jurisdiction does not include authority over petitions for
LAND BANK v. QUILIT certiorari.
G.R. No. 194167 Date: February 10, 2021
Ponente: HERNANDO, J. Topic: Power of Judicial
Review
FACTS:
1. Respondents Laoyan and Quilit filed with the RARAD
a petition for annulment of sale of an agricultural land
and redemption thereof.
2. The case involved 2 parcels of land which were
formerly owned by the Spouses Tolding. The lots were
mortgaged by them and were later acquired by LBP
through foreclosure.
3. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD):
Respondents may exercise their right of redemption for
both parcels of land.
4. LBP filed a notice of appeal but was denied. The
RARAD issued a Writ of Execution commanding the
DAR sheriff to enforce and execute its decision.
5. LBP filed a MR, but was denied. RARAD issued a
Certificate of Finality and Entry of Judgment.
6. RARAD issued an order directing the Register of Deeds
to release the TCTs to the respondents. A deed of
transfer and/or reconveyance involving the lands were
executed in favor of Quilit.
7. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB): dismissed the petition for certiorari on the
ground that the DARAB cannot acquire jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari.
8. CA: Denied LBP’s petition for review. Held that the
DARAB is only a quasi-judicial agency whose limited
ISSUE/S: WON the DARAB can exercise the power of
judicial review by issuing writs of certiorari? NO.
RULING: The SC based it’s ruling on the case of DARAB v.
Lubrica and held that the DARAB does not have any statutory
basis or constitutional basis to exercise jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari. It also clarified Lubrica’s ruling via the
case of the Heirs of Zoleta v. LBP, by holding that the
DARAB is a quasi-judicial agency, hence, it cannot exercise
the power of judicial review, in which, the issuance of writs of
certiorari is an incident of such.
In this case, the SC held that LBP may not repeatedly seek
protection under the provisions of the 1994 DARAB New
Rules of Procedure. LBP cannot conveniently invoke rules of
procedure in asserting their supposed right to file a petition for
certiorari with the DARAB. RA 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which is the very law creating
the DARAB, does not confer it authority to take cognizance of
petitions for certiorari.
To allow LBP to avail the extraordinary remedy of writ of
certiorari with the DARAB would not only allow an act outside
the statutory authority granted by law, but would also lead to
an the SC conferring a quasi-judicial agency the authority to
correct errors of jurisdiction, which is lodged only with the
regular courts pursuant to the Constitution.