GR 93661; (September, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93661 September 4, 1991
Sharp International Marketing, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Land Bank of the Philippines and Deogracias Vistan, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Sharp International Marketing entered into a Contract to Sell with United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) on April 27, 1988, for a vast estate in Camarines Norte at a price of P3,183,333.33. Even before acquiring title, Sharp, through its president Alex Lina, offered to sell the same property to the government for P56 million under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). After Sharp secured title on December 6, 1988, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through Secretary Philip Ella Juico, issued an order on December 29, 1988, directing its acquisition for P62,725,077.29. Secretary Juico and Lina signed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 9, 1989.
However, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) President Deogracias Vistan, upon discovering Sharp’s original acquisition cost was only P3.1 million, refused to sign the necessary documents and pay, requesting a reconsideration. Secretary Juico then ordered a reappraisal. Sharp filed a petition for mandamus to compel LBP and DAR to comply with the contract, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. Sharp elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent LBP President can be compelled by mandamus to sign the deed and release payment for the land acquisition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. Mandamus does not lie as the act demanded is not ministerial. The LBP, under the CARP law, is not a mere rubber stamp of the DAR Secretary but has a distinct role and discretion in the land valuation and payment process, especially concerning the propriety of the compensation. The Court found the transaction highly questionable, noting the unconscionable price inflation from an acquisition cost of P3.1 million to a selling price of over P62 million within a very short period, which indicated a scheme to defraud the government. The government is not estopped by the errors of its officials, and contracts tainted with irregularities are not enforceable. The Court upheld Vistan’s refusal to participate in a transaction deemed dishonest and detrimental to public interest.