Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ARLENE DE LEON

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	GR No. 212496 2015-03-18	NESTOR BRACERO v. RODULFO ARCELO LEONEN, J.
The Complaint stated that Victoriano Monisit owned the 48,632-square-meter land.[9] The heirs of Victoriano Monisit inherited this property identified as Lot No. 4327 upon his death and declared it under their names for tax purposes in 2002.[10]
	GR No. 161090 2012-07-04	SPS. ROMEO LL. PLOPENIO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM SERENO, J.
We have repeatedly ruled that the right to appeal is a remedy of statutory origin. As such, this right must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing its exercise.[17] The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, 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. Consequently, we rule that the only mode of appeal from decisions of the SAC-RTC is via a Rule 42 petition for review[18] to the Court of Appeals, without any distinction as to whether the appeal raises questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
	GR No. 190660 2011-04-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Land Bank and the DAR failed to file their appellees' brief. During the pendency of the appeal, Land Bank filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Defendant-Appellee['s] Motion to Dismiss Appeal,[6] maintaining that the appeal should be dismissed because an ordinary appeal is the wrong remedy, the proper mode being by way of a petition for review, citing Section 60 of Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Hence, Land Bank concluded that the appellate court had no jurisdiction over the case, the SAC decision having attained finality following Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon[7] which held that failure of a party to file the proper remedy within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the assailed decision renders it final.
	GR No. 148892 2010-05-06	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LUZ L. RODRIGUEZ MENDOZA, J.
In her Comment,[11] Rodriguez contends that a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure as held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon.[12]
	GR No. 168859 2009-06-30	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. E. GANZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Similarly, Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure merely mentions several quasi-judicial agencies without exclusivity in its phraseology.[29] The enumeration of the agencies therein mentioned is not exclusive.[30] The introductory phrase "[a]mong these agencies are" preceding the enumeration of specific quasi-judicial agencies only highlights the fact that the list is not meant to be exclusive or conclusive. Further, the overture stresses and acknowledges the existence of other quasi-judicial agencies not included in the enumeration but should be deemed included.[31]
	GR No. 158270 2008-07-21	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HERMIN ARCEO REYES, R.T., J.
During the pendency of the appeal with the CA, this Court rendered a decision in the similar case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon,[10] reiterating that the proper mode of appeal from a decision of the RTC in a petition for determination of just compensation is a petition for review, thus: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. There is no reason for a contrary interpretation. Where the law is clear and categorical, there is no room for construction, but only application.[11] In a motion for reconsideration, this Court clarified the Land Bank of the Philippines v. De Leon[12] ruling to apply prospectively from March 20, 2003, thus:
	GR NO. 157903 2007-10-11	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FEDERICO C. SUNTAY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration maintaining that petitioner resorted to a wrong mode of appeal; hence, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its notice of appeal. Respondent cited this Court's Decision dated September 10, 2002 in G.R. No. 143275, entitled Land Bank of the Philippines v. Arlene De Leon and Bernardo de Leon,[9] holding that the proper mode of appeal from a Decision of the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court shall be by way of a petition for review.
	GR NO. 136814 2005-09-02	SPS. CARLOS GOCOTANO AND VISITACION GOCOTANO AND CLODUALDO GOCOTANO v. SPS. MARCELO GOCOTANO AND MARGARITA GOCOTANO
In Land Bank of the Philippines vs. De Leon,[6] we held: "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. There is no room for a contrary interpretation. Where the law is clear and categorical, there is no room for construction, but only application.
	GR No. 148223 2004-11-25	FERNANDO GABATIN v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of Land Bank v. De Leon[19] (hereinafter referred to as Decision), we made the definitive pronouncement that a petition for review under Rule 42, and not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, is the appropriate mode of appeal on the decisions of the RTCs acting as SACs. In the said case, Land Bank filed a motion for reconsideration. In a resolution[20] dated 20 March 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Resolution), we resolved the Motion for Reconsideration in this wise: