its resolutions that expenditure without the need for a Cash
nothing in the LBP charter expressly authorizes the Disbursement Ceiling, for purposes of
LBP Legal Department to appear in behalf of LBP in upgrading facilities and equipment, granting of
any court or quasi-judicial proceeding and that the employee's incentive pay and other bene ts, and
Administrative Code of 1987 mandates the OGCC, not defraying such other incentive expenses not
the LBP Legal Department, to act as the principal law provided for in the General Appropriations Act
office of the LBP, thus: as may be determined by the Government
Corporate Counsel. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 10. Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel. — The Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) shall act as the
principal law of office of all government-owned
or controlled corporations, their subsidiaries,
other corporate offsprings and government
acquired asset corporations and shall exercise
control and supervision over all legal
departments or divisions maintained separately
and such powers and functions as are now or
may hereafter be provided by law. In the
exercise of such control and supervision, the
Government Corporate Counsel shall
promulgate rules and regulations to effectively
implement the objectives of the Office.
The OGCC is authorized to receive the
attorney's fees adjudged in favor of their client
government-owned or controlled corporations,
their subsidiaries/other corporate offsprings and
government acquired asset corporations. These
 LBP vs HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ
G.R. No. 175175. September 29, 2008
FACTS:
 Eleuterio Cruz is the registered owner of an
unirrigated riceland situated in Lakambini, Tuao,
Cagayan.
 Of the total 13.7320 hectares of respondents'
landholding, an area of 13.5550 hectares was
placed by the government under the coverage of
the operation land transfer program under PD 27.
 LBP pegged the value of the acquired landholding
at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines set forth
under PD 27 and EO 228.
 Respondents rejected LBP's valuation and
instituted an action for a summary proceeding for
the preliminary determination of just
compensation before the PARAD.
 In 1999, the PARAD rendered a decision fixing the
just compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per
hectare.
 LBP sought reconsideration but was unsuccessful.
 In 2000, petitioner LBP filed a petition for the
determination of just compensation before the
RTC of Tuguegarao City.
 LBP, through the head of the LBP Evaluation
Division of Land Owner's Compensation
Department, and the Chief of PARAD-Cagayan,
states that they computed the valuation of
respondents' landholdings based on the formula
set forth in PD 27, EO 228 and AO 13, series of
1994 and arrived at the value of P106,935.76 and
that the subject landholding was tenanted and
covered by production agreements between the
owner and various tenants.
 LBP also contended that the subject landholding
had an average production of 25 and 40 cavans per
hectare annually.
 However, the heirs of Eleuterio Cruz
counterclaimed that the subject landholding was
planted with rice two or three times a year and
had a production capacity of 80 to 100 cavans per
hectare and that the current market value of the
property was between P150,000.00 to P200,000.00
per hectare.
 The RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner LBP,
fixing the just compensation to P80,000.00.
 Not satisfied, petitioner LBP elevated the case
before the CA to determine just compensation and
the total land area as well as the amount of just
compensation adjudged by the RTC.
 CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this
recourse.
ISSUE: Whether the formula set forth in P.D. 27/E.O.
228 should be applied in fixing just compensation
since respondents' landholding was acquired under
P.D. No. 27?
HELD:
NO. The RTC should determine with dispatch the just
compensation due respondents strictly in accordance
with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998. The Court
explained that while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers
are already deemed owners of the land they till, they
are still required to pay the cost of the land before the
title is transferred to them and that pending the
payment of just compensation, actual title to the
tenanted land remains with the landowner.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, the Court
ruled that the factors enumerated under Section 17,
R.A. No. 6657 had already been translated into a basic
formula by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) pursuant to its rule-making power under
Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the Court held in
Celada that the formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5,
series of 1998 30 should be applied in computing just
compensation.

In Paris v. Alfeche, the application of the process of

agrarian reform was still incomplete thus, the Court
held therein that with the passage of R.A. No. 6657
before its completion, the process should now be
completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and
E.O. No. 228 applying only suppletorily.

