LAND BANK OF THE

PHILS. V. CELADA
GR 164876, JAN. 23, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J.
 Arellano, Bea Mariz R.

Reporters:

Atienza, Adrian Gabriel

Bayan, Adrian Paolo

LAND BANK OF THE
PHILS. V. CELADA
GR 164876, JAN. 23, 2006
 FACTS
22.3167 HECTARES OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND.

14.1939 HECTARES UNDER

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

Leonila Celada
LBP's Land
Valuation:
PHP 2.1105517 per sqm for
an aggregate value of PHP
299,569.61
Section 16(d) or
RA No. 6657
 Leonila Celada

3
PHP 150,000 per hectare

MARO
Non-exhaustion
of adminsitrative
remedies

Forum shopping
PARAD
3
PHP 2.50 Per sqm or a total of PHP 354,
847.50 for the portion of 14.1939

12% legal interest per annum

LBP CA

ELEVATION TO THE CA
BY THE LBP
Dismissal of the Appeal
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:

Not accompanied with an affidavir of

service

LBP's Counsel indicated his IBP and

PTR but not his Roll of Atty's Number

Copies of PARAD Decision which

fixed the land valuation for just
compensation at PHP 299,569.11 and
Petition for Judicial Determiantion of
Just Compensation were not
attached as annexes

The motion for reconsideration

was likewise denied

LBP filed the instant petition under Rule

45 of the Rules of Court
 ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION
WHETHER OR NOT THE:

The CA erred in applying The SAC erred in assuming The SAC erred in fixing
Procedural Law jurisdiction just compensation
 COURT RULING:
01 1ST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Yes. The Court agrees to the petitioner that
the CA should have liberally constured the
rules of procedure and dismissed its appeal
on technical grounds.
02 2ND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
No. The Court does not agree with LBP's
submission that the SAC erred in assuming
jurisdiction over respondent's petition for
determination of just compensation
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, The Court nonetheless
held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction:
It is clear from Sec. 57 that 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 is clear from Sec. 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 Sec. 57 and therefore would be
void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private respondent is valid.
03 3RD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Yes. The Court agrees with petitioner that the SAC
erred in setting aside petitioner’s valuation of
respondent’s land on the sole basis of the higher
valuation given for neighboring properties.
 Bea Mariz Arellano
Reporters:
Land Bank of the
Phils. v. Celada
Adrian Gabriel Atienza

Adrian Paolo Bayan

 THANKS
FOR LISTENING!