FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237994. June 27, 2018.]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES DEOGRACIAS K. MASIBAY AND TRINIDAD VISTAL, NAMELY: LUBIN, MARLENE, EMMA AND GRACE, ALL SURNAMED MASIBAY, REPRESENTED BY LUBIN MASIBAY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 27, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237994 — Land Bank of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Heirs of the late Spouses Deogracias K. Masibay and Trinidad Vistal, namely: Lubin, Marlene, Emma and Grace, all surnamed Masibay, represented by Lubin Masibay, Respondents.
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT it a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on April 3, 2018 within which to file a petition. HEITAD
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in determining the amount of just compensation for the properties involved in this case.
Although not raised as an issue, it is necessary to stress that contrary to the CA's disquisition, the petitioner properly filed therewith a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. This is because Section 60, Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, 1 explicitly provides that a Rule 42 petition is the proper mode of appeal to challenge the Decision of the Regional Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC). 2
At any rate, the Court nonetheless sustains the ruling of the CA, which dismissed the petition for review on the ground that the RTC-SAC properly applied the provisions under RA 6657, as the matters relevant to the determination of just compensation transpired prior to the enactment of RA 9700. 3 Verily, there is no sufficient reason for the Court to deviate from the findings and conclusion of the RTC-SAC, as affirmed by the CA, in determining the amount of just compensation for the subject properties. aDSIHc
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed April 7, 2017 Decision and March 14, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140373.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, June 10, 1988.
SECTION 60. Appeals. — An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final.
2.Land Bank of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 789 Phil. 577, 581-582 (2016).
3. Amending RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) Re: Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural Lands, Republic Act No. 9700, August 7, 2009; see Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Chu, G.R. No. 192345, March 29, 2017.