Cardona v. Amansec
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosalie Oderon Vda. de Cardona filed an ejectment complaint against respondent Marcelino Amansec, alleging that the respondent had unlawfully entered and begun constructing houses on a residential lot owned by her deceased son, Ronald Cardona. The petitioner claimed Ronald Cardona inherited the property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12797. The respondent, however, asserted a tenancy relationship with Isabel Raroque, the alleged predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner's son, over agricultural land. He claimed to have constructed his house with permission and that Emancipation Patents had been issued to him for portions of the land. The respondent argued that due to the existence of an agricultural tenancy, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) lacked jurisdiction. Procedural History: The MTC dismissed the ejectment complaint, finding a tenancy relationship existed. The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Concurrently, the respondent filed a petition with the DARAB seeking to nullify the Deed of Sale between Isabel Raroque and Ronald Cardona and to secure an emancipation patent. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the deed void. The petitioner attempted to appeal this PARAD decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 43, but the CA dismissed her petition for being filed one day late, despite acknowledging excusable negligence. The petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the RTC reversed the MTC's decision, ruling that the respondent failed to prove the tenancy relationship, and the respondent did not appeal this RTC decision to the CA. The Petition: This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed the petitioner's petition for review. The petitioner argued that her appeal to the CA was only one day late and that this delay constituted excusable negligence. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the proper remedy from the PARAD's decision was an appeal to the DARAB, not a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that appeals must be perfected within the statutory period and in the prescribed manner, and failure to do so results in the decision becoming final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the proper remedy from a decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) is an appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) or a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that it was filed out of time, considering the petitioner's excusable negligence.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course and is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. According to Rule XIII, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, the proper remedy from an order, resolution, or decision of an Adjudicator (like the PARAD) is an appeal to the DARAB itself, not a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner failed to comply with the prescribed procedure for perfecting an appeal to the DARAB. On the timeliness of the appeal and the Court of Appeals' dismissal: While the Court acknowledged that the petitioner was guilty of excusable negligence in miscalculating the number of days in August, leading to a one-day delay in filing her petition with the Court of Appeals, this point became moot. The Court emphasized the well-entrenched rule that appeal is a statutory right that must be availed of within the period and in the manner provided by law. Since the petitioner did not perfect her appeal to the DARAB, the decision of the PARAD became final and executory, and the Court of Appeals did not acquire appellate jurisdiction over a belated appeal. Therefore, the dismissal by the Court of Appeals, though based on a procedural technicality that could have been overlooked, was ultimately affirmed due to the fundamental error in choosing the appellate forum.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals from a decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) is the improper remedy; the correct remedy is an appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in accordance with the DARAB New Rules of Procedure. Failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period provided by law results in the decision becoming final and executory.