Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171101 2012-04-24	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Upon separate motions of the parties for reconsideration, the Court, by Resolution[3] of November 22, 2011, recalled and set aside the option thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI, while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them.
	GR No. 168105 2011-07-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SEVERINO LISTANA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The above ruling was reiterated in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals.[23] In that case, petitioner landowner who was dissatisfied with the valuation made by LBP and DARAB, filed a petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC (SAC). However, the RTC 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. On appeal, the CA upheld the order of dismissal. When the case was elevated to this Court, we likewise affirmed the CA and declared that: To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly §50 thereof, Rule XIII, §11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
	GR No. 177511 2010-06-29	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FORTUNE SAVINGS ABAD, J.
Although the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or CARL to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation for lands taken under the CARP, such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.[6] The CARL vests in the RTCs, sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation.[7] This means that the RTCs do not exercise mere appellate jurisdiction over just compensation disputes.[8]
	GR No. 157882 2006-03-30	DIDIPIO EARTH-SAVERS MULTI-PURPOSE ASSOCIATION v. ELISEA GOZUN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
jurisprudence on the jurisdiction of courts in the determination of just compensation and that it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to the same matter. Indeed, there is nothing in the provisions of the assailed law and its implementing rules and regulations that exclude the courts from their jurisdiction to determine just compensation in expropriation proceedings involving mining operations. Although Section 105 confers upon the Panel of Arbitrators the authority to decide cases where surface owners, occupants, concessionaires refuse permit holders entry, thus, necessitating involuntary taking, this does not mean that the determination of the just compensation by the Panel of Arbitrators or the Mines Adjudication Board is final and conclusive. The determination is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. There is nothing wrong with the grant of primary jurisdiction by the Panel of Arbitrators or the Mines Adjudication Board to determine in a preliminary matter the reasonable compensation due the affected landowners or occupants.[52] The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts to decide determination of just compensation remains intact despite the preliminary determination made by the administrative agency. As held in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals[53]: 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.