G.R. No. L-34708 - Tumulin vs. Court of Appeals

Saturnino Tumulin, the petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari seeking the annulment of a resolution by the Court of Appeals dated November 23, 1971.
The resolution ordered Tumulin’s ejectment from a parcel of land owned by Manuel Garces pending the final resolution of the underlying agrarian case.

On September 24, 1969, Tumulin instituted an action in the Court of Agrarian Relations of Bohol.

The action sought the conversion of his farm status from share tenancy to an agricultural leasehold.

In his answer, Garces denied that Tumulin had ever been his tenant, asserting that, since November 1968, the land was exclusively worked by Garces after being voluntarily surrendered by his previous tenant.

It found that Tumulin was “not and was never instituted as share tenant over the landholding in question.”
Consequently, it ordered the dismissal of Tumulin’s complaint for lack of cause of action.

During the pendency of Tumulin’s appeal, the Court of Appeals, upon Garces’ motion, issued a resolution for ejectment under section 5 of R.A. 5434.

Section 5 provides that an appeal does not automatically stay the execution of an award, order, ruling, decision, or judgment unless the issuing body deems otherwise on motion and after a hearing.

The appellate resolution effectively ordered Tumulin's ouster from the disputed premises, thereby preempting resolution of the substantive issue regarding his tenancy.

Tumulin contended that the sole basic issue—the determination of his status as a tenant—had not yet been resolved by the appellate court.
He argued that the ejectment order was premature and prejudiced the resolution of his main case.

The Court noted that the agrarian laws, particularly R.A. 3844, safeguarded the substantive right of agricultural lessees to continue in possession of their land until a final, executory judgment of dispossession.
The Court contrasted the procedural nature of R.A. 5434 with the substantive protections under R.A. 3844 and indicated that the latter’s policy should not be undermined by procedural orders.
Reference was made to the recent case Quilantang vs. Court of Appeals, which elaborated on the public policy favoring tenant security.

Whether or not Saturnino Tumulin is a tenant of Manuel Garces.
The appellant argued that if Tumulin were indeed a tenant, ordering his ejectment before resolving this issue was premature and erroneous.

The issue of whether a procedural provision (R.A. 5434), which permits ordering ejectment pending appeal, can override the substantive tenant protections enshrined in R.A. 3844.
Whether the court’s action in ordering the ejectment effectively impeded the proper adjudication of Tumulin’s substantive rights as a tenant.

Whether the Court of Appeals prematurely determined the main issue (the tenancy status) by ordering the ejectment during the pendency of the appeal.
The appropriateness of the appellate court’s reliance on a procedural rule in light of the established substantive protection for tenants.