G.R. No. 206234, October 22, 2014
HEIRS OF JULIO SOBREMONTE and FELIPA LABAPIS SOBREMONTE, Namely, MARIA LOURDES SOBREMONTE de NORBE, DIOSCORA SOBREMONTE de BUSLON, NESTOR L. SOBREMONTE, AVELINA SOBREMONTE DE DELIGERO, HELEN SOBREMONTE DE CABASE, LAURA SOBREMONTE DE DAGOY and RODULFO LABAPIS REPOLLO, ALL REPRESENTED BY AVELINA SOBREMONTE DELIGERO AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE VIRGILIO REYES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND FELICIANO T APIL, MARCELO BAYNO, VICENTE BAYNO, ROMUALDO DIAPANA, HILARIO RECTA, NEMESIA RECTA, POLICARPIO RECTA, AMPARO R. DIAPANA, BASILIO SAYSON BUENA VENTURA BA YNO AND BASILIO BAFLOR, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a 15.4954-hectare lot in Cebu, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19519 and co-owned by the petitioners, heirs of Julio and Felipa Sobremonte. The title remained under the name of Felipa, who died in 1997. In 1972, the lot was placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program under Presidential Decree No. 27. During her lifetime, Felipa filed protests before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), arguing the property was exempt from OLT as it had been partitioned and sold/donated to her children since March 7, 1972, and that no tenancy relationship existed with the identified farmer-beneficiaries. The MARO dismissed the protests, a decision affirmed by the DAR Regional Director on July 21, 1987, noting the deeds of conveyance were unregistered and the farmer-beneficiaries still recognized Felipa as owner. The Regional Director also ruled that the farmers’ subsequent joint disclaimer of tenancy constituted a surrender of rights, not a ground for exclusion from OLT. Felipa appealed to the DAR Secretary, who, in an order dated April 16, 1997, denied the appeal but modified the order, entitling the protestant to retain seven hectares and directing the issuance of Certificates of Agricultural Leasehold and Emancipation Patents. The DAR Secretary denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on June 2, 1998. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition outright in a resolution dated January 25, 2011, ruling that the correct remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on September 8, 2011. The petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ certiorari petition on the ground that they used the wrong mode of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit, affirming the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. For certiorari to prosper, the tribunal must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there must be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court found that the CA’s dismissal was well-supported by law and jurisprudence. Citing Sebastian v. Morales, the Court ruled that judicial review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the DAR Secretary is governed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. By filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of the mandatory petition for review under Rule 43, the petitioners opted for the wrong mode of appeal. An appeal taken by the wrong mode shall be dismissed. The Court found no abuse of discretion, grave or simple, in the CA’s dismissal on this procedural ground.