FACTS
PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF
Operation Land Transfer
Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an order requiring
petitioner LBP to pay Pascual
APPEALS AND JOSE PASCUAL However, Pascual filed a petition for annulment opposing the recommended
average gross product (AGP). He then presented evidences before the
G.R. NO. 128557
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD)
PARAD ruled in favor Pascual
ISSUE
Whether or not, LBP’s contentions are correct and that the CA erred in rendering
its judgments.
PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ, As ordered by the RTC and in accordance with RA 6657, a preliminary
valuation was released by the LBP in cash and in bond
ROBERTO ONG AND AUGUSTO However, Santos filed a motion for release of the balance of the garnished
amount with a claim that the bond was not acceptable to him and that the
said amount should be paid in cash or certified check
AQUINO LBP opposed the motion contending that the judgment amount had already
G.R. NO. 137431 been satisfied
RTC issued an order to release the balance from the garnished amount in cash
or certified check
10/13/2018
ISSUE
Whether or not, Petitions for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by the petitioner is
valid
CA also upheld the RTC’s order with the following statement:
RULING
“RA 6657 is clear and leaves no doubt as to its interpretation regarding the The Court finds no merit in the said petitions.
manner of payment of just compensation. The provision allows the landowner to
choose the manner of payment from the list provided therein, but since plaintiff
had obviously wanted to be made in cash, the trial court had only to apply Section Respondent was obliged to follow the mandate of the August 12, 1997 judgment
18 RA 6657 which provides for the payment of a percentage in cash and the [compensation to the petitioner “in the manner mandated by RA 6657” pursuant
balance in bond, in the exercise of her ministerial duty to execute decision which to Section 18 – The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may
had become final and executory. be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP, in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions
hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation
for the land.]
Hence, its compliance with the Writ of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment
ought to have been construed as an agreement to pay petitioner in a manner set
forth in the RA 6657. Its compliance was not an undertaking to pay in cash
because such act would have been a deviation from the dictum of the final
judgment, to which execution must conform. Paying in cash, as petitioner
demands, is not compatible with such judgment.