LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs THE COURT OF APPEALS and

HEIRS of MANUEL BOLAÑOS (G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016)

FACTS:

The Dept. of Agrarian Reform subjected the land of the private respondents
to the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Private
respondents rejected the valuation of the petitioner but the later still
deposited the amount of the valuation in their favor. Private respondents
filed before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, sitting as a
Special Agrarian Court (SAC), a case for determination of just compensation.
The SAC ordered the petitioner to re-value the property, which it did, but the
new valuation was still rejected by the private respondent. A notice of appeal
under Rule 41 was filed by the private respondent. Petitioner filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that private respondents availed a wrong mode of
appeal. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss on
grounds of liberality in the construction of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

considering that there is a long-standing jurisprudence that appeals from the
decision of the SAC must be via a petition for review under Rule 42 and not
by an ordinary appeal and considering further that the CA excused a
technical lapse to give way to the need to aptly dispense substantial justice
in the normal course

RULING

Yes, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The proper mode of appeal
from the decisions of RTCs sitting as SACs is by petition for review under
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and not through an ordinary appeal under Rule
41. Section 60 of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
clearly and categorically states that said mode of appeal should be adopted.
While it is true that the Court have applied a liberal application of the rules of
procedure in a number of cases, the Court have stressed that this can be
invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.
JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES remedy is a bar to the bringing of the petition for certiorari ONLY where such
G.R. No. 158464, August 2, 2016 appeal is in itself a sufficient and adequate remedy, in that it will promptly
relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment or final order
Facts: complained of. considering that the petition plainly alleges grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC by violating petitioner's right to due
Petitioner, as registered owner of 19.6843 hectares agricultural land in
process or equal protection, the same should be fully heard if only to
Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, filed in the RTC of Dumaguete City a complaint
ascertain and determine if the very serious allegations are true.
for the fixing of just compensation for her lands and prayed that the DARAB
valuation be set aside and declared null and void. She assailed the November
22, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioner's petition
for certiorari for not being the proper remedy, thereby affirming the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 12558 by the trial court on the ground of the
valuation by the Department of Agrarian Reform having already become final
due to her failure to· bring her action for judicial determination of just
compensation within 15 days from notice of such valuation, and the June 2,
2003 resolution denying her motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether petitioner was prevented from assailing the dismissal by petition

for certiorari considering that pursuant to Section 60 of RA 6657, the
decision became final because an appeal by petition for review was not
taken from the decision of the RTC as the SAC within 15 days from notice of
the decision considering further that there was no proof of service on the CA
of a copy of the petition as required by Section 3, Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court and Circular No. 19-91, thereby warranting the outright dismissal of
the petition.

Ruling:

No, petitioner should not be prevented from assailing the dismissal by

petition for certiorari provided her resort complied with the requirements of
the Rules of Court (ROC) for the bringing of the petition for certiorari.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the ROC provides that the following requisites must
concur for certiorari to prosper: 1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a
board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; 2) such
tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
and 3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. The Court held that the availability of an appeal as a