LBP VS. CA AND JOSE PASCUAL

FACTS

Private respondent Jose Pascual owned 3 parcels of land located in Guttaran, Cagayan. Pursuant to the Land Reform Program of the Government under PD 27 and EO 228, the Department of Agrarian Reform placed these lands under its Operation Land Transfer. The Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform also conducted its own valuation proceedings and requiring herein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the amount. Private respondent Jose Pascual, opposing the recommended AGP of the PARO, filed a petition for the annulment of the recommendation on the productivity and valuation of the land covered by OLT, subject matter hereof, with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent nullifying the AGP recommended by the PARO.

After receiving notice of the decision of the PARAD, private respondent accepted the valuation. However, when the judgment became final and executory, petitioner LBP as the financing arm in the operation of PD 27 and EO 228 refused to pay thus forcing private respondent to apply for a Writ of Execution with the PARAD. Secretary of the DAR wrote a letter to petitioner LBP requiring the latter to pay the amount stated in the judgment of the PARAD. Despite the letter of Secretary, petitioner LBP remained adamant in its refusal to pay private respondent. It reiterated its stand that the PARAD had no jurisdiction to value lands covered by PD 27.

ISSUE
Whether DARAB has jurisdiction to determine the valuation of lands

RULING
Yes. The petitioner contends that Section 12, par. (b), of PD 946 provides that the valuation of lands covered by PD 27 is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Petitioner asserts that Sec. 17 of EO 229 and Sec. 50 of RA No. 6657, which granted DAR the exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters thereby divesting the Court of Agrarian Relations of such power, did not repeal Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946. Petitioner now attempts to reconcile the pertinent laws by saying that only the Secretary of Agrarian Reform can determine the value of rice and corn lands under Operation Land Transfer of PD 27, while on the other hand, all other lands covered by RA 6657 (CARL) shall be valued by the DARAB, hence, the DARAB of the DAR has no jurisdiction to determine the value of the lands covered by OLT under PD 27.

The above provision (Sec. 17) should be deemed to have repealed Sec. 12 (a) and (b) of Presidential Decree No. 946 which invested the then courts of agrarian relations with original exclusive jurisdiction over cases and questions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by presidential issuances promulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program. For on the contrary, it is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian reform although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final determination of just compensation is vested in the courts.


Comments