Case Digest (G.R. No. 190660)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Diaz, G.R. No. 190660, April 11, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Elizabeth P. Diaz was the registered owner of a roughly 15-hectare parcel in San Ricardo, Talavera, Nueva Ecija (TCT No. 197132). Ten hectares were expropriated under Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) valued the expropriated portion at P54,880.59 plus increment of P143,041.59, totaling P197,922.18.
Dissatisfied, Elizabeth, through her attorney-in-fact Francisca P. De Guzman, filed a complaint on November 28, 2001 against Land Bank of the Philippines and the DAR before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC) (Special Agrarian Case No. 1194‑G), praying for just compensation in the amount of P350,000 per hectare (total P5,250,000). Three Commissioners were appointed to determine just compensation.
By Decision dated June 21, 2006, the SAC (Judge Ismael P. Casabar) adopted the DAR valuation based on average gross production and fixed just compensation plus increment at P19,107.235 per hectare (total P197,922.29), holding that under the formula in Gabatin v. LBP the Commissioner’s Report and fair market or assessed value could not be considered. Elizabeth’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Order dated August 31, 2006.
Elizabeth then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Land Bank and the DAR failed to file appellees’ briefs. Land Bank later moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Elizabeth used the wrong mode of appeal (an ordinary appeal under Rule 41) and that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Section 60 of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657); Land Bank relied on Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon to contend that the SAC decision had become final for failure to file the proper remedy within the reglementary period.
By Resolution dated June 2, 2009 the Court of Appeals denied Land Bank’s motion to dismiss, faulting Land Bank for not filing an appellee’s brief and for filing the motion belatedly (157 days after the briefing deadline). Land Bank filed the present petition for review ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the proper mode of appeal from a Regional Trial Court sitting as a Special Agrarian Court a petition for review under Rule 42 in accordance with Section 60 of RA 6657, such that an ordinary appeal was improper and deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction?
- Did the failure to employ the correct mode of appeal within the reglementary period render the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)