G.R. No. 237638 , May 20, 2024
BGS REALTY, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MIGUEL ANGELO SARTE SILVERIO, PETITIONER, VS. DEMETRIO AYDALLA AND HEIRS OF JOSE AYDALLA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a petition for nullification of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) filed by BGS Realty, Inc. before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Agrarian Reform Regional Office (ARRO) for Region V. The DAR ARRO V issued an Order dated May 9, 2000, which gave due course to the petition. The respondents filed a Motion to Set Aside or Reconsider the May 9, 2000 Order and a Motion to Resolve Motion to Dismiss. In an Order dated July 28, 2000, the DAR ARRO V denied these motions, affirmed the May 9, 2000 Order in toto, declared the Motion to Dismiss as moot and academic, and declared the case “closed in so far as this level is concerned.” Respondents received this July 28, 2000 Order on August 23, 2000. They filed an appeal to the DAR Secretary only on May 24, 2001, which was approximately nine months later. The DAR ARRO V subsequently issued an Order dated November 27, 2000, directing the implementation of the July 28, 2000 Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Order dated May 9, 2000 (affirmed by the July 28, 2000 Order) is a final order that disposed of the case on the merits, such that the respondents’ failure to appeal within the 15-day reglementary period rendered it final and executory.

RULING

In the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Singh, the ruling is that the May 9, 2000 Order is a final order that disposed of the nullification case on its merits. The dissent argues that the July 28, 2000 Order, which affirmed the May 9, 2000 Order and declared the case closed at the regional level, was a final disposition. Consequently, the 15-day period to perfect an appeal to the DAR Secretary, as prescribed by DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1994, should be reckoned from the respondents’ receipt of the July 28, 2000 Order on August 23, 2000. Since the respondents filed their appeal only on May 24, 2001, they failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period. This failure rendered the July 28, 2000 Order final and executory. The dissent emphasizes that the perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional, and non-compliance is fatal. It further states that a final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the petition for review should be granted and the assailed Court of Appeals decision and resolution should be reversed.