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.

Answer: 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.