G.R. No. 172849; December 10, 2008
MR. TERESO TAN, ANDRE T. ALMOCERA, for themselves and in behalf of the First Builders Multi-Purpose Cooperative (FBMPC), petitioners, vs. MANUEL “GUY” LINK, ATTY. ARNOLD ARRIETA, ROSALIO T. KINTANAR, VIVIAN MAQUILING, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), CIRILO YURO AND REINERIO CABANGBANG, MANUEL BARTOLABA and the PROVINCIAL REGISTER OF DEEDS of the PROVINCE OF CEBU, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners First Builders Multi-Purpose Cooperative (FBMPC) and Andre T. Almocera purchased eight parcels of land from respondent Manuel Link through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 2002. The titles remained in Link’s name. Unknown to petitioners, Link had previously offered the lands for sale under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the properties, and a Notice of Valuation was sent to Link. Link filed petitions for valuation with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Cases No. V11-1225-C-1997 and No. V11-1220-C-96, assigned to respondent Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Rosalio Kintanar. Upon discovering this, petitioners, through counsel, wrote a letter to Kintanar on August 12, 2001, claiming ownership and requesting that any claims involving the properties be set aside. Kintanar treated the letter as a motion for payment of just compensation and, after requiring position papers, issued an Order dated December 10, 2001, denying petitioners’ motion, stating the sale was unregistered and the properties were for CARP distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, and ordered LBP to pay just compensation to Link. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Arnold Arrieta in an Order dated March 21, 2002. Kintanar later inhibited himself on August 20, 2002. Petitioners then filed a complaint for “Action Reindivicatoria, Damages, Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction and Restraining Order” before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bogo, Cebu, Branch 61, docketed as Civil Case No. Bogo-00994. Respondent Link filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC granted in an Order dated April 8, 2003, ruling it had no appellate jurisdiction over DARAB cases and that petitioners should have sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on July 28, 2003. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal via registered mail on August 29, 2003. Petitioner Tereso Tan paid the docket fees on September 2, 2003. The RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal in an Order dated September 26, 2003, finding Tan lacked authority to file the appeal and that the appeal fee was paid beyond the reglementary period. The RTC denied reconsideration on December 23, 2003. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it in a Decision dated February 21, 2006, affirming the RTC Orders, primarily for failure to pay docket fees on time. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and affirming the RTC Orders that dismissed petitioners’ Notice of Appeal for late payment of docket fees and lack of authority of Tereso Tan to file the appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court held that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The reglementary period to appeal from the RTC Order dated July 28, 2003, was 15 days from receipt on August 15, 2003, or until August 30, 2003. The docket fees were paid on September 2, 2003, which was beyond the period. The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of a holiday on August 30, 2003, as it was a regular working day. The Court also found that while petitioner Tan had authority to file the appeal based on a Secretary’s Certificate, the late payment of fees was fatal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the RTC correctly dismissed the original complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction over determination of just compensation under CARP. Petitioners’ remedy from the DARAB Orders was a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, not an original action with the RTC. The RTC had no jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus against DARAB orders. The complaint was correctly dismissed for being a patent case of forum-shopping, as petitioners sought the same relief from the RTC that was denied by the DARAB.