AGRARIAN REFORM AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

Shiela Clarisse Adlawan

Grace Richel Tijam
Jochelle Inaldo
Hanna Gracia Gandia
 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NATIVIDAD

G. R. No. 127198 May 16, 2005

The land owner from Arayat, Pampanga named Jose R. Caguiat filed an action
to have the court determine their just compensation for the land acquired by
the government by pursuant of Presidential Decree 27 against DAR and Land
Bank.
After a due trial, the court decided to have the land priced at Php. 30.00 per
square meter and have the DAR and Land Bank pay for Php. 50,000 for
attorney's fee in addition to the cost of the suit.
Aggrieved, DAR and Land Bank filed a separate motions for reconsideration
which was denied by the court for being filed late.
In their efforts to have the case reversed, the Land Bank filed another petition
before the court citing that there was an excusable negligence on their part and
that their counsel did not mean to not notice that there was no notice of
hearing on the motion filed.
The court in response did not pay heed to what the Land Bank stated and firmly
state that the lost of their remedy is due to their own negligence and no one
else.
The Land Bank with no other recourse filed before the highest court of our land,
the Supreme Court, a petition for relief.
The issue in this case is whether or not the counsel's failure to include a notice
of hearing constitutes excusable negligence entitling land bank to a relief from
judgment. In addition, should the owners have sought reconsideration from
DAR.
The Supreme Court find the petition not meritorious. The Land Bank 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 the 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.