G.R. No. 101932 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR. AND LYDIA T. ESCAÑO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the Orders dated August 17, 1990, January 16, 18 and February 18, 1991 are set aside. Further, the petition before the Special Agrarian Court is hereby ordered dismissed." [4] The appellate court, accepted the argument that the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Procedure of R.A. 6657 was earlier than the date when the Escaños filed their petition to fix just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court on December 14, 1989. Said Revised Rules took effect on December 26, 1988. According to the Court of Appeals, the lower court could not "feign" jurisdiction because Section 1, Rule XVII of the Transitory Provisions of the Revised Rules states: "SECTION 1. Transitory Provisions. All agrarian cases pending before the regular courts of law at the time of the effectivity of these Rules shall remain with such courts until their final termination. Cases pending in the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform before the effectivity of these Rules may be decided and finally disposed of thereat in accordance with the principle of continuing jurisdiction. The Secretary, however, may, in his discretion sort out said cases and refer the justiceable and adversarial ones to the Adjudication Board for Section 1, Rule 11 hereof." [5] The appellate court further explained that when an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. It added that the Supreme Court in Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, had emphasized the indispensable role of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank in fixing preliminary valuation. Now before us, petitioners assert that the Court of Appeals erred: I IN HOLDING THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT OF BOHOL WITHOUT JURISDICTION FROM THE BEGINNING TO ENTERTAIN CIVIL CASE NO. 4644 WHICH CIVIL CASE IS FOR "DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION; II IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 59 OF R.A. 6657 IS NOT A BAR TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (CA-G.R. S.P. 24585) INSTITUTED BEFORE IT BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHILE CIVIL CASE NO. 4644 REMAINS PENDING BEFORE THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT; III IN HOLDING THAT E.O. 405 HAS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE THE FILING OF CIVIL CASE NO. 4644, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT CIVIL CASE NO. 4644 WAS FILED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF E.O. 405 AND IN HOLDING FURTHER THAT FAILURE TO SO COMPLY IS A GROUND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. 4644; IV IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT LBP IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF STATE AND AS SUCH IS EXEMPT FROM THE EFFECTS OF ESTOPPEL; V IN PASSING UPON ISSUES NOT RAISED IN THE PETITION THEREBY DENYING PETITIONERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRAVERSE AND CONTROVERT THEM. Of these assigned errors, let us focus on the first three, jointly. Recall that on May 30, 1994, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) adopted its new Rules of Procedure. Rule 13 Sec. 11 clearly states that in the event that a landowner is not satisfied wi