Scribd
Upload
69 views1 page

08A - Plopenio vs. DAR

The petitioners owned 11.8643 hectares of coconut land that they offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. However, the Land Bank valued the land at a lower price per hectare than a comparable property. The petitioners appealed this valuation unsuccessfully. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' direct appeal, finding that appeals of decisions covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law must go through the Court of Appeals, not directly to the Supreme Court. The petition is therefore denied and prior decisions affirmed.

Uploaded by

Renard Enrile
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views1 page

08A - Plopenio vs. DAR

The petitioners owned 11.8643 hectares of coconut land that they offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. However, the Land Bank valued the land at a lower price per hectare than a comparable property. The petitioners appealed this valuation unsuccessfully. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' direct appeal, finding that appeals of decisions covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law must go through the Court of Appeals, not directly to the Supreme Court. The petition is therefore denied and prior decisions affirmed.

Uploaded by

Renard Enrile
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

161090               July 4, 2012

SPOUSES ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO and ROSIELINDA PLOPENIO represented by GAVINO


PLOPENIO, Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

SERENO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner-spouses own 11.8643 hectares of coconut land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur. In 2000, the
land of their brother Gavino Plopenio, likewise located in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, was valued by
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) at P51,125.60 per hectare. On this
basis, petitioners offered their entire landholdings to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for
acquisition and distribution pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6657, or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law.

On 26 October 2001, public respondent Land Bank sent a Notice of Valuation and Adjudication
valuing the land of petitioner-spouses at P23,485.00 per hectare. Dissatisfied with Land Bank’s offer,
petitioners rejected the Notice of Valuation and Acquisition and referred the matter to the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur for summary administrative proceedings.

The PARAD affirmed the valuation made by Land Bank. Petitioners then filed petition before the
SAC-RTC, which ruled that the Decision of the PARAD had already attained finality because
petitioners failed to file their petition on time under Section 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL).

Petitioners moved to appeal directly, via Rule 45, to the Supreme Court which found the petition
immediately dismissible because it held that appeal should be made to Court of Appeals under
Section 60 of CARL.

Petitioners propose to carve out an exception to Section 60 by arguing that because the instant
Petitions raise only pure questions of law, the proper mode of appeal is via a Rule 45 Petition to this
Court

ISSUE: Whether or not the instant petition should be denied.

RULING: Yes. It should be denied. The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and
regulated by CARL, and appeals therefrom are governed by Section 60 thereof. That law expressly
states that appeals from SACs must be taken to the Court of Appeals without making a distinction
between appeals raising questions of fact and those dealing purely with questions of law. Ubi lex
non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should we.

Petition is DENIED. Assailed Decisions and Orders are AFFIRMED.

You might also like