ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 141670.� August 22, 2005]
FRANCISCO vs. JACOLBE
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2005 .
G.R. No. 141670 (SPOUSES FRANCISCO and VALENTINA MANGUIRAN vs. RAMON JACOLBE, CELESTINO DAYAGBEL and EDGARDO MAGUIRAN.)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 30, 1999 and January 5, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 53043.
Spouses Francisco and Valentina Manguiran, petitioners, were farmer-beneficiaries, under Presidential Decree No. 27, [1] cralaw in the estate of Augustus Samson located at San Jose, Malaybalay City. On January 24, 1975, petitioner Francisco Manguiran was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) covering an area of 3.26 hectares.
Pursuant to republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), all the potential farmer-beneficiaries agreed, in the presence of the landowner, to divide equally among themselves the land they were tilling irrespective of their actual cultivation. A survey was conducted and each was allotted an area of 2.47 hectare farm lots and 300 sq. meter home lots. Thus, they signed an agreement, or the Farmer's Undertaking, which was certified by the Chairman of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee of San Jose.
Petitioners refused to sign the Farmer's Undertaking because they were made to accept an area less than 3.26 hectares, the actual area they have been cultivating. This prompted the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Bukidnon and the City Agrarian Reform Officer of Malaybalay, as well as respondents Ramon Jacolbe, Celestino Dayagbel and Edgardo Manguiran, to file with the office of the Regional Adjudicator, Region X, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), a petition to disqualify petitioners as farmer-beneficiaries, docketed as DARAB Case No. X-05-93.
In their petition, respondents alleged inter alia that petitioners refused to sign the Farmer's Undertaking despite repeated requests made by the City Agrarian Reform Office; and that they mortgaged their landholding from 1991 to 1998 to different persons and leased an area of one (1) hectare to Susan Calenzoga for 5 years, or from February 1997 to February 2000, thereby delaying and obstructing the implementation of R.A. 6657.
On December 15, 1998, the Regional Adjudicator rendered a Decision quoted as follows:
"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, decision is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring herein respondents not disqualified as farmer-beneficiaries under the CARP but with the corresponding obligation to sign the farmer-undertaking as required of public respondents;
2. Ordering the specific award to respondents of only 2.4700 hectares as finally determined in the approved survey;
3. Ordering the segregation of the one (1) hectare mortgaged by respondents to be either constituted as homelots for all the beneficiaries of the Estate or to be awarded to another qualified beneficiary at the discretion of public respondent DAR.
SO ORDERED."
A copy of the Decision was received by petitioners on January 5, 1999. On January 20, 1999, they filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Regional Adjudicator in his Order of January 25, 1999, a copy of which they received on February 2, 1999. They then filed a Notice of Appeal on February 11, 1999. In an Order dated February 17, 1999, the Provincial Adjudicator did not give due course to the Notice of appeal on the ground that it was not filed seasonably.
On April 16, 1999, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. However, on July 30, 1999, the petition was dismissed for being the wrong mode of appeal. The Appellate Court held that what petitioners should have filed was a petition for review. And assuming that certiorari is the proper remedy, still it should be dismissed for having been filed late.
On August 14, 1999, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated January 15, 2000.
Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
"Section 1. Appeals to the Board (DARAB). -
a) An appeal may be taken from an order or decision of the Regional or Provincial Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or both, by giving or stating a written or oral appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution, order or decision appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on the opposite or adverse party, if the appeal is in writing."
As found by the Court of Appeals, petitioners failed to file their Notice of Appeal within the fifteen (15) day period, thus:
"However, a perusal of the petition shows that petitioners failed to file their Notice of Appeal within the reglementary period (per Order dated February 17, 1999, Rollo, p. 46) thus rendering the judgment final and executory. Petitioners' last-ditch effort of filing this petition for certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal (Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413)."
We cannot overemphasize the importance of the strict application of the reglementary period within which to file a Notice of Appeal. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by the law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as legally required has the effect of rendering final and executory the judgment of the court below and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [2] cralaw
The Court of Appeals also held that even assuming that the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy, still it should have been dismissed for having been filed out of time.
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
"Section 4. When and where petition filed. - The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion."
Petitioners received a copy of the Decision of the Regional Adjudicator on January 5, 1999 and the Order denying their motion for reconsideration on February 2, 1999. Thus, they should have filed their petition for certiorari on or before April 3, 1999, the 60th day from the date they received a copy of the Order denying their motion for reconsideration. However, they filed their petition only on April 16, 1999, or 13 days late.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53043 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil.
[2] cralaw Ceniza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95296, February 3, 1993, 218 SCRA 390; Imperial Textile Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 101527, January 19, 1993, 217 SCRA 237.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
