2/7/00 4:01 PM 

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,1 [Per Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court), and Demetrio G. Demetria.] dated August 28, 1997, affirming the dismissal by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, of the petition for judicial determination of the just compensation filed by petitioner for the taking of its property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank owned four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, which are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-38666, T-38667, T-6236, and T-27591. The lands were taken by the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to landless farmers pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the valuation of the land made by respondents Land Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), petitioner filed a petition for a determination of the just compensation for its property. The petition was filed on January 26, 1994 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, which on February 23, 1995, dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing appeals from the orders of the DARAB. Its order2 [Dated February 23, 1995; RTC Records, pp. 54-55.] states in pertinent parts:

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed. It was held that:

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review. Petitioner raises the following issue:

Petitioner argues that DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the just compensation for the taking of lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, because such jurisdiction is vested in Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the fixing of just compensation can be filed beyond the 15-day period of appeal provided from the decision of the DAR adjudicator.

On the other hand, respondents argue that actions for the fixing of just compensation must be filed in the appropriate courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision of the DAR adjudicator, otherwise such decision becomes final and executory, pursuant to §51 of R.A. No. 6657.

Petitioner’s contention has no merit.

The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 provides:

There is nothing contradictory between the provision of §50 granting the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform," which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the provision of §57 granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657.4 [Quismundo v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 609 (1991)] The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to judicial proceedings. Under R.A. No. 6657, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the preliminary determination of the value of lands placed under land reform program and the compensation to be paid for their taking. It initiates the acquisition of agricultural lands by notifying the landowner of the government’s intention to acquire his land and the valuation of the same as determined by the Land Bank.5 [R.A. No. 6657, §16(a)] Within 30 days from receipt of notice, the landowner shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.6 [Id., §16(b)] In the event the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is held by the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, for the purpose of determining the compensation for the land. The landowner, the Land Bank, and other interested parties are then required to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. The DAR adjudicator decides the case within 30 days after it is submitted for decision.7 [Id., §16(d)] If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter directly to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.8 [Id., §16(f) in relation to §57.]

To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly §50 thereof, Rule XIII, §11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:

As we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals,9 [263 SCRA 750 (1996)] this rule is an acknowledgment by the DARAB that the power to decide just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is vested in the courts. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, §11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.

The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.10 [See San Miguel Brewery v. Secretary of Labor, 64 SCRA 56 (1975)]

Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, §11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. ULANDU