LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ELIZABETH DIAZ, re resented !" FRANCISCA P.

DE #UZ$AN as Attorne"%in%Fa&t, Res ondents. G.R. No. 190660 April 11, 2011 Private res . E'i(a!et) P. Dia( *E'i(a!et) ) was the registered owner owner of a parcel of agricultural land easuring appro!i atel" 1# hectares, situated in $an Ricardo, %ala&era, Nue&a 'ci(a and co&ered )" %ransfer *ertificate of %itle +%*%) No. 19,1-2 10 hectares of said land was appropriated )" the .ept. of Agrarian Refor under /. 2, 0 '1 222

01ne ,, ,..6 4 appellate court .'N<'. 7and 8an9;s otion to dis iss. <t faulted 7and 8an9 for not filing an appellee;s )rief as directed, and for filing the otion to dis iss the appeal after the lapse of 1#, da"s fro the last da" for filing the )rief. >ence the petition for re&iew ISSUE7 ?1N Respondent;s appeal should )e dis issed 4 that ordinar" appeal is the wrong re ed".

RULIN#7 @'$, petition is

eritorious.

.AR &alued the e!propriated land at at /#3,220.#9 plus incre ent of /13-,031.#9 or a total of /19,,922.12. Nove+!er ,-, ,../ 4 Not satisfied with the &aluation, 'li5a)eth, through att"4in4fact 6rancisca /. .e Gu5 an filed a co plaint on against the 7and 8an9 of the /hilippines +7and 8an9) and the .AR )efore the R%* of Gui )a, Nue&a 'ci(a, 8ranch --, acting as a $pecial Agrarian *ourt +$A*). Co+ 'aint: pra"ed that (ust co pensation )e fi!ed at /-#0,000 per hectare or a total of /#,2#0.000 01ne ,/, ,..2 3 $pecial Agrarian *ourt +$A*) adopted the .AR;s &aluation. <t held that gi&en the for ula used in Ga)atin &. 78/, the *o issioner;s Report and the fair ar9et or assessed &alue of the land cannot )e considered in the &aluation.

<n Landbank vs De Leon, the proper ode of appeal fro decisions of Regional %rial *ourts sitting as $A*s is )" petition for re&iew under Rule 32 of the Rules of *ourt and not through an ordinar" appeal under Rule 31.

%he *ourt, in the i ediatel" cited case of 7and 8an9, o)ser&ing that A)efore the instant case reached us, 7and 8an9 of the /hilippines had no authoritati&e guideline on how to appeal decisions of $A*s considering the see ingl" conflicting pro&isions of $ections 60 and 61 of RA 66#,,A held that A$ec. 60 of RA 66#,12 clearl" and categoricall" states that the said ode of appeal +petition for re&iew) should )e adopted.A

1st 4 there is no conflict )etween $ec. 60 and 61 of RA 66#, inas uch as the Rules of *ourt do not at all prescri)e the procedure for ordinar" appeals as the proper ode of appeal for decisions of $pecial Agrarian *ourts

A14. 5/, ,..2 Resp. 'li5a)eth;s =otion for Reconsideration was .'N<'. and ele&ated the case to the *A 7and)an9 0 .AR failed to file their appellee;s )rief. /endenc" of appeal 7and)an9 file =otion for lea&e to ad it .efendant4Appelle;s =otion to .is iss Appeal alleging that the appeal should )e dis issed )ecause an ordinar" appeal is the wrong re ed", the proper ode )eing )" wa" of a petition for re&iew, citing $ection 60 of Repu)lic Act No. 66#, or the *o prehensi&e Agrarian Refor 7aw

2nd 4 failure to ention $pecial Agrarian *ourts in $ection 1 of Rule 3- of the Re&ised Rules of *i&il /rocedure cannot )e construed to ean that a petition for re&iew is not per issi)le for decisions of the said special courts

?hat is indisputa)le is that $ection 60 e!pressl" regards a petition for re&iew as the proper wa" of appealing decisions of agrarian courts. $o far, there is no rule prescri)ed )" this *ourt e!pressl" disallowing the said procedure.

7and 8an9 concluded that the appellate court had no (urisdiction o&er the case, the $A* decision ha&ing attained finalit" following 7and 8an9 of the /hilippines &. .e 7eon which held that failure of a part" to file the proper re ed" within fifteen +1#) da"s fro receipt of notice of the assailed decision renders it final.

-rd $ec. 61 of RA 66#, can easil" )e har oni5ed with $ec. 60. %he reference to the Rules of *ourt eans that the specific rules for petitions for re&iew in the Rules of *ourt and other rele&ant procedures in appeals filed )efore the *ourt of Appeals shall )e followed in appealed decisions of $pecial Agrarian *ourts.

BB <n the case at )ar, resort )" 'li5a)eth to a wrong ode of appeal was fatal to her cause as it resulted in rendering the decision appealed fro final and e!ecutor". >er notice of appeal did not, it )ears e phasis, stop the running of the regle entar" period to file a petition for re&iew.

Although appeal is an essential part of our (udicial process, it has )een held, ti e and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process )ut is erel" a statutor" pri&ilege. %hus, the perfection of an appeal in the anner and within the period prescri)ed )" law is not onl" andator" )ut also (urisdictional and failure of a part" to confor to the rules regarding appeal will render the (udg ent final and e!ecutor".

1nce a decision attains finalit", it )eco es the law of the case irrespecti&e of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court 4 not e&en the $upre e *ourt 4 has the power to re&ise, re&iew, change or alter the sa e. %he )asic rule of finalit" of (udg ent is grounded on the funda ental principle of pu)lic polic" and sound practice that, at the ris9 of occasional error, the (udg ent of courts and the award of Cuasi4(udicial agencies ust )eco e final at so e definite date fi!ed )" law

/'%<%<1N GRAN%'..