Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 473 views

    Plopenio Case

    Uploaded by

    Rodney Atibula
    The petitioners filed petitions for review directly with the Supreme Court challenging the valuation of their land by the Department of Agrarian Reform for acquisition. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions because the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal. They should have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, not with the Supreme Court using the Rules of Court. Furthermore, even if the appeals were allowed, the petitions before the Special Agrarian Court-Regional Trial Court were still filed out of time.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plopenio Case

    Uploaded by

    Rodney Atibula
    473 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed petitions for review directly with the Supreme Court challenging the valuation of their land by the Department of Agrarian Reform for acquisition. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions because the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal. They should have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, not with the Supreme Court using the Rules of Court. Furthermore, even if the appeals were allowed, the petitions before the Special Agrarian Court-Regional Trial Court were still filed out of time.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed petitions for review directly with the Supreme Court challenging the valuation of their land by the Department of Agrarian Reform for acquisition. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions because the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal. They should have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, not with the Supreme Court using the Rules of Court. Furthermore, even if the appeals were allowed, the petitions before the Special Agrarian Court-Regional Trial Court were still filed out of time.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    473 views2 pages

    Plopenio Case

    Uploaded by

    Rodney Atibula
    The petitioners filed petitions for review directly with the Supreme Court challenging the valuation of their land by the Department of Agrarian Reform for acquisition. However, the Supreme Court denied the petitions because the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal. They should have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, not with the Supreme Court using the Rules of Court. Furthermore, even if the appeals were allowed, the petitions before the Special Agrarian Court-Regional Trial Court were still filed out of time.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO vs DAR and LBP GR No.

    161090 and Eduardo Plopenio vs DAR and LBP GR No. 161092 Facts: Petitioner-spouses and Edwardo owns 11.8643 and 22.8349 hectares of coconut land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur respectively, In 2000, the land of their brother Gavino Plopenio was valued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) at 51,125.60 per hectare in DARAB Case No. V-LV-040-CS-00. On this basis, petitioners offered their entire landholdings to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition and distribution pursuant to Republic Act No. R.A. 6657. On 26 October 2001, public respondent Land Bank sent a Notice of Valuation and Adjudication valuing the land of petitioner-spouses at 23,485.00 per hectare and that of petitioner Eduardo at 22,856.62 per hectare. Dissatisfied with Land Banks offer, petitioners rejected the Notice of Valuation and Acquisition and referred the matter to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur for summary administrative proceedings. The PARAD affirmed the valuation made by Land Bank in a Decision dated 5 September 2002, a copy of which petitioners received on 27 September 2002. On 11, October 2002, or 14 days thereafter, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The PARAD denied their Motion in an Order dated 20 November 2002, which petitioners received on 21 December 2002. Petitioners then filed separate Petitions before the SAC-RTC on 6 January 2003, or 16 days after their receipt of the PARADs Order. They explained that they were allowed to file their appeal 15 days from the receipt of the Order of denial of their Motion for Reconsideration. Since the 15th day fell on a Sunday, they reasoned that they should be allowed to file their appeal until 6 January 2003. In its Answer, Land Bank alleged that the Decision of the PARAD had already attained finality after the lapse of the 15-day period, counted from petitioners receipt of the PARADs Decision. Thus, it argued that the SAC-RTC (Special Agrarian Court-RTC) should no longer entertain the Petitions. In its assailed Decisions, the SAC-RTC ruled that the Decision of the PARAD had already attained finality because petitioners failed to file their Petitions on time. From the Decisions and Orders of the SAC-RTC, petitioners then filed the instant Petitions for Review directly before this Court. On 24 July 2006, we resolved to consolidate the cases at bar, considering that the factual milieu and legal issues involved in both cases are similar in nature.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Petitioners erred in applying Rule 45 of Rules of Court on Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court and not Rule 60 of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

    Held: The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petition for review on the grounds that the petitioners resorted to a wrongful mode of appeal by applying Rule 45 of Rules of Court, filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court. The Petitioners should have filed the petition to the Court of Appeals as provided in Rule 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law: Section 60. Appeals. - An appeal may be taken from the Special Agrarian Courts (SACRTC) by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen days (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final. The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and appeals there from are governed by Section 60 thereof. Furthermore, even if the Court were to allow the appeals to prosper, The Court finds that the Petitions before the SAC-RTC were filed out of time. In this case, petitioners received a copy of the PARAD Decision on September 27 2002.They filed their Motion for Reconsideration thereof on 11 October 2002, or 14 days from their receipt of a copy of the Decision. On 21 December 2002, they received the Order denying their motion. Hence, petitioners only had one more day within which to file their Petitions with the SAC-RTC for the determination of just compensation for their respective properties. Since December 22, 2002 fell on a Sunday, they had until December 23, 2002 to file their Petition However, they only filed their Petitions on January 6 2003, or 16 days after they received the order denying their Motion for Reconsideration. Clearly, the Petitions before the SAC-RTC were filed out of time. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the consolidated Petitions for Review are hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decisions and Orders of the Special Agrarian Court-Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Naga City in Civil Case Nos. 2003-007 and 2003-004 are hereby affirmed.

    You might also like