CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
RAPHAEL DESCARTES M. ROLDAN
JD 2-A
Case Title: JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG, petitioner, vs. LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
THROUGH THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER,
respondents.
Case No.: G.R. No. 158464
Date: August 2, 2016
Ponente: Bersamin, J.
Doctrine: xxx
Facts: Petitioner Limkaichong, for purposes of placing those lands within the coverage of
Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657), the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, in Dumaguete
City sent to her in 1998 several Notices of Land Valuation and Acquisition by which
her lands were valued for acquisition by the DA.
Petitioner filed in August 19, 1999 at the RTC in Dumaguete City a complaint for
the fixing of just compensation for her lands, 10 impleading as defendant the Land
Bank of the Philippines and the DAR, represented by the DAR Secretary, through
the Dumaguete Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer. Petitioner prayed that the
DARAB valuation be set aside and declared null and void, and that in its stead the
price of her lands be fixed based on the fair market value thereof.
Issue: Whether or not on the question of constitutional right to equal protection of law, the
court of appeals decision dated November 22, 2002 ruling that the petition for
certiorari was not the proper remedy is contrary to the law and jurisprudence as
applied to the evidence on record. The petitioner was the registered owner of
agricultural lands with a total area of 19.6843 hectares situated in Villegas,
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. (OCT)
FV-34400, OCT No. 34401, OCT No. 34402, and OCT No. 34403, all of the
Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental.
Ruling: The court ruled that Certiorari was the proper remedy despite the availability of
appeal. The petition for certiorari thereby plainly alleged that the RTC had
committed grave abuse of discretion by violating the petitioner's constitutional right
to due process or equal protection. Such a petition should not be forthwith dismissed
but should be fully heard if only to ascertain and determine if the very serious
allegations were true.
Moreover, the court also ruled that the dismissal of petitioner’s action was unfair
and improper.
Petition is granted.
