GR 262889; (November, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 262889 , November 13, 2023
SPS. BUENAVENTURA BALUCAN, JR. AND YOLANDA Y. BALUCAN, RUTH M. CABUSAS, GEMMA BARCELONA AND MYANN BALUCAN, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. LENNIE B. NAGELI AND RUDOLF NAGELI, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, SPS. EPPIE B. FADRIGO AND TEODORICO FADRIGO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Respondents, Spouses Nageli, filed a petition with the DAR Regional Office seeking the disqualification of petitioners as Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) over certain parcels of land in Davao City. The Nagelis claimed ownership and alleged the petitioners were not qualified as they were neither occupants nor tillers of the land. The DAR Regional Office, in an Order dated October 3, 2011, disqualified the petitioners as ARBs, finding they did not possess the requisite qualifications under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The DAR Secretary, in an Order dated January 26, 2020, denied the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the disqualification.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, assailing the DAR Secretary’s Order for alleged grave abuse of discretion. They argued the DAR had no jurisdiction over the Nagelis, who are foreign nationals, and alleged forum shopping and inordinate delay. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari was the wrong remedy. The CA ruled that an order from the DAR Secretary, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, should be appealed via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA also noted the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for a Rule 43 appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that it was an improper remedy to question the DAR Secretary’s Order.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that the CA correctly ruled that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was an erroneous remedy. The DAR Secretary, in resolving an appeal from a regional office order on ARB qualification, exercises quasi-judicial functions. Settled jurisprudence dictates that decisions and orders of quasi-judicial agencies, rendered in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions, are appealable to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
The petitioners’ failure to timely file the proper appeal under Rule 43 rendered the DAR Secretary’s Order final and executory. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ attempt to justify their use of certiorari by alleging grave abuse of discretion. The alleged errors, such as the DAR’s purported lack of jurisdiction over the foreign respondents and the claim of forum shopping, involved errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, which should have been raised in a timely appeal. The Court also found no persuasive evidence of inordinate delay that would warrant a deviation from procedural rules. Consequently, the CA committed no reversible error in dismissing the petition for being the wrong remedy.