LBP v.

De Leon
G.R. No. 143275
September 10, 2002
Sec. 5 Art. 7 of the Constitution: That Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
FACTS:
The petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon are the
registered owners of a parcel of land situated at San Agustin, Concepcion, Tarlac
covered by TCT No. 163051 with a total area of 50.1171 hectares. The subject
property was voluntarily offered for sale to the government pursuant to RA 6657 at
P50,000.00 per hectare. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) made a counter
offer of P17,656.20 per hectare, or a total amount of P884,877.54, but the same
was rejected. Another offer was made by DAR increasing the amount to
P1,565,369.35. In view of the petitioners-appellees' failure to respond to the new
offer made by DAR, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
took cognizance of the case pursuant to Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657. Subsequently, the
DARAB issued an
Order directing respondent-appellant LBP to recompute the value of the subject
property in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992.
respondent-appellant upon applying the DAR AO NO.6 1992 arrived at a recomputed
aggregate land value of P2,491,731.65 which was again rejected. Petitionersappellees filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Tarlac, which is the
designated Special Agrarian Court in the area and asked the court, among others, to
fix the just compensation of the subject property. Which fixed the value of the land
which is P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 hectares of riceland; and P2,957,250.00 for the
30.4160 hectares of sugarland. DAR filed a petition for review in the Court of
Appeals(CA) while petitioner LBP filed an "ordinary appeal" with the CA. CA then
dismissed the petition of LBP on the grounds that the mode of appeal by LBP was
incorrect.
ISSUE:
1.

Whether or not the decision of the CA in dismissing the appeal valid.

HELD:
1.
Yes, The Court held that the CA's decision to dismiss the appeal is valid
because under RA 6657 sec 60 that the proper mode of appeal for a decision of the
Special Agrarian Court is through a petition for review and that the provisions on sec
61 of that law on the rules of court(ordinary appeal) cannot be given due course
because it merely makes a general reference to the rules of court and does not
even provide for ordinary appeal. Since RA 6657 sec 60 already provides for the
proper mode of appeal under Sec 6 Art 7 of the Constitution the rules of procedures
of special courts, in this case with regard to special agrarian court is effective until
disapproved by the Supreme Court. There being no disapproval by the SC with
regard to the rules and procedure of the special agrarian court, the petition must
then be denied.