Appeal in agrarian cases - G.R. No. 169331

G.R. No. 169331

"x x x.

Petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal.

“Section 61[50] of R.A. No. 6657 clearly mandates that judicial review of DAR orders or decisions are governed by the Rules of Court. The Rules direct that it is Rule 43 that governs the procedure for judicial review of decisions, orders, or resolutions of the DAR Secretary.”[51] Hence here, petitioners should have assailed before the CA the November 6, 2002 and December 12, 2003 Orders of the DAR through a Petition for Review under Rule 43. “By pursuing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than the mandatory petition for review under Rule 43, petitioners opted for the wrong mode of appeal.”[52]

Petitioners assert that a certiorari petition is the proper mode since what they principally questioned before the CA was the jurisdiction of the DAR to take cognizance of respondent’s application for exemption.

We are not persuaded. It bears stressing that it is the law which confers upon the DAR the jurisdiction over applications for exemption.[53] And, “[w]hen a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.”[54] Besides, petitioners’ basis in claiming that the DAR has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of respondent’s application for exemption is gravely flawed. The submission of proof of payment of disturbance compensation is not jurisdictional as to deprive the DAR of the power to act on an application for exemption. To reiterate, jurisdiction over the subject of a case is conferred by law.[55]

Also untenable is petitioners’ assertion that even assuming that a petition for review under Rule 43 is the proper remedy, they are still entitled to the writ of certiorari. Petitioners posit that an exceptional circumstance in this case calls for the issuance of the writ, i.e., they stand to lose the land they till without receiving the appropriate disturbance compensation. It is well to remind petitioners, however, that the assailedNovember 6, 2002 Order of the DAR granting respondent’s application for exemption is subject to the payment of disturbance compensation to the farmer-beneficiaries of the subject parcels of land. Hence, petitioners’ fear that they will be deprived of the land they till without payment of disturbance compensation is totally without basis. There being no substantial wrong or substantial injustice to be prevented here, petitioners cannot therefore invoke the exception to the general rule that a petition for certiorari will not lie if an appeal is the proper remedy.

Thus, we are totally in accord with the CA’s finding that petitioners resorted to a wrong remedy.

x x x."