GR 141116; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141116 ; February 17, 2003
DAMASO SEBASTIAN and TOMASA CARDENAS, petitioners, vs. HON. HORACIO R. MORALES, Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, LEONILA SARENAS, JOSEPHINE SARENAS-DAYRIT, EVANGELINE SARENAS, ESTRELITA SARENAS TAN, CECILIO MARCOS SARENAS, MANUEL DEL SARENAS, DAISY RITA SARENAS, and JOY SARENAS, respondents.
FACTS
The heirs of the late Guillermo Sarenas filed an application with the DAR to retain over five hectares of his agricultural landholdings, including a lot tenanted by petitioner Damaso Sebastian. The DAR Regional Office initially granted the application. Upon Sebastian’s motion for reconsideration, the Regional Director issued a new order allowing retention of a different parcel. The heirs appealed to the DAR Secretary, who, on June 18, 1998, issued an order granting the heirs the right to retain a portion of the land tenanted by Sebastian. Sebastian’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the DAR Secretary in an order dated January 26, 1999.
Subsequently, on February 22, 1999, petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, assailing the DAR Secretary’s orders. The appellate court, in a decision dated March 9, 1999, dismissed the petition outright. It found that petitioners pursued the wrong mode of appeal, as the proper remedy from the DAR Secretary’s decision was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The governing law is Section 54 of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL), which provides that any decision or order of the DAR may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari. However, this special civil action is proper only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was the appropriate remedy. The DAR Secretary’s order of June 18, 1998 was a final order that disposed of the case on the merits. The subsequent order of January 26, 1999 was merely a denial of the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the period to appeal commenced from notice of the June 18, 1998 order. Since petitioners did not file a petition for review under Rule 43 within the reglementary period, the DAR Secretary’s decision became final and executory. A special civil action for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Certiorari lies only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Petitioners failed to show that the DAR Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy.