LBP vs CA and Pascual Case Digest

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE PASCUAL G.R. No. 128557. December 29, 1999

BELLOSILLO, J: Facts:

Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, Cagayan. Pursuant to the Land Refor Progra of the Governent under P! "# and $% ""&, the !epartent !epartent of 'grarian Refor (!'R) (!'R) placed these lands under its its %peration Land ransfer (%L). n copliance with $% ""&, the Provincial 'grarian Refor %fficer (P'R%) of the !'R in an 'ccoplished %L *aluation +or recoended 'verage Gross Productivity ('GP) should e "- cavans per hectare for unirrigated lowland rice. eanwhile, the %ffice of the /ecretary of 'grarian Refor (/'R) also conducted its own valuation proceedings apart fro the P'R%. Private respondent Jose Pascual, opposing the recoended 'GP of the P'R%. P'R'! ruled in favor of private respondent nullifying nullifying the 'GP recoended recoended y the P'R%. nstead, the P'R'! applied the 01#2 'GP and the 'GP stated in private respondents a4 !eclarations to deterine the correct copensation and 5Governent /upport /upport Price5 (G/P) of P366 for each cavan of palay and P"-6 for each cavan of corn. P'R'! ordered petitioner L7P to pay private respondent P0,120,1-6.66. P0,120,1-6.66.  'fter receiving notice notice of the decision decision of the P'R'!, P'R'!, private respondent respondent accepted accepted the valuation. 8owever, when the 9udgent ecae final and e4ecutory, petitioner L7P as the financing ar in the operation of P! "# and $% ""& refused to pay thus forcing private respondent to apply for a :rit of $4ecution  with the P'R'! which the latter latter issued on "; !eceer !eceer 011". 011". /till, petitioner L7P declined to coply with the order. /ecretary $rnesto Garilao Jr. of the !'R wrote a letter to petitioner L7P re and, (c) the valuation of lands under $% ""& falls within the e4clusive  9urisdiction of the /ecretary of the !'R and not of the !'R'7. Petitioner L7P having consistently refused to coply with its oligation despite the directive of the /ecretary of the !'R and the various deand letters of private respondent Jose Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for andaus in the Court of 'ppeals to copel petitioner to pay the valuation deterined y the P'R'!. he appellate court also re