HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA vs REYES

Facts:

1. This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction challenging the constitutionality of
Presidential Decree No. 564, the Revised Charter of the Philippine Tourism Authority, and
Proclamation No. 2052 declaring the barangays of Sibugay, Malubog, Babag and Sirao
including the proposed Lusaran Dam in the City of Cebu and in the municipalities of Argao and
Dalaguete in the province of Cebu as tourist zones.
2. In their motions to dismiss, the petitioners alleged, in addition to the issue of public use, that
there is no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for
tourism purposes; that assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be
paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area; that limiting the amount
of compensation by Legislative fiat is constitutionally repugnant; and that since the land is
under the land reform program, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of First
Instance that has jurisdiction over the expropriation cases.
3. The Philippine Tourism Authority having deposited with The Philippine National Bank, Cebu
City Branch, an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1533. The lower court issued separate orders authorizing PTA to take
immediate possession of the premises and directing the issuance of writs of possession.
4. The issues raised by the petitioners revolve around the proposition that the actions to
expropriate their properties are constitutionally infirm because nowhere in the Constitution
can a provision be found which allows the taking of private property for the promotion of
tourism.

Issue: Whether or not the expropriation of their property under PD 564 was invalid.

HELD: No, Petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike
down a statute or decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative perception is the public good.

1. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private
concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities. The expropriation of private land
for slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is
later sold to private homeowners, commercial firms, entertainment and service companies, and
other private concerns.
2. The petitioners also relied on the Land Reform Program of the government According to them the
properties subject of expropriation may not be taken for the purposes intended since they are
within the coverage of "operation land transfer" under the land reform program. We have
considered the above arguments, however they failed to show that the area being developed is
indeed a land reform area and that the affected persons have emancipation patents and
certificates of land transfer.
3. The petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or
decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative perception is the public good. A statute has in its
favor the presumption of validity. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality of a law. The courts will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except
in a clear case. And in the absence of factual findings or evidence to rebut the presumption of
validity, the presumption prevails.