LBP v.

De Leon
G.R. No. 143275
September 10, 2002
Sec. 5 Art. 7 of the Constitution: That Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
FACTS:
The petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon are the
registered owners of a parcel of land situated at San Agustin, Concepcion,
Tarlac covered by TCT No. 163051 with a total area of 50.1171 hectares. The
subject property was voluntarily offered for sale to the government pursuant to
RA 6657 at P50,000.00 per hectare. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
made a counter offer of P17,656.20 per hectare, or a total amount of
P884,877.54, but the same was rejected. Another offer was made by DAR
increasing the amount to P1,565,369.35. In view of the petitioners-appellees'
failure to respond to the new offer made by DAR, the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) took cognizance of the case pursuant to
Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657. Subsequently, the DARAB issued an
Order directing respondent-appellant LBP to recompute the value of the subject
property in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992.
respondent-appellant upon applying the DAR AO NO.6 1992 arrived at a
recomputed aggregate land value of P2,491,731.65 which was again rejected.
Petitioners-appellees filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Tarlac,
which is the designated Special Agrarian Court in the area and asked the court,
among others, to fix the just compensation of the subject property. Which fixed
the value of the land which is P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 hectares of riceland;
and P2,957,250.00 for the 30.4160 hectares of sugarland. DAR filed a petition
for review in the Court of Appeals(CA) while petitioner LBP filed an "ordinary
appeal" with the CA. CA then dismissed the petition of LBP on the grounds that
the mode of appeal by LBP was incorrect.
ISSUE:
1.

Whether or not the decision of the CA in dismissing the appeal valid.

HELD:
1.
Yes, The Court held that the CA's decision to dismiss the appeal is valid
because under RA 6657 sec 60 that the proper mode of appeal for a decision of
the Special Agrarian Court is through a petition for review and that the
provisions on sec 61 of that law on the rules of court(ordinary appeal) cannot
be given due course because it merely makes a general reference to the rules

of court and does not even provide for ordinary appeal. Since RA 6657 sec 60
already provides for the proper mode of appeal under Sec 6 Art 7 of the
Constitution the rules of procedures of special courts, in this case with regard
to special agrarian court is effective until disapproved by the Supreme Court.
There being no disapproval by the SC with regard to the rules and procedure of
the special agrarian court, the petition must then be denied.