G.R. No. 152324. April 29, 2005.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. PEPITO PLANTA, in his capacity as Provincial Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and FAUSTINO B. TOBIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Faustino Tobia voluntarily offered his agricultural land for sale under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the property at ₱1,145,075.41. Tobia rejected this valuation. The Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB then conducted summary proceedings and fixed just compensation at ₱250,000.00 per hectare, a decision LBP sought to challenge.
LBP filed an original action for judicial determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), docketed as A.C. No. 0634. While this SAC case was pending at the pre-trial stage, the Provincial Adjudicator, upon Tobia’s motion, issued a writ of execution to enforce the DARAB decision. The Adjudicator reasoned that the right to elevate valuation to the SAC belonged solely to the landowner, not the LBP, rendering its DARAB decision final and executory. LBP’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed LBP’s petition for certiorari, ruling it was the wrong remedy to assail the DARAB Adjudicator’s writ of execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The CA erred in dismissing the petition outright on the ground that a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy. The writ of execution issued by the Provincial Adjudicator was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment appealable via Rule 43. The proper remedy against an interlocutory order issued without or in excess of jurisdiction is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
The legal logic is clear: a petition for review under Rule 43 applies to appeals from final judgments or resolutions of quasi-judicial agencies. An order granting execution, while the main issue of just compensation was still pending judicial determination before the SAC, was interlocutory. The Adjudicator acted with grave abuse of discretion by issuing the writ, effectively disregarding the pending SAC case. Furthermore, the CA should not have dismissed the petition based merely on a motion for extension; it should have awaited the actual petition to properly determine the appropriate remedy. Thus, the Supreme Court reinstated the petition for certiorari and directed the CA to conduct further proceedings.