Case Digest (G.R. No. 152324)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Hon. Pepito Planta, G.R. No. 152324, April 29, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) seeks review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 66358 that dismissed a proposed petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy; the CA resolutions dated September 19, 2001 and February 12, 2002 are the subject of this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.Respondent Faustino B. Tobia was the registered owner of some 10.9044 hectares of agricultural land which he voluntarily offered for sale to the Government under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Pursuant to Executive Order No. 405, LBP, tasked with determining land valuation for agrarian reform acquisitions, valued the property at P107,962.83 per hectare (P1,145,075.41 total). Tobia rejected that offer as too low.
Summary administrative proceedings on just compensation were conducted before respondent Pepito Planta, in his capacity as Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) (docketed JCR‑II‑511‑ISA‑2000). On November 14, 2000 the Provincial Adjudicator issued a Decision setting valuation at P250,000.00 per hectare (corrected from a typographical P250.00). LBP moved for reconsideration; the motion was denied on January 25, 2001.
Tobia thereafter sought issuance of a writ of execution for the Provincial Adjudicator’s Decision (Manifestation and Motion dated April 16, 2001). LBP opposed, asserting it had filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation in the Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Branch 21, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (A.C. No. 0634, Land Bank of the Philippines v. Faustino Tobia), which had reached pretrial. Despite that pendency, the Provincial Adjudicator issued a Writ of Execution dated June 27, 2001; LBP received a copy on July 6, 2001, moved for reconsideration of the writ, and that motion was denied on August 8, 2001. The Provincial Adjudicator took the position that only the landowner could elevate valuation matters to the Special Agrarian Court, and therefore the Decision had become final and executory.
On August 30, 2001 LBP filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari to assail the writ of execution, explaining the interplay between the fifteen‑day filing period under Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 and the sixty‑day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, and asking for an extension to October 14, 2001. The CA, without ruling on LBP’s motion for extension and before receiving any actual petition, denied due cou...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari filed (or proposed to be filed) by petitioner LBP?
- If certiorari is the proper remedy, how should the fifteen‑day period under Section 54 of R.A. No. 6657 be reconciled with the sixty‑day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)