SECTION 60. Appeals An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, decision shall become final.

An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order ruling or decision of the DAR, as the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the said decision.

Remedies

1. Remedy from adverse decision by the Regional Trial Court - appeal via petition for review to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution or from the date of last publication, if required, or denial of petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration as provided under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This is so even if the Special Agrarian Courts are not mentioned in Rule 43 in the Rules of Court. (In Land Bank vs. De Leon)

2. Remedy from an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals - appeal by certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the rules of Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or appealed order or resolution appealed from.

Petition for Review Defined

Rule 41 (Section 1) of the Rules of Court provides:

A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition.

Certiorari Defined

Rule 45 (Section 1) of the Rules of Court provides:

A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

CASE

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De LeonG.R. No. 143275. September 10, 2002FACTS:The petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at San Agustin, Concepcion. he subject property was voluntarily offered for sale to the government pursuant to RA 6657 at P50,000.00 per hectare. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) made a counter offer of P17,656.20 per hectare, or a total amount of P884,877.54, but the same was rejected. Another offer was made by DAR increasing the amount to P1,565,369.35. In view of the petitioners-appellees failure to respond to the new offer made by DAR, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) took cognizance of the case pursuant to Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657. Subsequently, the DARAB issued an Order directing respondent-appellant LBP to recompute the value of the subject property in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992. Respondent-appellant arrived at a recomputed amount of P2,491,731.65, which was again rejected by the petitioners-appellees. Petitioners-appellees asked the court, among others, to fix the just compensation of the subject property. In due time the court rendered a summary judgment on December 19, 1997 fixing the compensation of the subject property. Within the time allowed, respondent-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the Court. Both DARAB and LBP appealed with the former filing a petition for review while the latter filed an ordinary appeal. The petition for review was given due course while the ordinary appeal of LBP was dismissed. Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.ISSUE:Whether or not the proper mode of filing an appeal for the decision of the Regional Trial Court in fixing just compensation is an ordinary appeal.HELD:NO. A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting an appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just compensation to the landowners concerned. Section 60 of RA 6657 clearly and categorically states that the said mode of appeal should be adopted. First, there is no conflict between Section 60 and 61 of RA 6657. Second, the failure to mention Special Agrarian Courts in Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be construed to mean that a petition for review is not permissible for decisions of the said special courts. Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure merely mentions the Court of Tax Appeals and the other different quasi-judicial agencies without exclusivity in its phraseology. Such omission cannot be construed to justify the contention that a petition for review is prohibited for decisions on special agrarian cases. What is indisputable is that Section 60 expressly regards a petition for review as the proper way of appealing decisions of agrarian courts. So far, there is no rule prescribed by this Court expressly disallowing the said procedure.15-day Period

The fifteen (15) day period to file petition for review to file an appeal via petition for review to the Court of Appeals may be extended for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. However, the fifteen (15) day period in which to file petition for review to the Supreme Court is non-extendible under Section 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Section 61. Procedure on Review Review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall be governed by the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals however, may require the parties to files simultaneous memoranda within fifteen (15) days from the notice after which the case is deemed submitted for decision.

The procedures outlined in the Rules of Court shall govern. In order to accelerate the proceedings, the Court may require a memorandum within fifteen (15) days after which the case will be deemed submitted for decision.

Section 62. Preferential Attention in Courts All courts in the Philippines, both rural and appellate, shall give preferential attention to all cases arising from or in connection with the implementation of the provisions of this Act.

All cases pending in court arising from or in connection with the implementation of this Act shall continue to be heard, tried and decided into their finality, notwithstanding the expiration of the ten-year period mentioned in Section 5 hereof.

Preferential Attention in Courts

By their nature, agrarian cases are to be decided with expeditiously for the benefit of the beneficiary and the landowner who is entitled to prompt just compensation.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 143275. September 10, 2002