Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. RENE RALLA BELISTA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166259 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION BRION, J.
In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belista,[34] we extensively discussed the reasons why the SAC can properly assume jurisdiction over petitions for the determination of just compensation despite the pendency of administrative proceedings, thus: Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide:
	GR No. 166298 2010-11-17	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. JOEL R. UMANDAP AND FELICIDAD D. UMANDAP LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
4. In the 2009 case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belista,[35] this Court permitted a direct recourse to the SAC without an intermediate appeal to the DARAB as mandated under the new provision in the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. We ruled: Although Section 5, Rule XIXof the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that the land valuation cases decided by the adjudicator are now appealable to the Board, such rule could not change the clear import of Section 57 of RA No. 6657 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine just compensation is in the RTC. Thus, Section 57 authorizes direct resort to the SAC in cases involving petitions for the determination of just compensation. In accordance with the said Section 57, petitioner properly filed the petition before the RTC and, hence, the RTC erred in dismissing the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies while rules of procedure cannot.[36]
	GR No. 166461 2010-04-30	HEIRS OF LORENZO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CARPIO, J.
The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the SAC in just compensation cases is not a novel issue. This has been extensively discussed in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belista,[50] to wit: Sections 50 and 57 of RA No. 6657 provide: