View full case

SPS. ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

FACTS:

The petitioners, spouses Romeo Ll. Plopenio and Rosielinda Plopenio, and petitioner Eduardo Ll. Plopenio, own coconut lands in Caramoan, Camarines Sur. In 2000, their brother's land was valued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which prompted the petitioners to offer their lands for acquisition and distribution by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). However, they were dissatisfied with the valuation made by the Land Bank and referred the matter to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for administrative proceedings. The PARAD affirmed the valuation made by the Land Bank. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed separate petitions before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC)-RTC, which dismissed the appeals due to lack of valid cause of action. The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which were also denied. They then filed petitions for review directly to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the proper mode of appeal should have been to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court further ruled that the petitions filed before the SAC-RTC were filed out of time. Consequently, the petitions for review were denied and the decisions and orders of the SAC-RTC were affirmed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) designated as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC) is a Rule 45 petition directly filed with the Supreme Court.

  2. Whether the petitions before the SAC-RTC were filed out of time.

RULING:

  1. The proper mode of appeal from the decision of the SAC-RTC is a Rule 42 petition for review to the Court of Appeals, regardless of whether the appeal raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

  2. The petitions before the SAC-RTC were filed out of time.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right to appeal is a remedy of statutory origin and must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing its exercise.

  • The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and appeals from SACs must be taken to the Court of Appeals without making a distinction between appeals raising questions of fact and those dealing purely with questions of law.

  • Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

  • Under the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure, the decision of the adjudicator on land valuation and just compensation shall be brought directly to the SAC within 15 days from receipt of the notice thereof. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the period within which the appeal must be perfected. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party shall have the right to perfect his appeal within the remaining period for appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial.