Limkaichong v LBP

FACTS
1. DARAB issued a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition to Limkaichong for
acquisition of his 4 parcels of land with a total of 19.6hectares located in
Negros Oriental.
2. Limkaichong rejected the offer of valuation, so DARAB conducted a summary
proceeding for determination of just compensation, wherein the earlier
valuation was affirmed.
3. More than two months after the DARAB order affirming the valuation,
Limkaichong filed a complaint for the fixing of the just compensation with RTC
as SAC.
4. In LBPs MD, they allege that Limkaichong failed to timely appeal the DARAB
order, thus it became final and executory.
5. In Limkaichongs opposition, she admitted that the complaint filed in RTC is
outside the reglementary period of 15 day, but RTC acquires jurisdiction
because her cause of action was anchored on the violation of due process
and the taking without just compensation because the valuation was too low.
6. RTC granted the MD.
7. CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
1. Whether RTC sitting as SAC can acquire jurisdiction despite filing the remedy
beyond the reglementary period of 15 days, pursuant to Sec 57 of RA6657.
HELD
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on
certiorari, and REVERSE the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated November 22, 2002; and DIRECT the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 30, in Dumaguete City to resume the proceedings in
Civil Case No. 12558 for the determination of just
compensation
of
petitioner
Jocelyn
S.
Limkaichong's
expropriated property.
1. RTC should proceed with the determination of just compensation
despite untimely filing of complaint.
According to EPZA v Dulay, determination of just compensation is
judicial in nature, as provided in the Constitution. The Court has previously
ruled that the courts still have the authority to appoint commissioners for the
determination of just compensation, despite decrees prescribing the rules on
valuation of the land to be taken. This is because it would be violative of due
process to deny the landowner to prove that the basis used by the
administrative officers in determining the valuation is wrong. In other words,
he should be allowed to prove that the valuation in tax documents are wrong.
Furthermore, RA6657 Sec57 provides that RTC as SAC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for determination of just
compensation.

In Republic v CA, the Court emphasizes that although the New Rules
of Procedure of the DARAB speak of directly appealing the decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from
Sec57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such
cases is in the RTC. Therefore, being within its original and exclusive
jurisdiction, the complaint for determination of just compensation can be filed
with RTC, regardless of previous ruling by DARAB.
On the contrary, the more recent decision in the case of Phil Veterans
Bank, the Court ruled that the because the case was filed with RTC beyond
15 day reglementary period, it should be dismissed. This is in accordance
with the Rule XIII Sec11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB.
However, Republic v CA was the prevailing ruling when Limkaichong
filed the case with the RTC, and Phil Veterans Bank was only decided while
Limkaichongs case was pending in RTC. Therefore, Republic v CA ruling
should apply in this case.