a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
Case Digest: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Martinez, 530 SCRA 158 ,G.R. No. 169008, August 14, 2007
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Martinez
530 SCRA 158 ,
G.R. No. 169008
August 14, 2007
After compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), on November 16, 1993, of respondent Martinez’s 62.5369-hectare land in Barangay Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) offered ₱1,955,485.60 as just compensation. Convinced that the proffered amount was unjust and confiscatory, respondent rejected it.
Thus PARAD conducted summary administrative proceedings for thepreliminary determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 16 (d) of the CARL.
In a September 4, 2002 judgment, PARAD ordered LBP to pay petitioner the recomputed amount of Php12,179,492.50.
LBP filed with RTC petition for fixing just compensation 26 days after it received a copy of PARAD’s decision.
On November 11, 2003, granted respondent’s motion for the issuance of a writ of execution.
On February 23, 2004, Office of the PARAD ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.
LBP, on March 12, 2004, moved to quash the said February 23, 2004 PARAD resolution.
On April 6, 2004, even as the motion to quash was yet unresolved, LBP instituted a petition for certiorari before the CA.
CA found LBP guilty of forum-shopping for not disclosing the pendency of the Motion to Quash and dismissed the petition.
Whether or not the PARAD, in this case, gravely abused its discretion when it issued a writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP's petition for fixing of just compensation with the SAC
No. Finally and most importantly, we find petitioner not entitled to the grant of a writ of certiorari by the appellate court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002 decision. Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, which was then applicable, provides that:
Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen(15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
In Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals and in Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, we explained the consequence of the said rule to the effect that the adjudicator's decision on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period. Considering therefore that, in this case, LBP's petition with the SAC for the fixing of just compensation was filed 26 days after its receipt of the PARAD's decision, or eleven days beyond the reglementary period, the latter had already attained finality. The PARAD could very well issue the writ of execution.