Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 620 views

    Sps Lee and Huang v. Land Bank of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Rachel Marbella
    This case involves a dispute over the valuation of land that was acquired through compulsory acquisition. The RTC ruled that the valuation by the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines was too low and set a higher compensation amount. The Land Bank appealed but the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling and held that (1) even if appeal fees are paid, the appellant has a duty to ensure the records are transmitted to the appellate court, and (2) appellants have a duty to diligently prosecute their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Lee and Huang v. Land Bank of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Rachel Marbella
    620 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the valuation of land that was acquired through compulsory acquisition. The RTC ruled that the valuation by the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines was too low and set a higher compensation amount. The Land Bank appealed but the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling and held that (1) even if appeal fees are paid, the appellant has a duty to ensure the records are transmitted to the appellate court, and (2) appellants have a duty to diligently prosecute their appeal.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Sps Lee and Huang v. Land Bank of the Philippines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the valuation of land that was acquired through compulsory acquisition. The RTC ruled that the valuation by the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines was too low and set a higher compensation amount. The Land Bank appealed but the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling and held that (1) even if appeal fees are paid, the appellant has a duty to ensure the records are transmitted to the appellate court, and (2) appellants have a duty to diligently prosecute their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    620 views2 pages

    Sps Lee and Huang v. Land Bank of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Rachel Marbella
    This case involves a dispute over the valuation of land that was acquired through compulsory acquisition. The RTC ruled that the valuation by the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines was too low and set a higher compensation amount. The Land Bank appealed but the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. The CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling and held that (1) even if appeal fees are paid, the appellant has a duty to ensure the records are transmitted to the appellate court, and (2) appellants have a duty to diligently prosecute their appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    218867, February 17, 2016

    SPOUSES EDMOND LEE AND HELEN HUANG, Petitioners, v. LAND


    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    FACTS:

    Petitioners-spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang (petitioners) are the registered
    owners of parcels of land with an aggregate area of 5.4928 hectares (has.) situated in
    Mambog, Hermosa, Bataan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
    26257 of the Register of Deeds of Bataan (subject property). The subject property was
    compulsorily acquired by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in accordance with
    Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive
    Agrarian Reform Law of 1988."

    DAR offered the sum of P109,429.98 as just compensation for the 1.5073-ha. portion of
    the subject property. Rejecting the valuation, petitioners instead filed the present petition
    for determination of just compensation against Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz
    of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and herein
    respondent before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 7171.

    In defense, respondent claimed that its valuation was based on DAR Administrative Order
    (AO) No. 11, series of 1994, as amended by DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998. It also
    contended that petitioners' appraisal was biased.

    The RTC Ruling and Subsequent Proceedings

    After due proceedings, the RTC, sitting as a SAC, rendered a Decision dated January 17,
    2002 rejecting the valuation given by respondent and setting the just compensation for
    petitioners' 1.5073 has. at P250.00 per square meter, or a total amount of P3,768,250.00.
    It took judicial notice of the fact that the lots within the vicinity of the subject property are
    valued between F200.00 to P500.00 per square meter.

    Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 14, 2002.

    Petitioners filed a motion for execution of the RTC's January 17, 2002 Decision, alleging
    that while they received a copy of respondent's Notice of Appeal dated June 19, 2002,
    upon verification, no such appeal was actually filed before the RTC. Respondent denied
    petitioners' claim and asserted that it filed a Notice of Appeal in accordance with the rules
    and has, therefore, perfected its appeal. As such, the RTC's January 17, 2002 Decision
    was not yet final and executory.

    Finding that respondent had perfected its appeal and based on equitable considerations
    and the highest interest of justice, the RTC, in an Order dated June 7, 2007, gave due
    course to respondent's appeal and directed that the entire records thereof be transmitted

    Remedial Law
    to the CA.

    The RTC clarified that respondent was able to file its Notice of Appeal within the
    prescribed period and that a postal money order in the amount of P520.00 had been
    issued by respondent in favor of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Balanga City, Bataan,
    representing the payment of the appeal fee.

    Upon a meticulous inspection of the records, the RTC found that respondent failed to pay
    the prescribed appeal fees. While it is true that Postal Money Order No. J8353389-390
    had been issued by respondent as purported payment therefor, records show that the
    amount pertaining thereto had not been remitted or credited to the account of the Office
    of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. According to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Clerk of Court
    of the RTC, Mr. Gelbert Argonza (Mr. Argonza), respondent's failure to pay the appeal
    fees was the reason why the records of the case were not transmitted to the CA,
    explaining that proof of payment of the appeal fees is a required attachment that forms
    part of the records to be transmitted to the CA.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of
    the RTC when it dismissed respondent's appeal for failure to prosecute.

    HELD:

    Failure to transmit appeal; appellant’s duty to prosecute.

    It was held that even if the prescribed fees have already been paid, the appellant still has
    the duty to exercise diligence and prudence in ascertaining that the records of the case
    have been transmitted to the CA and that the appeal has been given due course.
    Appellants who fail to exercise that duty shall be considered to have abandoned their
    appeal and to have consequently failed to prosecute it.

    Under the Rules of Court (Section 3 of rule 44), if the original record, or the record on
    appeal, is not transmitted to the CA within 30 days after the perfection of the appeal either
    party may file a motion with the trial court for the transmittal of that record. It is an
    established rule that appellants have the duty to prosecute their appeal with reasonable
    diligence.

    Remedial Law

    You might also like