Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182704 2014-04-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. VICTORINO T. PERALTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Phil. Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[19] we explained that the consequence of the said rule is that the adjudicator's decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period. Republic v. Court of Appeals[20] and subsequent cases[21] clarified that the determination of the amount of just compensation by the DARAB is merely a preliminary administrative determination which is subject to challenge before the SACs which have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation under Section 57, R.A. No. 6657.
	GR No. 184282 2012-04-11	FRANCISCO SORIANO v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioners contend that there is no statutory basis for the promulgation of the DARAB procedure providing for a mode of appeal and a reglementary period to appeal. On the matter of whether the DARAB Rules of Procedure laid out an appeal process and the validity of the 15-day reglementary period has already been laid to rest, the Court, in Republic v. Court of Appeals[17] and subsequent cases[18] has clarified that the determination of the amount of just compensation by the DARAB is merely a preliminary administrative determination which is subject to challenge before the SACs which have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation under Section 57, R.A. No. 6657. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, we ruled
	GR No. 188376 2011-12-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO SUNTAY BERSAMIN, J.
The Court ruled in favor of Land Bank. For both Land Bank and Suntay (including his assignee Lubrica), the holding in Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 157903) became the law of the case that now controlled the course of subsequent proceedings in the RTC as a Special Agrarian Court. In Cucueco v. Court of Appeals,[81] the Court defined law of the case as "the opinion delivered on a former appeal." Law of the case is a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.[82] With the pronouncement in G.R. No. 157903 having undeniably become the law of the case between the parties, we cannot pass upon and rule again on the same legal issue between the same parties.
	GR No. 168105 2011-07-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SEVERINO LISTANA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, in the 2007 case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Suntay,[26] the Court ruled that the RTC erred in dismissing LBP's petition for determination of just compensation on the ground that it was filed beyond the fifteen-day period provided in Section 11, Rule XIII of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals (supra), we stressed therein the original and exclusive -- not appellate -- jurisdiction of the SAC over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners.[27]
	GR No. 169008 2008-07-31	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ NACHURA, J.
This ruling, however, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, runs counter to the Court's recent decision in Suntay [the motions for reconsideration in Suntay were denied with finality in the January 30, 2008 Resolution of the Court[10]], in which the Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for determination of just compensation on the ground that it was filed out of time. The Court in that case stressed that the petition was not an appeal from the adjudicator's final decision but an original action for the determination of just compensation.