LANDBANK V. DE LEON (REMEDIAL)

The DAR and Landbank both filed separate appeals using different modes. DAR filed a petition for review while Landbank interposed an ordinary appeal by filing a notice of appeal.

The petition for review was given due course while the ordinary appeal was dismissed primarily holding that Landbank availed of the wrong mode of appeal.

In affirming the dismissal by the appellate court of Landbank's ordinary appeal, this Court held that in section 60 of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) is clear in providing petition for review as the appropriate mode of appeal from decision of the Special Agrarian Courts.

Section 61 (the provision on which Landbank bases its argument for review as the correct mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts) merely makes a general reference to the Rules of Court and does not categorically prescribe ordinary appeal as the correct way of questioning decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.

We ruled that the Rules of Court do not categorically prescribe ordinary appeal as the exclusive mode of appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts. further, rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the SC.

On account of the absence of jurisprudence interpreting Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657 regarding the proper way to appeal decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts, as well as the conflicting decisions of the CA thereon, Landbank cannot be blamed for availing of the wrong mode. Based on its own interpretation and reliance on the Buenaventura ruling, Landbank acted on the mistaken belief that an ordinary appeal is the appropriate manner to question decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.

We hold that our Decision, declaring a petition for review as the proper mode of appeal from judgments of Special Agrarian Courts, is a rule of procedure which affects substantive rights. If our ruling is given retroactive application, it will prejudice Landbank's right to appeal because pending appeals in the CA will be dismissed outright on mere technicality thereby sacrificing substantial merits thereof. It would be unjust to apply a new doctrine to a pending case involving a party who already invoked a contrary view and who acted in good faith thereon prior to the issuance of said doctrine.

ALFREDO V. BORRAS (REMEDIAL)

In a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI under Rule 45, this Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court. This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the CA are in complete agreement on their factual findings. In this case, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. The facts relied upon by the trial court and appellate courts are borne out by the record. We agree with the conclusions drawn by the lower courts from these facts.

The action is not barred by prescription and laches. In reality, the ultimate relief sought by respondents is the RECONVEYANCE to them of the subject land. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. The body of the pleading or complaint determines the nature od the action, not its title Or heading. Thus. the present action should be treated as one for reconveyance.

To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for reconveyance, plaintiff's possession of the disputed property is material. an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in 10 years. The 10-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However, if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a SUIT FOR QUIETING OF TITLE, an action that is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.

Neither is the action barred by laches. We have defined LACHES as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable time, to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either had abandoned it or declined to assert it. Respondents discovered in January 1994 the subsequent sale of the subject land and they filed this case in March 1994. Plainly, they did not sleep on their rights.