G.R. No. L-33845 December 18, 1973
EMILIO PAULO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 15TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, BRANCH I, DAVAO CITY, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE, CARLOS D. PASTORIZA and ROSALINDA DOMINGO PASTORIZA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the spouses Pastoriza, filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioner Emilio Paulo before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR). They alleged they were the legal possessors of a landholding and that Paulo was their agricultural tenant who had refused to deliver their share of the produce since 1969. Paulo denied the tenancy relationship, claiming he entered the land as a settler in his own right. After trial, the CAR rendered a decision on January 6, 1971, declaring the existence of a tenancy relationship and ordering Paulo’s ejectment for failure to deliver the landholders’ share. Paulo perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of this appeal, the private respondents moved for the immediate execution of the CAR decision. The CAR granted the motion and issued a writ of execution on February 17, 1971, pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5434 , which provides that decisions of the CAR are immediately executory even pending appeal. Paulo moved to set aside the execution, arguing that his dispossession was not authorized by a final and executory judgment as required by the Agricultural Land Reform Code. The CAR denied his motion, prompting Paulo to file the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of its decision pending appeal, thereby ejecting the petitioner from his landholding.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullifying the order of execution. The legal logic centers on the reconciliation of two statutes: the procedural rule of immediate execution under R.A. No. 5434 and the substantive right of security of tenure under R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code). The Court held that Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 is a specific and substantive provision guaranteeing that an agricultural lessee shall continue in the possession of his landholding except when his dispossession is authorized by the court in a judgment that is final and executory. This substantive right of the tenant cannot be defeated by the general procedural provision of R.A. No. 5434 , which mandates immediate execution.
Applying the rule that a substantive law prevails over a procedural law, and that a special law ( R.A. No. 3844 on agrarian relations) governs over a general law ( R.A. No. 5434 on appellate procedure), the Court ruled that the CAR decision, being still on appeal, was not final and executory. Therefore, the order for immediate execution and the consequent writ were issued without legal basis and in grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner is entitled to remain in possession of the landholding until the appealed case is finally resolved. The Court emphasized the constitutional and policy imperative of promoting social justice and the dignity of the small farmer, which underpins the substantive protection of tenure in R.A. No. 3844 .