

Font Size

   SECOND DIVISION

 [G.R. No. 122256. October 30, 1996.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

represented by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), and LAND BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ACIL
CORPORATION, respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioners.

Edelino B. Mong for Land Bank of the Philippines.
Dominguez Paderna & Tan Law Offices, Co. for
private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1.   LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION;

COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW (R.A. NO.
6657); REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AS SPECIAL
AGRARIAN COURTS; ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION. — Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which
are Regional Trial Courts, are given original and
exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to
wit: (1) "all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution
of all criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The
provision of §50 must be construed in harmony with
this provision by considering cases involving the
determination of just compensation and criminal cases
for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as excepted from the
plenitude of power conferred on the DAR. Indeed, there
is a reason for this distinction. The DAR is an
administrative agency which cannot be granted
jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for such are
takings under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases.
Thus in EPZA v. Dulay and Sumulong v. Guerrero we held
 that the valuation of property in eminent domain is
 essentially a judicial function which cannot be vested in
administrative agencies.
Font Size
2.   ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE FOR THE
  
DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO
LANDOWNERS. — Thus, under the law, the Land Bank of
 the Philippines is charged with the initial responsibility
of determining the value of lands placed under land
reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking.
Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant to
§16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR makes an offer. In
case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary
administrative proceeding is held and afterward the
provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central
(DARAB) adjudicator as the case may be, depending on
the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid for the
land. If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed,
he may bring the matter to the RTC acting as Special
Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the
determination of compensation cases under R.A. No.
6657. In accordance with it, the private respondent's
case was properly brought by it in the RTC, and it was
error for the latter court to have dismissed the case. In
the terminology of §57, the RTC, sitting as a Special
Agrarian Court, has "original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners." It would subvert this
"original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the
DAR to vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases
in administrative officials and make the RTC an
appellate court for the review of administrative
decisions.
3.  ID.; ID.; ADJUDICATORS ARE EMPOWERED
TO DETERMINE IN A PRELIMINARY MANNER THE
REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO
LANDOWNERS. — Consequently, although the new rules
speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators
to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear
from §57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to
transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to
convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into
appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to §57 and
therefore would be void. What adjudicators are
empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary
 manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to
 landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to
decide this question.
Font Size
4.   REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; ONLY A
  
STATUTE CAN CONFER JURISDICTION ON COURTS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. — Apart from the
 fact that only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts
and administrative agencies — rules of procedure
cannot — it is noteworthy that the New Rules of
Procedure of the DARAB, which was adopted on May
30, 1994, now provide that in the event a landowner is
not satisfied with a decision of an agrarian adjudicator,
the landowner can bring the matter directly to the
Regional Trial Court sitting as Special Agrarian Court.
HATEDC

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

Private respondent Acil Corporation owned

several hectares of land in Linoan, Montevista, Davao
del Norte, which the government took pursuant to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657).
Private respondent's certificate of title were cancelled
and new ones were issued and distributed to farmer-
beneficiaries.
The lands were valued by the Land Bank of the
Philippines at P19,312.24 per hectare for the riceland
and P4,267.68 per hectare for brushland, or for a total
of P439,105.39. It appears, however, that in the
Statement of Agricultural Landholdings ("LISTASAKA")
which private respondent had earlier filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), a lower "Fair
Value Acceptable to Landowner" was stated and that
based on this statement, the Land Bank of the
Philippines valued private respondent's lands uniformly
at P15,311.79 per hectare and fixed the amount of
P390,557.84 as the total compensation to be paid for
the lands.
Private respondent rejected the government's
offer, pointing out that nearby lands, planted to the
same crops were valued at the higher prices of
 P24,717.40 per hectare. The matter was brought before
 the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
who, on October 8, 1992, sustained the initial valuation
Font Size
made by the LBP.
  
