Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 Association of Small Landowners Vs DAR Secretary
6 Association of Small Landowners Vs DAR Secretary
Digest
Prepared by: Angela Aquino
Case Name: Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No.
78742, July 14 1989)
Facts: 4 Cases contending the unconstitutionality of the CARP and other relative measures are consolidated, to wit:
G.R. No. 7977: Nicolas Manaay and Augustin Hermano own a 9-hectare and 5-hectare ricelands, respectively, with 4
tenants each. The tenants were declared full owners of the land by virtue of EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD
27. They are questioning the constitutionality of PD 27 and EO Nos. 228 and 229.
G.R. No. 79310: Landowners and sugarplanters in the Victorias Mill District, and the Planters Committee, Inc. seek to
prohibit the implementation of Proc No. 131 and EO 229.
G.R. No. 79744: Petitioner alleges that the then Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform, in violation of due
process and the requirement for just compensation, placed his landholding under the coverage of Operation Land
Transfer. Certificates of Land Transfer were subsequently issued to the private respondents, who then refused
payment of lease rentals to him.
G.R. No. 78742: Petitioners in this case invoke the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to owners of rice and
corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or intend to cultivate the same. Their
respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such
lands.
Issue: WON the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is constitutional
Ruling: Yes. The court held that:
PETITIONER
SOLICITOR GENERAL
SUPREME COURT
The President Aquino usurped
The power of President Aquino to
legislative power
promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O.
- The power to provide for a
Nos. 228 and 229 was authorized
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
under Section 6 of the Transitory
Program belongs to the Congress
Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
and not the President. The power
Furthermore, The said measures were
of the President to exercise
issued by President Aquino before July
legislative power is limited to
27, 1987, when the Congress of the
only emergency measures during
Philippines was formally convened
the transition period.
and took over legislative power from
her. They are not "midnight"
enactments intended to pre-empt the
legislature
Additionally, the Congress has
affirmed the challenged measures
and has specifically provided that
they shall be suppletory to R.A. No.
6657 whenever not inconsistent with
its provisions
EO 228 is invalid for violation of Art
R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such
13 Sec 4 of the Constitution for
limits now in Section 6 of the law,
failure to provide retention limits for
which in fact is one of its most
small landowners. It also does not
controversial provisions
conform to Art 6, Sec 25 (4) and the
other requisites of a valid
CARP to them
The penalty for non-registration of
the lands, which is the expropriation
of the said land for an amount equal
to the government assessors
valuation of the land and tax
purposes.
Right of retention granted by P.D. No.
27 to owners of rice and corn lands
not exceeding seven hectares as long
as they are cultivating or intend to
cultivate the same
Notes: To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is
an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution.
But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they
may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent
domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession
of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. This is
definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain.