J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc vs.

Land Tenure Administration

Facts:
On August 3, 1959, Republic Act no. 2616 took effect. The act states that the
Tatalon Estate jointly owned by J.M. Tuason and Co. Inc, Gregorio Araneta and Co.
Inc., and Florencio Deudor et al was authorized to be expropriated. More than a year
later Land Tenure Administration was directed by the executive secretary to institute
the expropriation of the aforesaid property. Appellee thereupon filed a prohibition
with a preliminary injunction to prevent respondents from instituting the
expropriation. The lower court decided that the said act was unconstitutional and a
writ of prohibition was granted to the appellee. Respondent appealed to C.A.
Issue:
Whether the RA 2616 as amended by 3454 is constitutional? YES
Held:
The decision of the lower court of January 10, 1963, holding that RA 2616 is
unconstitutional as amended by RA 3454 is reversed i.e. the expropriation is
constitutional
Rationale (as was stated in each:
1. Judicial Review is granted, if not expressly, at least by clear implication
from constitutional provisions. It may be exercised if an affected part files the
appropriate suit to test the validity of a legislative act, executive act, or municipal
ordinance for that matter. The constitution is the supreme law and is binding
on all governmental agencies. Failure to comply provides a ground to nullify a
governmental measure
2. The question if one of constitutional construction (of interpreting the
constitution). The task is to ascertain the realization of the purpose of the
framers and of the people in adopting the Constitution. It is assumed that
that the words in the constitutional provisions express the objectivity sought to be
attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except when technical
terms are employed in which case the significance attached to them prevails. This
case is such a case and is therefore one of minimal construction. The congress has
the legislative will to expropriate and subdivide lands it deems to be fit for sale.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that congress has the capacity to exercise such
authority. The language employed is not swathed in obscurity (because congress
has the legislative power as stated in the constitution). It is presumed that the
constitution suffices to govern the life of the people not only at the present time but
also in the indefinite future. The constitution though does not give rigid answers but
is flexible and accommodates the problems the future may pose.
The constitution is dynamic in nature and not static. It reflects the
socialpolitical environment of the times. It adapts and changes. Although looking at
the historical reasons for why an act was passed would be helpful, it is not enough.

4. There should be no fear that the constitutional grant of power to expropriate

lands is limitless. There is to be just compensation. This means the equivalent for
the value of the property at its taking. The market value of the land taken is just
compensation to which the owner of the condemned property is entitled.
5. According to the Chief Justice, acts of Congress, as well as those of the
Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity.
6. It is the failure to provide equal protection of the laws (Article 3, Section 1, par.1
of the Constitution) that rests the case of the petitioner. Since the statute in
question, R.A. 2616, singles out the Tatalon Estate for expropriation, the petitioner is
in the right to assert a denial of equal protection. However, there is nothing to
prevent Congress in view of the public funds at its disposal to follow a system of
priorities, especially when a serious social or economic problem is at hand. In the
bills Explanatory Note, Congress claims that given the problem of Quezon Citys
growing population, expropriating the land will help solve the overpopulation and
implement the land-for-the-landless program of the present
Administration. Singling out Tatalon Estate doesnt stigmatize the effort of
the statute as denial of equal protection.
7. On the occasion of expropriation, whatever contractual rights might be possessed
by vendors and vendees could be asserted and accorded the appropriate
constitutional protection.
8. The statute of concern can stand the test of validity. If it were otherwise, then the
judiciary may lend itself susceptible to the charge that in its appraisal of
governmental measures with social and economic implications, its decisions are
characterized by the narrow, unyielding insistence on the primacy of property
rights, contrary to what the Constitution ordains.

TEEHANKEE, concurring and dissenting

-

Concurs with main opinion to reverse the decision of the lower court
dated January 10, 1963
respondents may now properly file the expropriation proceedings
Doesnt agree with the court that the constitutional power of the
Congress for the expropriation of lands is well-nigh all embracing.