Case Digest (G.R. No. 150640)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Jose Pascual, G.R. No. 128557, December 29, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three parcels of agricultural land in Guttaran, Cagayan. The lands were placed under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) survey and the PARO’s “Accomplished OLT Valuation Form No. 1” (2 December 1989) recommended low Average Gross Productivities (AGPs) for the lots; separately the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (SAR) issued a valuation for Parcel 1 using an AGP of 25.66 and the 1972 Government Support Price (GSP).
In 1991 Pascual filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition to annul the PARO’s recommended AGP and valuation. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Cagayan heard the matter; PARO failed to appear and Pascual presented ex parte evidence, including a 1976 OLT valuation form and tax declarations asserting much higher AGPs. On 11 June 1992 the PARAD nullified the PARO recommendation, adopted higher AGPs (and the 1992 GSP of P300 for palay and P250 for corn), and ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Pascual a total of P1,961,950.00. Pascual accepted the decision.
LBP refused to pay when the PARAD decision became final and executory. The SAR directed LBP to pay but LBP insisted the DARAB lacked jurisdiction over PD 27 land valuation (citing PD 946, Sec. 12(b)) and argued that, under its financing role and PD 251, it could be obligated to pay only with the concurrence of the farmer-beneficiaries. After the PARAD issued a writ of execution and LBP still refused, Pascual sought and obtained a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals compelling LBP to pay the PARAD valuation and awarding 6% compou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the DARAB (through the PARAD) have jurisdiction to determine the valuation of lands under PD 27 such that the Court of Appeals correctly issued a writ of mandamus compelling LBP to pay the PARAD valuation?
- Could LBP be compelled to pay the PARAD valuation absent the concurrence of the farmer-beneficiaries, or was LBP’s obligation contingent on such concurrence and its own agreement?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in awarding the 6% compounded per annum interest under DAR A...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)