GR 173415; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173415 ; March 28, 2008
MARIANO TANENGLIAN, Petitioner, vs. SILVESTRE LORENZO, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mariano Tanenglian is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Baguio City. Respondents, members of an Indigenous Cultural Community, filed a Petition for Redemption before the DARAB, claiming the lands as ancestral lands and seeking the cancellation of Tanenglian’s titles. The Regional Adjudicator ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the lands as ancestral lands, ordering their acquisition and distribution by the DAR, and directing the cancellation of Tanenglian’s titles. Tanenglian received the Decision on August 27, 1999, filed a motion for reconsideration on September 13, 1999, which was denied. He received the denial order on October 19, 1999, and on the same day filed a Notice of Appeal. However, the required appeal fee was postmarked October 20, 1999.
The Regional Adjudicator dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time, ruling that the 15-day reglementary period to appeal ended on September 13, 1999. Tanenglian elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed outright for being the wrong remedy and for being filed beyond the 15-day period for such a petition. His motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Tanenglian’s petition for certiorari.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. On procedural grounds, Tanenglian’s appeal before the DARAB was correctly dismissed for being filed out of time. The reglementary period to appeal is non-extendible and jurisdictional. His motion for reconsideration did not toll the period to appeal because it was itself filed on the last day of the period (September 13, 1999), which was already late, as the 15th day from receipt of the Decision fell on September 11, 1999. Since September 11 was a Saturday, the last day moved to the next working day, Monday, September 13. His Notice of Appeal and payment of the fee, made in October, were therefore indisputably late, rendering the DARAB Decision final and executory.
Consequently, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is only available when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since Tanenglian lost his right to a regular appeal through his own negligence, certiorari could not be resorted to to revive it. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion by the DARAB in its factual determination that the lands were ancestral lands, a finding that became final due to the late appeal. The petition was denied.