G.R. No. L-34130. April 25, 1974.
JESUS SODSOD, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE VALERIANO L. DEL VALLE, Presiding Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Ninth Regional District, Branch II, Legaspi City, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ALBAY, ANTONIO FLORANZA and LEOPOLDO POJOL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus Sodsod filed CAR Case No. 651, claiming to be a share-tenant since 1952 of a riceland in Albay and seeking to be maintained in peaceful possession. He alleged ejectment attempts by landowners Antonio Floranza and Leopoldo Pojol. The landowners denied Sodsod’s tenancy status, asserting he was merely a hired laborer. The Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) rendered a decision on November 27, 1970, sustaining the landowners and ordering Sodsod to vacate the landholding. Sodsod perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals on January 11, 1971.
During the pendency of this appeal, the CAR, through respondent Judge Valeriano L. Del Valle, issued an order on January 16, 1971, directing the execution of its decision. Sodsod’s motion for reconsideration and/or stay of execution was denied. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Sodsod’s urgent motions to dissolve the writ of execution. Sodsod then filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the CAR’s orders and the CA’s resolutions, and to enjoin the execution pending appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Agrarian Relations may order the execution of its decision ejecting an alleged tenant pending appeal, based on Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5434 , despite the substantive right to security of tenure under agrarian laws.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition, nullifying the challenged orders and resolutions. The Court held that the execution pending appeal was improper. The legal logic centers on the conflict between a procedural rule and a substantive right. Respondents justified the immediate execution under Section 5 of R.A. No. 5434 , which states that an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of a judgment. However, the Court ruled that this procedural provision cannot override the substantive right to security of tenure guaranteed by specific agrarian laws.
The Court cited Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), which provides that an agricultural lessee shall continue in possession of his landholding except when dispossession is authorized by a final and executory judgment. This creates a substantive right for the tenant. The Court, referencing its prior rulings in Quilantang v. Court of Appeals and Paulo v. Court of Appeals, emphasized that R.A. No. 5434 is purely procedural. It cannot diminish the substantive right of a claimed tenant to remain on the land until a final judgment of ejectment is rendered. Since the very issue on appeal before the Court of Appeals was whether Sodsod was a tenant, allowing execution would prejudge that central issue and effectively deprive him of the substantive protection of the law. The temporary restraining order was made permanent, and the appellate court was directed to decide the main appeal with dispatch.