Sultan v. Department of Agrarian Reform

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234113. January 22, 2018.]

LARRY U. SULTAN, By Himself and in Behalf of the Heirs of Zosimo M. Sultan, namely: Tertulina U. Sultan, Imelda S. Picorro, Romana S. Espina, Sotero U. Sultan, and Maristina Antonia S. Mabini, petitioners,vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 January 2018 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 234113 (Larry U. Sultan, by himself and in behalf of the Heirs of Zosimo M. Sultan, namely: Tertulina U. Sultan, Imelda S. Picorro, Romana S. Espina, Sotero U. Sultan, and Maristina Antonia S. Mabini v. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the Philippines)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 30, 2016 Decision 1 and April 28, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 05311 for failure of petitioners Larry U. Sultan, by himself and in behalf of the Heirs of Zosimo M. Sultan, namely: Tertulina U. Sultan, Imelda S. Picorro, Romana S. Espina, Sotero U. Sultan, and Maristina Antonia S. Mabini (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying their appeal.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the proper mode of appeal from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court acting as Special Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC) is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court (Rules) and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the same Rules, following Sections 60 and 61 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988," and the Court's ruling in Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon, 4 as reiterated in Concepcion v. CA5 and Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA. 6 Since petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal, their notice of appeal did not toll the running of the reglementary period under Section 60 of RA 6657. Consequently, the May 22, 2014 Order 7 of the RTC-SAC became final and executory. Time and again, the Court has ruled that the right to an appeal is merely a statutory privilege, not a natural right nor a part of due process. Thus, perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, failure of which will render the judgment final and executory. While the Court has liberally applied the rules in a number of cases based on reasonable grounds, petitioners' bare invocation in this case of "substantial justice" does not justify the rules' relaxation. 8 Accordingly, the CA correctly denied petitioners' appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules for being the wrong remedy.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 99-112. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Edward B. Contreras concurring.

2.Id. at 119-121.

3. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; approved on June 10, 1988. Sections 60 and 61 thereof read in full:

   SEC. 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.

   An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of the DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.

   SEC. 61. Procedure on Review. — Review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall be governed by the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals, however, may require the parties to file simultaneous memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice, after which the case is deemed submitted for decision.

4. 437 Phil. 347, 358 (2002) and 447 Phil. 495, 502 (2003).

5. 593 Phil. 600, 604 (2008).

6. 663 Phil. 112, 117 (2011). See also Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 486 Phil. 366, 377 (2004) and Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA 319, 323-324; citation omitted.

7.Rollo, pp. 82-88. Penned by Presiding Judge Rogelio R. Joboco.

8. See Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA 319, 326; citation omitted.