10/13/2018

FACTS

 Private respondent Jose Pascual owned 3 parcels of land located in Guttaran,

LAND BANK OF THE

Cagayan
 Pursuant to the Land Reform Program, his lands were placed under its

PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF
Operation Land Transfer
 Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an order requiring
petitioner LBP to pay Pascual
APPEALS AND JOSE PASCUAL  However, Pascual filed a petition for annulment opposing the recommended
average gross product (AGP). He then presented evidences before the
G.R. NO. 128557
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD)
 PARAD ruled in favor Pascual

By: MA PRINCESS DORIA

According to LBP, CA cannot issue the said

 LBP consistently refused to comply with its obligation
 Pascual then filed an action for Mandamus in the Court of Appeals which was
later granted.
 LBP averred the CA’s issuance of the Writ of Mandamus
Writ due to the following reasons:
1. It cannot enforce PARAD’s valuation due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, void.
2. CA cannot issue the Writ of Mandamus because it cannot be compelled to
perform an act which is beyond its legal duty.
3. Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued where there is plain, adequate and
complete remedy in the ordinary course of law.
 10/13/2018

ISSUE
Whether or not, LBP’s contentions are correct and that the CA erred in rendering
its judgments.

RULING The assailed decision of the CA granting the Writ of

1. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has the Mandamus directing petitioner LBP to pay Pascual is
authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian
reform.
AFFIRMED, with the modification that the 6%
2. LBP cannot be compelled to obey the Secretary of Agrarian Reform since the compounded interest per annum is DELETED, the same
bank did not merely exercise its ministerial function. Instead, it had an being no longer applicable.
independent discretionary role in land valuation and that the only time a
Writ of Mandamus could be issued against the LBP was when it agreed to
the amount of compensation determined by the DAR.
3. Private respondent’s remedies are far from plain, adequate and complete.

EDGARDO SANTOS FACTS

VS
LAND BANK OF THE  Petitioner Edgardo Santos filed an Agrarian case for the determination of just
compensation regarding his properties that were taken by the DAR

PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ,  As ordered by the RTC and in accordance with RA 6657, a preliminary
valuation was released by the LBP in cash and in bond

ROBERTO ONG AND AUGUSTO  However, Santos filed a motion for release of the balance of the garnished
amount with a claim that the bond was not acceptable to him and that the
said amount should be paid in cash or certified check
AQUINO  LBP opposed the motion contending that the judgment amount had already
G.R. NO. 137431 been satisfied
 RTC issued an order to release the balance from the garnished amount in cash
or certified check
 10/13/2018

 CA also upheld the RTC’s order with the following statement:
“RA 6657 is clear and leaves no doubt as to its interpretation regarding the
manner of payment of just compensation. The provision allows the landowner to
choose the manner of payment from the list provided therein, but since plaintiff
had obviously wanted to be made in cash, the trial court had only to apply Section
18 RA 6657 which provides for the payment of a percentage in cash and the
balance in bond, in the exercise of her ministerial duty to execute decision which
had become final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether or not, Petitions for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by the petitioner is
valid
RULING
The Court finds no merit in the said petitions.
Respondent was obliged to follow the mandate of the August 12, 1997 judgment
[compensation to the petitioner “in the manner mandated by RA 6657” pursuant
to Section 18 – The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may
be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP, in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions
hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation
for the land.]

Hence, its compliance with the Writ of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment
ought to have been construed as an agreement to pay petitioner in a manner set
forth in the RA 6657. Its compliance was not an undertaking to pay in cash
because such act would have been a deviation from the dictum of the final
judgment, to which execution must conform. Paying in cash, as petitioner
demands, is not compatible with such judgment.

The Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed

decision AFFIRMED.