LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v COURT OF APPEALS AND JOSE PASCUAL

G.R. NO. 128557

December 29, 1999
Topic: Section 75 Suppletory Application of Existing Legislation; just compensation

FACTS

Jose Pascual, the private respondent, owned three parcels of land in Guttaran Cagayan that were placed
by DAR under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT) following the Land Reform Program of the Government.
An area of unirrigated lowland rice, surveyed at 102,229 sqm (Parcel 1), an area of cornland, surveyed at
85, 381 sqm (Parcel 2), and an area of 161,338 sqm (Parcel 3) were all to be transferred to the
possession of the government. Land value, as provided by the law, was to be computed based on the
equation: (Average Gross Product x 2.5) x (Government Support Price). Parcel 1 upon determination was
valued at Php 22,952.97, which was approved by Landbank of the Philippines. However, private
respondent filed a petition for the annulment of the recommendation to Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the case was heard at the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD). Documentary evidence presented by the private respondent showed that his lands
were significantly undervalued. PARAD ruled in favor of Pascual thus ordering the petitioner LBP to pay
the following amounts: P613,200.00 for Parcel 1; P148,750.00 for Parcel 2; and P1,200,000.00 for Parcel
3; or a total amount of P1,961,950.00. LBP refused to pay the aforementioned amount arguing that just
compensation should be determined by a Special Agrarian Court. PARAD could not reverse the order of
the Secretary of DAR for lack of jurisdiction. The repeated refusal of the LBP to pay such amount led the
Court of Appeals to the issuance of writ of mandamus and ordered the payment with a compounded
interest of 6% per annum.

ISSUES

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the Writ of Mandamus in favor of private
respondent

HELD

No, the Court of Appeals stood by its earlier decision that the issuance of writ of mandamus is the
proper recourse in this case. Herein, petitioner presented three arguments supporting its refusal to
follow the court’s decision, which was rebutted. First, the petitioner argued that it cannot enforce
PARAD’s valuation due to lack of jurisdiction. Valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree 27 is
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. However, the court believe that
Section 8 of Republic Act 6557, as the more recent law, should apply to rice and corn lands mentioned
under the old law. In addition, Section 75 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is clear on the
matter that PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a suppletory effect. Petitioner also contended that CA
cannot issue a writ of mandamus because it cannot compel the performance of an act which is beyond
its legal duty. LBP, as a guarantor, cannot be ordered to finance a land without an existing agreement
among the three parties namely the creditor, debtor, and guarantor with regard to the valuation of the
land. Yet, the law is also clear that consent of the farmer-beneficiary (debtor) is not required in
establishing proper compensation for the landowner. Lastly, the petitioner also argued that there are
other plain, adequate, and complete remedy than the issuance of writ of mandamus including the filing
of case in the Special Agrarian Court for the final determination of just compensation. Repeated refusal
of the petitioner to comply with the order of PARAD, however, led the court to believe that it has
exhausted all the possible remedies to no avail and thus there was really no intention on the part of the
petitioner to pay the amount determined. Furthermore, filing of a case for final determination of just
compensation cannot also be considered as a possible recourse since LBP never contested the amount
of land valuation. Therefore, writ of mandamus was granted directing petitioner LBP to pay private
respondent the total amount of Php 1,961,950.00 with 6% compounded interest per annum.