Case Digest: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals and Pascual, 321 SCRA 629 ,G.R. No. 128557, December 29, 1999
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Pascual
321 SCRA 629 ,
G.R. No. 128557
December 29, 1999
Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, Cagayan. Pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, the DAR placed these lands under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT).
On 11 June 1992 the PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent and ordered petitioner LBP to pay private respondent a total amount of P1,961,950.00. Private respondent accepted the valuation.
Petitioner LBP having refused to comply with its obligation despite the directive of the Secretary of the DAR and the various demand letters of private respondent Jose Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel petitioner to pay the valuation determined by the PARAD.
CA ruled in respondent’s favor.
Petitioner LBP asserts that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued where there is another plain, adequate and complete remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner claims that private respondent had three (3) remedies. The first remedy was to ask the sheriff of the DARAB to execute the ruling of PARAD by levying against the Agrarian Reform Fund for so much of the amount as would satisfy the judgment. Another remedy was to file a motion with the DAR asking for a final resolution with regard to the financing of the land valuation. Lastly, private respondent could have filed a case in the Special Agrarian Court for the final determination of just compensation.
Whether or not private respondent should have filed a case with the Special Agrarian Court for the final determination of just compensation.
No. Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction over the final determination of just compensation cases, it must be noted that petitioner never contested the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became final and executory. There was therefore no need for private respondent Pascual to file a case in the Special Agrarian Court.