The amount of just compensation due to respondents

had not yet been settled by the time R.A. No. 6657
became effective. Following the aforementioned
pronouncement in Paris, the fixing of just
compensation should therefore be based on the
parameters set out in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27
and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory effect.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA  In its answer, Land Bank raised the affirmative
CELADA defense of non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies. It contended that Celada must first
ONLINE BRIEF
await the outcome of the DARAB case before
FACTS: taking any judicial recourse. Meanwhile, the
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator affirmed the
 Celada owns an agricultural land, 60% of which
valuation made by Land Bank.
was identified in 1998 by the Department of
 Thereafter, the Special Agrarian Court (SAC),
Agrarian Reform (DAR) as suitable for
where Celada’s petition was filed, rendered
compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive
judgment fixing the value of the land at
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Upon
P354,847.50, finding that Celada’s evidence
indorsement to it for field investigation and
showed that the neighboring lands of similar
valuation, Land Bank valued the said land at
classification were paid higher than what was
P299,569.61.
quoted by Land Bank. It denied Land Bank’s
 DAR offered the same amount to Celada as just
affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals
compensation. Celada, however, rejected the offer.
dismissed Land Bank’s appeal.
The matter was then referred to the DAR
 Land Bank maintains that the SAC erred in
Adjudication Board (DARAB) for summary
assuming jurisdiction over Celada’s petition for
administrative hearing on the determination of
judicial determination of just compensation
just compensation.
despite the pendency of the administrative
 During the pendency of the DARAB case, Celada
proceedings before the DARAB. It also contends
filed a petition for judicial determination of just
that the SAC erred in fixing the just compensation
compensation, alleging that the current market
of the land based on the valuation of neighboring
value of her land was at least P2,129,085.00.
lands instead of its actual land use.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction
over the petition for judicial determination of just
compensation pending administrative proceedings
before the DARAB;
2.) Whether or not the SAC erred in fixing the just
compensation of the land based on the valuation of
neighboring lands
HELD:
new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as SACs, the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the
RTCs.
It should be emphasized that the taking of property
under the CARP is an exercise of the power of eminent
domain by the State. The valuation of property or
determination of just compensation is a judicial function.
Thus, the SAC properly took cognizance of Celada’s
petition for determination of just compensation.

The petition is GRANTED. SAC erred in fixing just compensation based on

valuation of neighboring lands
SAC correctly assumed jurisdiction over determination
of just compensation The SAC, however, erred in setting aside Land Bank’s
valuation of the land on the sole basis of the higher
The SAC did not err in assuming jurisdiction over the valuation given for neighboring properties. It did not
petition for determination of just compensation despite apply the DAR valuation formula which considers
the pendency of the administrative proceedings before capitalized net income, comparable sales and market
the DARAB. As the Court held in Land Bank of the value per tax declaration as components of land value.
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the RTC, sitting as a
SAC, has ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners.’ This ‘original and exclusive’ jurisdiction of
the RTC would be undermined if DAR would vest in
administrative officials original jurisdiction in
compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court
for the review of administrative decision. Although the
 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and JOSE PASCUAL
G.R. No. 128557. December 29, 1999
BELLOSILLO, J:
 Facts:
 Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3)
parcels of land located in Gattaran, Cagayan.
 Pursuant to the Land Reform Program of the
Government under PD 27 and EO 228, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed
these lands under its Operation Land Transfer
(OLT).
 In compliance with EO 228, the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the DAR in an
Accomplished OLT Valuation Form recommended
Average Gross Productivity (AGP) should be 25
cavans per hectare for unirrigated lowland rice.
 Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform (SAR) also conducted its own valuation
proceedings apart from the PARO.Private
respondent Jose Pascual, opposing the
recommended AGP of the PARO.
 PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent
nullifying the AGP recommended by the PARO.
 Instead, the PARAD applied the 1976 AGP and the
AGP stated in private respondent's Tax
Declarations to determine the correct
compensation and "Government Support Price"
(GSP) of P300 for each cavan of palay and P250 for
each cavan of corn.
 PARAD ordered petitioner LBP to pay private
respondent P1,961,950.00.
 After receiving notice of the decision of the
PARAD, private respondent accepted the
valuation. However, when the judgment became
final and executory, petitioner LBP as the
financing arm in the operation of PD 27 and EO
228 refused to pay thus forcing private respondent
to apply for a Writ of Execution with the PARAD
which the latter issued on 24 December 1992. Still,
petitioner LBP declined to comply with the order.
 Secretary Ernesto Garilao Jr. of the DAR wrote a
letter to petitioner LBP requiring the latter to pay
the amount stated in the judgment of the PARAD.
 Again, petitioner LBP rejected the directive of
Secretary Garilao. Petitioner LBP Executive Vice
President, Jesus Diaz, then sent a letter to
Secretary Garilao arguing that (a) the valuation of
just compensation should be determined by the
courts; (b) PARAD could not reverse a previous
order of the Secretary of the DAR; and, (c) the
valuation of lands under EO 228 falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR
and not of the DARAB.
 Petitioner LBP having consistently refused to
comply with its obligation despite the directive of
the Secretary of the DAR and the various demand
letters of private respondent Jose Pascual, the
latter finally filed an action for Mandamus in the
Court of Appeals to compel petitioner to pay the
valuation determined by the PARAD.
 The appellate court also required petitioner LBP to
pay a compounded interest of 6% per annum in
compliance with DAR Administrative Order No.
13, series of 1994.
 Petitioner's MR was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether DARAB of the DAR has jurisdiction to
determine the value of lands covered by OLT under PD
27?
Whether private respondent Pascual should file a case in
the Special Agrarian Court to compel Petitioner
Landbank to pay just compensation?
Held:
FIRST ISSUE
Yes. It is the DARAB which has the authority to
determine the initial valuation of lands involving
agrarian reform although such valuation may only be
considered preliminary as the final determination of just
compensation is vested in the courts.
Thus, petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD
946 is still in effect cannot be sustained. It seems that the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing
Memorandum Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the
DARAB to refrain from hearing valuation cases involving
PD 27 lands.
SECOND ISSUE
No. Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides
that the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction
over the final determination of just compensation cases, it
must be noted that petitioner Landbank never contested
the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation
stated in its decision became final and executory. There
was therefore no need for private respondent Pascual to
file a case in the Special Agrarian Court.
already stated, there is no need for such concurrence.
Without such obstacle, petitioner can now be compelled
to perform its legal duty through the issuance of a writ of
mandamus.
Decision is AFFIRMED.