On December 12, 1992, private respondent filed a
Petition for Just Compensation in the Regional Trial
 Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte, sitting as a special
Agrarian Court. Private respondent prayed that DAR be
ordered to pay P24,717.40 per hectare. However, the
RTC dismissed its petition on the ground that private
respondent should have appealed to the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), pursuant
to the latter's Revised Rules of Procedure, before
recourse to it (the RTC) could be had. In addition the
RTC found that, in violation of the DARAB's rules of
procedure the petition had been filed more than fifteen
(15) days after notice of the decision of the decision of
the PARAD.
Private respondent moved for reconsideration but
its motion was denied on October 13, 1994. Private
respondent therefore filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals, contending that a petition for just
compensation under R.A. No 6657 §§56-57 falls under
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC. His
contention was sustained by the Court of Appeals
which, in its decision 1 of October 4, 1995, set aside the
order of dismissal of the RTC. Accordingly, the case
was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
In turn the government, represented by the
Department of Agrarian Reform, filed this petition for
review on certiorari, raising as the issue whether in
cases involving claims for just compensation under
R.A. No. 6657 an appeal from the decision of the
provincial adjudicator to the DARAB must first be made
before a landowner can resort to the RTC under §57.
Petitioner sustain the affirmative proposition. They cite
§50 of R.A. No. 6657 which in pertinent part provides:
§ 50. Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR.
— The DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the
 exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
 Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Font Size
...
  
and argue that the fixing of just compensation for
the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is a "[matter]
 involving the implementation of agrarian reform"
within the contemplation of this provision. They
invoke §16(f) of R.A. No. 6657, which provides that
"any party who disagrees to the decision [of the DAR]
may bring the matter to the court of proper
jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation," as confirming their construction of
§50.
The contention has no merit.
It is true that §50 grants the DAR primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian
reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over
"all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform," except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. It is
also true, however, that §57 provides:
§57. Special Jurisdiction. — The
Special Agrarian Courts shall have original
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions
for the determination of just compensation
to landowners, and the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules
of Court shall apply to all proceedings before
the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified
by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Court shall
decide all appropriate cases under their
special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days
from submission of the case for decision.
Thus Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial
Courts, are given original and exclusive jurisdiction over
two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners" and
(2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under [R.A.
No. 6657]." 2 The provision of §50 must be construed in
harmony with this provision by considering cases
 involving the determination of just compensation and
 criminal cases for violations of R.A. No. 6657 as
excepted from the plenitude of power conferred on the
Font Size
DAR. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. The
   DAR is an administrative agency which cannot be
granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for
such are taking under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal
 cases. Thus in EPZA v. Dulay 3 and Sumulong v. Guerrero
4 we held that the valuation of property in eminent

domain is essentially a judicial function which cannot

be vested in administrative agencies, while in Scoty's
Department Store v. Micaller 5 we struck down a law
granting the then Court of Industrial Relations
jurisdiction to try criminal cases for violations of the
Industrial Peace Act.
Petitioners also cite Rule II, §5 and Rule XIII,
§1 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure in support of
their contention that decisions of agrarian reform
adjudicators may only be appealed to the DARAB.
These rules provide:
Rule II, §5. Appellate Jurisdiction. —
The Board shall have exclusive appellate
jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter or
affirm resolutions, orders, decisions, and
other dispositions of its [regional and
provincial agrarian reform adjudicators].
Rule XIII, §1. Appeal to the Board. — a)
An appeal may be taken from an order or
decision of the Regional or Provincial
Adjudicator to the Board by either of the
parties or both, by giving or stating a written
or oral appeal within a period of fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the resolution, order
or decision appealed from, and serving a
copy thereof on the opposite or adverse
party, if the appeal is in writing.
b)  An oral appeal shall be reduced
into writing by the Adjudicator to be signed
by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be
served upon the opposite or adverse party
within ten (10) days from the taking of oral
appeal.
 Apart from the fact that only a statute can confer
 jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies —
rules of procedure cannot — it is noteworthy that the
Font Size
New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, which was
   adopted on May 30, 1994, now provide that in the event
a landowner is not satisfied with a decision of an
agrarian adjudicator, the landowner can bring the matter
 directly to the Regional Trial Court sitting as Special
Agrarian Court. Thus Rule XIII, §11 of the new rules
provides:
§11. 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 Court within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall
be entitled to only one motion for
reconsideration. (Italics supplied)
This is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the
decision of just compensation cases for the taking of
lands under R.A. No. 6657 is a power vested in the
courts.
Thus, under the law the Land Bank of the Philippines
is charged with the initial responsibility of
determining the value of lands placed under land
reform and the compensation to be paid for their
taking. 6 Through notice sent to the landowner
pursuant to §16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR makes
an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a
summary administrative proceeding is held 7 and
afterward the provincial (PARAD), the regional
(RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator as the
case may be, depending on the value of the land,
fixes the price to be paid for the land. If the
landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may
bring the matter to the RTC acting as Special
Agrarian Court. 8 This in essence is the procedure for
the determination of compensation cases under R.A.
No. 6657. In accordance with it, the private
respondent's cases was properly brought by it in the