[G.R. No. 169008. August 14, 2007.

]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ, respondent.

Facts:
Respondent Martinez acquired a hectare land through compulsory acquisition made by the
Department of Agrarian Reform in Romblon pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1998. Petitioner Land Bank offered Php1.9M as just compensation. However, she rejected it, she felt
that the offered amount was unjust and confiscatory. The Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted
summary administrative proceedings. for the determination of just compensation in accordance
with Sec. 16 of CARL.

PARAD found some inconsistencies in the computation made by Land Bank, thus, an amount of
Php12M was computed. A petition to fix the just compensation was filed before the Special Agrarian
Court (SAC), the RTC. Respondent contends that PARAD’s decision became final after the lapse of 15
days from their receipt and moved the dismissal of the petition because it was filed out of time.

Respondent filed before the PARAD a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution which was
eventually granted. Aggrieved the petitioner LBP moved a motion to quash the writ of execution and
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. LBP contended that the office of the PARAD gravely abuse
its discretion in issuing a writ of execution despite the pendency of a petition with the SAC for the
fixing of just compensation.

The CA dismissed the petition and find that LBP is guilty of forum shopping for not disclosing the
pendency of the motion to quash. Thus, LBP elevated the case with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the PARAD 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.

Ruling:
we find petitioner not entitled to the grant of a writ of certiorari by the appellate court

No, the office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its decision. Based on Rule 13, Section 11 of the
DARAB Rules of Procedure.

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 27 and in Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board v. Lubrica. Based on previous jurisprudence: the court explained that the
consequence of the said rule to the effect that the adjudicator’s decision on land valuation attains
finality after the lapse of 15-day period.

And on 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 11 days beyond the reglementary period, thus, the
decision had attained finality. Therefore, PARAD could issue the writ of execution and PARAD did not
gravely abuse its discretion.

Section 57.
SAC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this act. the rules of
court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special agrarian courts unless modified by this act.

special agrarian courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within 30
days from submission of the case for decision