Plopenio v. DAR Digest

Sps. Plopenio v.
DAR
GR No. 161090 July 4, 2012
FACTS
- Petitioner-spouses own 11.8643 hectares of coconut land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur,
while petitioner Eduardo owns 22.8349 hectares of coconut land in the same locality. In
2000, the land of their brother Gavino Plopenio, likewise located in Caramoan,
Camarines Sur, was valued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) at P51,125.60 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, or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
- On 26 October 2001, public respondent Land Bank sent a Notice of Valuation and
Adjudication valuing the land of petitioner-spouses at P23,485.00 per hectare and that of
petitioner Eduardo at P22,856.62 per hectare.
- Dissatisfied with Land Bank’s 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 the Land Bank.
- Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration. The PARAD denied their Motion.
- Petitioners then filed separate Petitions before the SAC-RTC on 6 January 2003, or 16
days after their receipt of the PARAD’s 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.
- The SAC-RTC ruled that the Decision of the PARAD had already attained finality
because petitioners failed to file their Petitions on time.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the SAC-RTC’s Decision, but their motions were
denied for lack of merit.
- From the Decisions and Orders of the SAC-RTC, petitioners then filed the instant
Petitions for Review directly before the Supreme Court.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
Because the instant Petitions raise only pure questions of law, the proper mode of appeal is via
a Rule 45 Petition to this Court.
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT
Following the letter of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, Petitioners should have
appealed the SAC-RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals.
PROVISION SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Section 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law provides:
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.
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. (Emphasis
supplied)
ISSUE
Whether the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the Special Agrarian Court is via Rule
45 Petition to the Supreme Court.
RULING WITH RATIO DECIDENDI

The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, and appeals therefrom are governed by Section 60 thereof. That law
expressly states that 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 the courts. Consequently, The Supreme Court ruled that the only
mode of appeal from decisions of the SAC-RTC is via a Rule 42 petition for review to the Court
of Appeals, without any distinction as to whether the appeal raises questions of fact, questions
of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.

Plopenio v. DAR Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plopenio v. DAR Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plopenio v. DAR Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Plopenio v.

RULING WITH RATIO DECIDENDI

You might also like