G.R. No. 188376 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FEDERICO SUNTAY, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ASSIGNEE, JOSEFINA LUBRICA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA granted the petition for prohibition and perpetually enjoined DARAB from proceeding in DSCA No. 1252, which the CA ordered dismissed. [11] Thence, DARAB appealed the adverse CA decision to this Court via petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 159145 entitled Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Represented by DAR Secretary Roberto M. Pagdanganan v. Josefina S. Lubrica, in her capacity as Assignee of the rights and interest of Federico Suntay (DARAB v. Lubrica) , insisting that the CA erred in declaring that DARAB had no personality to file a comment; in holding that DARAB had no jurisdiction over DSCA No. 0252; and in nullifying the writ of preliminary injunction issued by DARAB in DSCA No. 0252 for having been issued in violation of the CAs TRO. On April 29, 2005, the Court promulgated its decision in DARAB v. Lubrica (G.R. No. 159145), [12] denying the petition for review. The Court opined that DARABs limited jurisdiction as a quasi-judicial body did not include the authority to take cognizance of petitions for certiorari , in the absence of an express grant in R.A. No. 6657, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 229, and E.O. No. 129-A. G.R. No. 157903 Land Bank v. Suntay In the meanwhile, in Agrarian Case No. R-1241, Suntay filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Land Banks petition for judicial determination of just compensation had been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period prescribed in Section 11, Rule XIII of the New Rules of Procedure of DARAB ; and that, by virtue of such tardiness, RARAD Miñas decision had become final and executory. [13] The RTC granted Suntays motion to dismiss on August 6, 2001 on that ground. Land Bank sought reconsideration, maintaining that its petition for judicial determination of just compensation was a separate action that did not emanate from the case in the RARAD. Nonetheless, the RTC denied Land Banks motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2001. [14] On September 10, 2001, Land Bank filed a notice of appeal in Agrarian Case No. R-1241, but the RTC denied due course to the notice of appeal on January 18, 2002, pointing out that the proper mode of appeal was by petition for review pursuant to Section 60 of the CARL. The RTC denied Land Banks motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2002. [15] Thereupon, Land Bank assailed in the CA the RTCs orders dated January 18, 2002 and March 8, 2002 via a special civil action certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 70015), alleging that the RTC thereby committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying due course to its notice of appeal; and contending that decisions or final orders of the RTCs, acting as Special Agrarian Courts, were not appealable to the CA through a petition for review but through a notice of appeal. On July 19, 2002, the CA promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 70015, granting Land Banks petition for certiorari; nullifying the