EMILIA SOMODIO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER RUFO S. SUCALDITO AND COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, 8TH REGIONAL DISTRICT, RESPONDENTS.

Somodio versus Sucaldito

The Case

This is a petition for review by certiorari filed by Emilia Somodio, a landowner, against Commissioner Rufo S. Sucaldito of the Eighth Regional District of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Mrs. Somodio asks the Supreme Court to annul an interlocutory order that restrained her from disturbing her tenant, Isidro Sotelo, and directed her to maintain him peacefully on the landholding until the case is finally decided. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate the boundary between a final order, which may be appealed, and an interlocutory order, which may not; and it explains why a Commissioner of the Court of Agrarian Relations may issue an order of desistance in favor of a tenant even without requiring a bond.

Procedural History

Isidro Sotelo filed a complaint with the Eighth Regional District of the Court of Agrarian Relations, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction and for the delivery of the balance of his share. Mrs. Somodio moved to dismiss, and when the motion was denied she filed her answer with a counterclaim. Sotelo then filed an urgent motion for a preliminary injunction, to which Mrs. Somodio did not object. Before resolving the motion, Commissioner Sucaldito authorized a legal aide of the Court of Agrarian Relations to conduct an ocular inspection. After the inspection report showed Sotelo in material possession, the Commissioner issued the order complained of. Mrs. Somodio moved for reconsideration and for a stay of execution, and both were denied. She then filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review by certiorari, and the Court issued a writ suspending execution of the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Facts

Emilia Somodio owns a small tract of land of about two fanegas in the barrio of Bita-og-Taytay, municipality of Zarraga, province of Iloilo. Isidro Sotelo cultivated that land as her tenant. On June 8, 1962, Sotelo filed a complaint alleging that he had been her tenant since 1952; that on or about May 29, 1962, after he had prepared the seedbed and plowed half of the land, Mrs. Somodio caused the remaining portion to be plowed by her agents; that for several years she had given him less than the share due him under the law; and that she had refused to give him the balance.

Mrs. Somodio denied some allegations and admitted others, affirming that Sotelo had been her tenant, but only from 1959 to 1961, and that in the latter year he voluntarily returned the land to her. She set up a counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees.

Sotelo filed an urgent motion for a preliminary injunction, which Mrs. Somodio did not object to. Commissioner Sucaldito authorized an ocular inspection to determine who was in actual, physical possession of the land. The legal aide reported that the land is in the material possession of Sotelo. The next day, the Commissioner issued the order directing Mrs. Somodio to desist from disturbing, harassing or threatening Sotelo, to refrain from working on the land, and to maintain him peacefully thereon until final determination of the case.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Commissioner may be reviewed by the Supreme Court under Section 13 of Republic Act Number 1267, the same being interlocutory rather than final.
• Whether or not Mrs. Somodio's remedy was to appeal to the Associate Judge assigned to the Eighth Regional District of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
• Whether or not Commissioner Sucaldito abused his discretion in issuing the orders complained of.
• Whether or not the absence of a bond filed by Sotelo before the issuance of the order invalidates the order.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Republic Act Number 1267 provides:

Appeal may be taken from an order or decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations promulgated under the provisions of this Act and a review of such order or decision may be obtained in the Supreme Court by filing in such court within fifteen days from receipt of such order or decision a written petition praying that it be modified or set aside in whole or in part. The review by the court shall be limited to questions of law, and findings of fact when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

This provision limits review to final orders or decisions, and the Court held it inapplicable to the interlocutory orders complained of.

Section 1 of Rule 11 of the Rules of the Court of Agrarian Relations provides:

Interlocutory orders are those which do not affect disposition on the merits of the case and shall be issued by the Court or the Commissioners pending final determination of the case when they are deemed necessary for the best interest of the parties.

This defines the character of the orders complained of as interlocutory, hence not appealable under Section 13.

Section 3 of Rule 11 provides:

The Commissioners may, upon motion of the interested party and after hearing, or when justified by verified pleadings, issue interlocutory orders in ejectment cases directing the landholder to desist from ejecting the tenant from the landholding pending the final determination of the case on its merits.

This expressly authorizes the order of desistance without requiring a bond.

Section 2 of Rule 11 provides:

All interlocutory orders issued by the court shall be immediately executory. The execution of such orders shall not be stayed unless the court in its discretion so orders, upon petition by the party adversely affected thereby and after a good cause therefor is shown in which event the court may require said party to file a cash bond to answer for whatever the other party may suffer by reason of the stay.

This shows that a bond is required only to stay execution, not to issue the order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition purports to be an appeal under Section 13 of Republic Act Number 1267, but that provision refers to final orders or decisions of the Court of Agrarian Relations. It is inapplicable to the orders complained of, the same being interlocutory. No decision or final order had as yet been rendered.

On the second issue, the Court held that if Mrs. Somodio did not agree with the orders, her remedy was to appeal to the Associate Judge assigned to the Eighth Regional District of the Court of Agrarian Relations, but she did not do so.

On the third issue, the Court held that the records do not show that Commissioner Sucaldito had abused his discretion. One of the main issues raised in the pleadings was whether Sotelo was actually in possession, and before passing upon the merits of the urgent motion, the Commissioner caused an ocular inspection in the presence of Mrs. Somodio and her counsel, which revealed that Sotelo was in possession.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that although no bond had been filed, this was justified by the language of Rule 11. Section 3 explicitly authorizes Commissioners to issue interlocutory orders in ejectment cases directing the landholder to desist from ejecting the tenant pending final determination, without requiring a bond. Section 2 provides that the court may require a cash bond to stay execution. Thus the intent to permit issuance without a bond is manifest, and this is understandable, for otherwise the order of desistance would in many cases be useless, since tenants generally have no property that could serve as security for a bond.

Doctrine

An order of the Court of Agrarian Relations that does not affect the disposition of the case on the merits is interlocutory, and it may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court under Section 13 of Republic Act Number 1267, which applies only to final orders or decisions. The remedy of a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order is to appeal to the Associate Judge assigned to the regional district. A Commissioner may issue an interlocutory order of desistance in an ejectment case directing the landholder to desist from ejecting the tenant pending final determination, and no bond is required for its issuance; a bond may be required only to stay its execution.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it had issued, and ordered Mrs. Somodio to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an interlocutory order of the Court of Agrarian Relations is not appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 13 of Republic Act Number 1267; the remedy is to appeal to the Associate Judge, and no bond is needed to issue an order of desistance. Examiners use this case to test the final versus interlocutory distinction and the bond requirement in agrarian ejectment proceedings.