6 Association of Small Landowners Vs DAR Secretary

Case
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
Just compensation may only be made The determination of just

by a court of justice and not the compensation
by
executive
President of the PH
authorities is preliminary only. It
does not foreclose judicial
intervention whenever sought or
warranted.
Just compensation contemplated in

the Bill of Rights is payable in money
or in cash and not in the form of
bonds or other things of value
The taking must be simultaneous

with the payment of just
compensation as it is traditionally
understood.
The EO deprives the petitioners their
property rights as protected by due
process
The landowner and other interested

parties are allowed an opportunity to
submit evidence on the real value of
the property.

Section 16(f) of the CARP Law clearly
provides: Any party who disagrees
with the decision may bring the matter
to the court of proper jurisdiction for
final
determination
of
just
compensation.
The determination made by the DAR is
only preliminary unless accepted by
all parties concerned. Otherwise, the
courts of justice will still have the right
to review with finality the said
determination in the exercise of what
is admittedly a judicial function.
The traditional medium for the
payment of just compensation is
money and no other. However, what
is being dealt here is a revolutionary
kind of expropriation which is
intended for the benefit not only of a
particular community or of a small
segment of the population but of the
entire Filipino nation, from all levels of
our society, from the impoverished
farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its
purpose does not cover only the
whole territory of this country but
goes beyond in time to the
foreseeable future, which it hopes to
secure and edify with the vision and
the sacrifice of the present generation
of Filipinos.

Considering the vast areas of land
subject to expropriation under the
laws, hundreds of billions of pesos will
be needed, far more indeed than the
amount of P50 billion initially
appropriated. The court held,
therefore, that the content and
manner of the just compensation
provided for in Section 18 of the
CARP Law is not violative of the
Constitution.
There is compensable taking when the
following conditions concur: (1) the
expropriator must enter a private
property; (2) the entry must be for
more than a momentary period; (3)
the entry must be under warrant or
color of legal authority; (4) the
property must be devoted to public
Equal protection clause is also

violated because the order places the
burden of solving the agrarian
problems on the owners only of
agricultural lands
The amount of Php 50 billion

provided in Sec 2 of Proc No. 131 is
an amount in future and not in esse.
Furthermore, Pres. Aquino had no
authority to fund the Agrarian reform
program. The appropriation is
likewise
invalid
because
of
uncertainty
in
the
amount
appropriated. Sec 2 of Proc 131, and
Secs 20 and 21 of EO 229 provides
only the minimum authorized
amount.
The constitutional prohibition is

against the payment of public
money without the corresponding
appropriation. There is no rule that
only money already in existence
can be the subject of an
appropriation law. Finally, the
earmarking of Php 50 billion as
Agrarian Reform Fund, although
denominated as an initial amount,
is actually the maximum sum
appropriated. The word "initial"
simply means that additional
amounts may be appropriated later
when necessary.
No careful study of the situation of

the sugar planters were made in the
issuance of Proc No. 131 and EO 229,
as there was no tenancy problem
The sugar planters have failed to

show that they belong to a
different class and should be
differently treated.
appropriated or injuriously affected;

and (5) the utilization of the property
for public use must be in such a way
as to oust the owner and deprive him
of beneficial enjoyment of the
property

The CARP Law conditions the transfer
of possession and ownership of the
land to the government on receipt by
the landowner of the corresponding
payment or the deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or LBP
bonds with an accessible bank. Until
then, title also remains with the
landowner.
Equal protection simply means that
all persons or things similarly situated
must be treated alike both as to the
rights conferred and the liabilities
imposed.

The argument that not only
landowners but also owners of other
properties must be made to share the
burden of implementing land reform
must be rejected. There is a
substantial distinction between these
two classes of owners that is clearly
visible except to those who will not
see.
Proc. No. 131 is not an appropriation
measure even if it does provide for
the creation of said fund, for that is
not its principal purpose. An
appropriation law is one the primary
and specific purpose of which is to
authorize the release of public funds
from the treasury. The creation of the
fund is only incidental to the main
objective of the proclamation, which
is agrarian reform.

The House of Representatives, which
now has the exclusive power to
initiate appropriation measures, had
not yet been convened when the
proclamation was issued. The
legislative power was then solely
vested in the President of the
Philippines, who embodied, as it were,
both houses of Congress.
Petitioners have not shown that they
belong to a different class and entitled
to a different treatment.
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
Section 4 of EO 229 has been

superseded by Section 14 of the CARP
Law. The CARP Law says that the just
compensation shall be ascertained on
the basis of the factors mentioned in
its Section 17 and in the manner
provided for in Section 16.
P.D. No. 27 has been amended by
LOI 474 removing any right of
retention from persons who own
other agricultural lands of more
than 7 hectares in aggregate area
or lands used for residential,
commercial, industrial or other
purposes from which they derive
adequate income for their family.
And even assuming that the
petitioners do not fall under its
terms,
the
regulations
implementing P.D. No. 27 have
already been issued,

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.

6 Association of Small Landowners Vs DAR Secretary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Association of Small Landowners Vs DAR Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case

Just compensation may only be made The determination of just

Just compensation contemplated in

The taking must be simultaneous

The landowner and other interested

Equal protection clause is also

The amount of Php 50 billion

The constitutional prohibition is

No careful study of the situation of

The sugar planters have failed to

appropriated or injuriously affected;

Section 4 of EO 229 has been

You might also like