ARNOLD N. AMBOANG, JR.

| JD2B | Labor Law I

G.R. No. 143275 March 20, 2003

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
ARLENE DE LEON and BERNARDO DE LEON, respondents

FACTS:

Petitioners-appellees Arlene de Leon and Bernardo de Leon are the registered owners of a
parcel of land situated at San Agustin, Concepcion, Tarlac with a total area of 50.1171 hectares.
The property was voluntarily offered for sale to the government at P50,000.00 per hectare.
However, the DAR only made a counter-offer of P17,656.20 per hectare/total of P884,877.54
and later, P1,565,369.35.

In view of the petitioners-appellees' failure to respond to the new offer made by DAR, the
DARAB took cognizance of the case. Subsequently, the DARAB issued an Order directing
respondent-appellant LBP to recompute the value of the subject property. An aggregate amount
of P2,491,731.65 was arrived at but this was again rejected by the petitioners-appellees.

In a petition, petitioners asked the Regional Trial Court, Br. 63, Tarlac (the designated special
agrarian court in the area) to fix the just compensation of the property. The court rendered a
summary judgment, fixing the compensation of the subject property at P1,260,000.00 for the
16.69 hectares of rice land and P2,957,250.00 for the 30.4160 hectares of sugar land.
Respondent-appellant moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the court.

DAR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner LBP also filed a notice of
appeal of the said decision. The Third Division of the Appellate Court gave due course to the
petition for review. The Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, on the other hand, dismissed
petitioner LBP's ordinary appeal for lack of merit reasoning that the mode of appeal followed by
petitioner LBP was erroneous. Considering the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law mandates
that Appeals from Special Agrarian Courts should be by petition for review. LBP filed a Motion
for Reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Land Bank of the Philippines had chosen the wrong mode of appeal.

RULING: