Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 372 views

    Land Bank of The Philippines - vs. Eli Natividad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Yv Es
    Land Bank filed a petition challenging a trial court's ruling on the compensation owed to private respondents for the government's acquisition of their agricultural lands under PD 27. Land Bank argued its counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing with its motion for reconsideration was excusable negligence. It also argued respondents failed to first seek reconsideration from DAR before filing in court. The Supreme Court ruled against Land Bank, finding its counsel's error was not excusable negligence. It also found while DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine compensation, the courts have final say, so respondents did not need to first seek reconsideration from DAR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Land Bank of The Philippines - vs. Eli Natividad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Yv Es
    372 views1 page
    Land Bank filed a petition challenging a trial court's ruling on the compensation owed to private respondents for the government's acquisition of their agricultural lands under PD 27. Land Bank argued its counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing with its motion for reconsideration was excusable negligence. It also argued respondents failed to first seek reconsideration from DAR before filing in court. The Supreme Court ruled against Land Bank, finding its counsel's error was not excusable negligence. It also found while DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine compensation, the courts have final say, so respondents did not need to first seek reconsideration from DAR.

    Original Description:

    Agri and Social Legislation Digest

    Original Title

    Land Bank of the Philippines.vs. Eli Natividad Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Land Bank filed a petition challenging a trial court's ruling on the compensation owed to private respondents for the government's acquisition of their agricultural lands under PD 27. Land Bank argued its counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing with its motion for reconsideration was excusable negligence. It also argued respondents failed to first seek reconsideration from DAR before filing in court. The Supreme Court ruled against Land Bank, finding its counsel's error was not excusable negligence. It also found while DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine compensation, the courts have final say, so respondents did not need to first seek reconsideration from DAR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    372 views1 page

    Land Bank of The Philippines - vs. Eli Natividad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Yv Es
    Land Bank filed a petition challenging a trial court's ruling on the compensation owed to private respondents for the government's acquisition of their agricultural lands under PD 27. Land Bank argued its counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing with its motion for reconsideration was excusable negligence. It also argued respondents failed to first seek reconsideration from DAR before filing in court. The Supreme Court ruled against Land Bank, finding its counsel's error was not excusable negligence. It also found while DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine compensation, the courts have final say, so respondents did not need to first seek reconsideration from DAR.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 1

    LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

    vs. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD and JOSE R. CAGUIAT


    G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005
    FACTS:
    Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just
    compensation for their agricultural lands, which were acquired by the government
    pursuant to PD 27. The RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for
    P30 per square meters. Land Bank was not able to file its motion for reconsideration on
    time because the motion filed by its counsel lacked a notice of hearing. Land Bank argues
    that the failure of its counsel is due to intense work-pressure and constitutes excusable
    negligence, so the trial court should have heard the relief in accordance with Sec 1 of
    Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Land Bank also argues that respondents
    failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the
    determination of just compensation directly with the trial court because they should have
    first sought reconsideration of the DAR's valuation of their properties.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing constitutes excusable
    negligence entitling Land Bank to a relief from judgment.
    2. WON respondents should have sought reconsideration from DAR.
    Held:
    The petition is unmeritorious.Reasoning: Land Bank's argument that its counsel
    committed an excusable negligence when he was not able to file the motion on time is
    untenable. Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary
    manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform program,
    but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just
    compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially
    a judicial function.
    Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just
    compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice

    You might also like