GR 145013; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145013 . March 31, 2005
SPOUSES BERTO VILLORENTE & LERMA T. VILLORENTE, and SPOUSES CATALINO BAJETA & PASCUALA A. BAJETA, Petitioners, vs. APLAYA LAIYA CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Aplaya Laiya Corporation (ALC) owned agricultural land in Batangas. It applied for its conversion to non-agricultural use for a tourism project. After endorsements from relevant councils, DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued a Conversion Order on November 6, 1996. The order was posted and published as required by DAR rules. In January 1998, a group including petitioners Catalino Bajeta and Lerma Villorente, through the Kooperatibang Sandigan ng Magsasakang Pilipino, Inc. (KSMPI), filed a motion for reconsideration of the 1996 Order, which the DAR Secretary denied. The KSMPI appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but its motion for extension to file the petition was denied, and it did not pursue the matter further.
Subsequently, ALC filed ejectment cases against the petitioners in December 1998. In March 1999, petitioners filed their own petition with the CA, directly assailing the 1996 Conversion Order. They claimed they only learned of the Order upon receiving the ejectment summons. The CA dismissed their petition as filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review assailing the DAR Conversion Order for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The reglementary period to appeal an administrative order under Rule 43 is fifteen (15) days from notice of the order. The petitioners, as members of the KSMPI, were bound by the earlier collective action challenging the same Conversion Order. The KSMPI’s motion for reconsideration filed in January 1998 constituted a tacit admission of prior knowledge of the 1996 Order. Therefore, the period to appeal began from their receipt of the DAR Secretary’s denial on May 25, 1998. Their filing in March 1999 was indisputably late.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of learning of the Order only in March 1999. Their participation in negotiations for disturbance compensation, a direct consequence of the Conversion Order, and their inclusion in the KSMPI’s 1998 motion belied this assertion. The law mandates that the period of appeal is jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the questioned order final and executory. The CA thus lost jurisdiction to review the Conversion Order. Furthermore, petitioners are estopped from assailing an order whose benefits (disturbance compensation negotiations) they previously sought to avail.