Although the case at bar pertains to an involuntary sale

of land, the same principle should apply. Once the Land
Bank agrees with the appraisal of the DAR, which bears
the approval of the landowner, it becomes its legal duty
to finance the transaction. In the instant case, petitioner
participated in the valuation proceedings held in the
office of the PARAD through its counsel, Atty. Eduard
Javier. It did not appeal the decision of PARAD which
became final and executory.

As a matter of fact, petitioner even stated in its Petition

that "it is willing to pay the value determined by the
PARAD PROVIDED that the farmer beneficiaries concur
thereto."

These facts sufficiently prove that petitioner LBP agreed

with the valuation of the land. The only thing that
hindered it from paying the amount was the non-
concurrence of the farmer-beneficiary. But as we have
 LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARLENE
DELEON AND BERNANRDO DE LEON
 A petition was filed to the Special Agrarian Court
FACTS: (SAC) of Tarlac to fix the just compensation on the
subject property. The Court rendered a summary
judgment fixing the compensation as follows: (A)
 Arlene and Bernardo De Leon are the registered
Php 1,260,000.00 for the Riceland and (B) Php
owners of a parcel of land situated at San Agustin,
2,957,250.00 for the Sugarland; The LBP filed a MR
Concepcion, Tarlac. The said property was
on the said judgment but the same was denied.
voluntarily offered for sale to the government
pursuant to RA 6657 at Php 50,000.00 per hectare.
 Hence, the LBP filed an appeal in the CA which the
The DAR made a counter offer of Php 17,656.20 per
same at first was given due course but eventually
hectare, or a total amount of Php 884,877.54, but the
dismissed for lack of merit because according to the
same was rejected.
CA the LBP did not follow the proper of mode of
 The DAR again made an offer, increasing the
appeal in appealing the decision of the SAC to the
amount to Php 1,565,369.35. Due to the failure of
CA.
the De leon’s to respond to the new offer, the
DARAB took cognizance of the dispute and
directed the LBP to re-compute the value of the
 According to the CA the notice of appeal filed by
subject property in accordance with DAR
LBP is in effectual and it does not toll the running
Administrative Order No. 6, an aggregate
of the reglementary period of 15 days within which
amount of Php 2,491,731.65 was computed but still
to file an appeal because it is in violation of section
it was rejected.
60 of RA 6657 which requires that all Appeals taken
from the decision of the SAC must be in the nature
of petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mode of appeal provided by
Section 60 of RA 6657 will prevail over the modes of
appeal provided by the 1997 Rules of Court?

HELD:
The Court ruled in the affirmative, according to the
Court when the law specifically provides a mode of
appeal, the Court must observe the said mode and apply
the same in all cases governed by the said law.
LBP did not observed the mode of appeal provided
by section 60 of RA 6657. Therefore, the decision of SAC
became final and executory.