G.R. No. 173329 ; December 21, 2009
SUSAN G. PO and LILIA G. MUTIA, Petitioners, vs. OMERO DAMPAL, Respondent.

FACTS

On December 19, 1984, spouses Florencio and Ester Causin mortgaged two farm lots in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, to the Rural Bank of Tagoloan, Inc. For failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction on July 8, 1992, to petitioner Susan G. Po, the highest bidder. New titles were issued in Susan’s favor. On September 13, 1993, Susan sold one lot to her co-petitioner Lilia G. Mutia. On September 29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant, respondent Omero Dampal, filed a complaint against the bank for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Sale (Civil Case No. 94-280). While this case was pending, on June 16, 1997, Dampal filed a complaint against Susan and Lilia before the DARAB Region X for Legal Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (DARAB Case No. X-05-361). The Regional Adjudicator disallowed the redemption on the ground of prescription but declared Dampal entitled to security of tenure as a tenant. Dampal appealed to the DARAB Central Office (DARAB Case No. 7315), which reversed the Adjudicator’s ruling. The DARAB held that Dampal, as a tenant, had the right to redeem the mortgage for ₱40,000.00 plus interest, and that the right had not prescribed due to lack of written notice of the sale to him and the DAR. It ordered the cancellation of the titles issued to Susan and Lilia and the issuance of new ones in Dampal’s favor upon payment. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition, holding that the correct mode of appeal from the DARAB Decision was via a petition for review under Rule 43, not certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals also denied petitioners’ Motion for Leave to Amend Petition and for Admission of Amended Petition, noting it was filed out of time. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal on the technical ground of wrong mode of appeal (Rule 65 certiorari instead of Rule 43 petition for review).
2. Whether respondent Dampal’s right of legal redemption as an agricultural lessee had prescribed.

RULING

1. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, appeals from judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies like the DARAB should be filed with the Court of Appeals by verified petition for review. Section 1, Rule XV of the 2003 DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure also provides that appeals from DARAB decisions are to be brought to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court. Petitioners’ reliance on Section 1, Rule XIV of the DARAB Rules, which governs appeals from the Adjudicator to the DARAB Board, was misplaced. The appellate court’s denial of the Motion for Leave to Amend Petition was proper as it was filed belatedly, on the last day of the appeal period. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities and must be observed to ensure the orderly administration of justice. None of the exceptions to justify treating a wrong petition for certiorari as a petition for review were present.
2. On the merits, the DARAB correctly held that Dampal’s right of redemption had not prescribed. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, grants an agricultural lessee the right to redeem a sold landholding within 180 days from notice in writing served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon registration of the sale. The lack of written notice to Dampal and the DAR tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners’ contention that Dampal had constructive knowledge of the sale due to the pending civil case for annulment fails, as the law expressly requires notice to be in writing. The petition was denied.