Sharp International Marketing vs CA G.R. No. 93661. September 4 1991.
!AC"S# UCPB entered into a Contract to Sell to Sharp International Marketing, the agreement to be converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale upon pament b the latter of the full purchase price of P!,"#!,!!!$!!$ %n Ma "&, "'##, even before it had ac(uired the land, the petitioner o)ered to sell to the *overnment for P+,---,---$--, .later increased to P+,---,---$--/$ 0he o)er 1as processed, processed, resulting resulting in the recommendation recommendation b the Bureau of 2and Ac(uisition Ac(uisition and Distribution in the DA3 for the ac(uisition of the propert at a price of P!+,+!4$5- per hectare, or roughl P5,---,---$--$ Subse(uentl, a Deed of Absolute Sale 1as e6ecuted bet1een UCPB and Sharp b virtue of 1hich the former sold the estate to the latter for the stipulated consideration of P!,"#!,!!!$!!$ DA3 and the 2and Bank of the Philippines created a Compensation Clearing Committee .CCC/ to e6pedite processing of the papers relating to the ac(uisition of the land and the preparation of the necessar deed of transfer for signature b the DA3 Secretar and the 2BP President$ 7ventuall, 0he DA3 Secretar 8uico issued an order directing the ac(uisition of the estate for the recommended recommended amount and re(uiring 2BP to pa the same to Sharp$ %n 8anuar ', "'#', Secretar 8uico and petitioner 2ina signed the Deed of Absolute Sale$ 9o1ever, the 2BP President :istan discovered that Sharp had ac(uired the propert from UCPB for onl P!$" million, re(uested Secretar 8uico to reconsider his December 4', "'## order$ As a result, :istan informed 8uico that 2BP 1ould not pa the stipulated purchase price Sharp then ;led a petition for mandamus 1ith this court to compel the DA3 and 2BP to compl 1ith the contract$ 0his Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals, 1hich dismissed it$ 0he petitioners are no1 back 1ith this Court, this time to (uestion the decision of the Court of Appeals$
ISS$%S# "$ <%= there there is a perfected perfected agreement agreement bet1een bet1een the petitioners petitioners and and the *overnment$ *overnment$ 4$ <%= the petition petitioners ers are are entitled entitled to a 1rit of mandamus mandamus to compel the 2BP Presid President ent to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale$ !$ <%= the 2BP President President has has the authorit authorit to refuse refuse to sign the Deed Deed of Absolute Absolute Sale$ Sale$ &%'(# 1. N). N). "her "here e is no per* per*e+ e+te, te, agreem agreemen entt betbet-ee een n the the peti petiti tion oner ers s an, an, the the Government. 3$A$ 3$A$ +5, Sec$ "#, >the 2BP shall compensate the lando1ner in such amount as ma be agreed upon b the lando1ner and the DA3 and 2BP, in accordance 1ith the criteria provided provided in Secs$ " and "5, and other pertinent provisions hereof, hereof, or as ma be ;nall determined b the court, as the just the just compensation compensation for the land." land."
. N). "he petitioners are not entitle, to a -rit o* man,am/s to +ompel the '0 resi,ent to sign the (ee, o* Absol/te Sale sin+e the (ee, o* Absol/te Sale ha, no bin,ing e2e+t. 2ike1ise, respondents cannot be compelled b a 1rit of mandamus to discharge a dut that involves the e6ercise of ?udgment and discretion, especiall 1here disbursement of public funds is concerned$ It is established doctrine that mandamus 1ill not issue to control the performance of discretionar, non@ministerial, duties, that is, to compel a bod discharging duties involving the e6ercise of discretion to act in a particular 1a or to approve or disapprove a speci;c application !$ %S. "he '0 resi,ent has the a/thorit to re*/se to sign the (ee, o* Absol/te Sale. 0he Court ruled that the act re(uired of the 2BP President is not merel ministerial but involves a high degree of discretion$ 0he 2BP has the discretion to agree on the amount stated in the DAS, after its revie1 and evaluation because it becomes its dut to sign the deed$ But not until then$ or, it is onl in that event that the amount to be compensated shall have been >established according to la1$ In this case, the compensation to be approved 1as not triing but amounted to as much as P4 million of public funds, to be paid in e6change for propert ac(uired b the seller onl one month earlier for onl P! million$ 0hus, in the e6ercise of such po1er of revie1 and evaluation, it results that the amount of P4,54+,-55$4' being claimed b petitioner is not the >amount to be established b the government$> Conse(uentl, it cannot be the amount that 2BP is b la1 bound to compensate petitioner$