LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

DE LEON

De Leon are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Tarlac which was voluntarily
offered for sale to the government pursuant to RA 6657 at P50,000 per hectare

DAR made a counter-offer at P17,000 per hectare amounting to P900,000 which De Leon
rejected. DAR increased it to P1.6M but was still rejected.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) took cognizance of the case
pursuant to RA 6657

DARAB issued an Order directing Land Bank to recompute the value of the subject property
in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 6. Land Bank recomputed and value at
P2.5M, but was again rejected.

In a Petition filed with the designated Special Agrarian Court in the area, De Leon asked the
court to fix the just compensation of the subject property and found it at around P4.3M

DAR filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the decision of the Special Agrarian
Court while Land Bank filed an ordinary appeal

CA: mode of appeal by Land Bank was erroneous considering that Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law mandates that appeals from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts should be by
petition for review

This petition is questioning the resolutions of the CA in ruling that Section 60 of RA 6657
provides the proper mode for the review of the decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts
despite Section 61 of RA 6657 which expressly mandates that the Rules of Court shall
govern the review of the decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts by the Court of Appeals

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying Section 60 of RA 6657 instead of the Rules of
Court in the review of the decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts NO

RULING:
A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting an appeal
from decisions 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. There is no room
for contrary interpretation. Where the law is clear and categorical, there is no room for
construction, but only application.

As long as the said section provides for a particular process for the governance of the special
court concerned, the provision is accurately classified as a special procedure. Subject to
constitutional limitations, the statutory enactment of a special procedure cannot be said to
encroach on the power of the Supreme Court to formulate rules of procedure for the reason
that they have not yet provided for a particular process specifically governing agrarian
courts. In fact, the Supreme Court exercises its constitutional power to promulgate special
rules of procedure by adopting Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657 declaring a petition for review
as the proper mode of appeal to the Court of Appeals.

PETITION DENIED.