ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN PHILIPPINES v.

SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, GR No. 78742, 1989-07-14

Facts:

The Constitution of 1987... he State of an agrarian reform program:

SEC. 4.  The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded
on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own
directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of... other farmworkers,
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.  To this end, the State shall
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the

Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or

equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation.  In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners.  The

State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,... which President Aquino signed on June 10,...
1988.

G.R. No. 79777... the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and
R.A. No. 6657.

The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and
owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland
worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Agustin Hermano,... Jr.  The
tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified
farmers under P.D. No. 27.

questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional
limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use... without just
compensation.

They contend that President Aquino usurped legislative power when she
promulgated E.O. No. 228.  The said measure is invalid also for violation of
Article XIII, Section 4, of the Constitution, for failure to provide for retention
limits for... small landowners.  Moreover, it does not conform to Article VI,
Section 25(4) and the other requisites of a valid appropriation.

They invoke the recent cases of EPZA v. Dulay[5] and Manotok v. National Food
Authority.[6] Moreover, the just compensation contemplated by the Bill of Rights
is payable in money or in cash and not in the form of bonds or other things of
value.

the executive order also deprives the petitioners of their property rights as
protected by due process.  The equal protection clause is also violated because
the order... places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners
only of agricultural lands.

that in declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be the owners of the
lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and so
violated due process.  Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian...
problem because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the
retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

it is contended that P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 (except Sections 20 and
21) have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 6657.

G.R. No. 79310

This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No.
229.

The petitioners claim that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to Congress and not the
President.

the

President could exercise legislative power until the Congress was convened, she
could do so only to enact emergency measures during the transition period.

Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 would still have to be annulled for violating the
constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process, and equal
protection.

they contend that taking must be simultaneous with payment of just

compensation as it is traditionally understood, i.e., with money and in full, but no
such payment is contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O. No. 229.

Section 6 thereof provides that the Land Bank of the Philippines "shall
compensate the landowner in an amount to be established by the government,
which shall be based on the owner's declaration of current fair mar... ket value
as provided in Section 4 hereof, but subject to certain... controls to be defined
and promulgated by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council." This
compensation may not be paid fully in money but in any of several modes that
may consist of part cash and part bond, with interest, maturing periodically,... or
direct payment in cash or bond as may be mutually agreed upon by the
beneficiary and the landowner or as may be prescribed or approved by the PARC.

lleges that President Aquino had no authority to fund the Agrarian Reform
Program... the appropriation is invalid because of uncertainty in the amount
appropriated.

the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and
should be differently treated.

the constitutional prohibition is against the payment of public money without the
corresponding appropriation

G.R. No. 79744

The petitioner now argues that:

(1)   E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President of the
Philippines.

(2)   The said executive orders are violative of the constitutional provision that
no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation.

(3)   The petitioner is denied the right of maximum retention provided for under
the 1987 Constitution.
E.O Nos. 228 and 229... violating the doctrine of separation of powers.  The
legislative power granted to the President under the Transitory

Provisions refers only to emergency measures that may be promulgated in the

proper exercise of the police power.

As for the validity of the issuance of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, he argues that... they
were enacted pursuant to Section 6, Article XVIII of the Transitory Provisions of
the 1987 Constitution which reads:

The incumbent president shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the
first Congress is convened.

distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent domai... was
eminent domain because the property involved was wholesome and intended for
a public use.

Property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a noxious
purpose, such as a... building on the verge of collapse, which should be
demolished for the public safety, or obscene materials, which should be
destroyed in the interest of public morals.  The confiscation of such property is
not compensable,... he taking of property under the... power of expropriation,
which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner.

Every restriction upon the use of property imposed in the exercise of the police
power deprives the owner of some right theretofore enjoyed, and is, in that
sense, an abridgment by the State of rights in property without making
compensation.

Whenever the use prohibited... ceases to be noxious - as it may because of

further changes in local or social conditions - the restriction will have to be
removed and the owner will again be free to enjoy his property as heretofore.

As for the power of expropriation, P... which sustained a zoning law under the
police power... eminent domain as encompassing public acquisition of private
property for... improvements that would be available for "public use," literally
construed.

Preservation of the landmark was held to be a valid objective of the police...

power.

o the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits
for landowners,... 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 argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection
because of the absence of retention limits has also become academic under
Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657

Classification

Equal protection... that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated
alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed

Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are... it is not
correct to say that only public agricultural lands may be covered by the CARP as
the Constitution calls for "the just distribution of all agricultural lands.
"political question... are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity

It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a

particular measure.

the requirement for public use has already been settled for us by the
Constitution itsel

The second requirement,... the payment of just compensation... s held in

Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi,[4... following conditions concur

The purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131 and R.A. No. 6657 are only
an elaboration of the constitutional... injunction that the State adopt the
necessary measures "to encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless to own directly or
collectively the lands they till." That public use, as pronounced by the...
fundamental law itself, must be binding on us.

(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 use or otherwise
informally 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.

Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that:

Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of

rejection or no response from the landowners upon the deposit with an
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR... shall take immediate possession
of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.  The
DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to... the qualified
beneficiaries.

the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of

justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the
governmen... the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by
any means... final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested
party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:

DAR is only preliminary... courts of justice will still have the right to review with
finality

SEC. 18.  Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall compensate the
landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR
and the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and
17,... and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by
the court, as the just compensation for the land.

(1)  Cash payment

(2)  Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP

preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance
with guidelines set by the PARC;

3)  Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
(4)  LBP bonds,... Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos.  The
cost will be tremendous.

Such amount is in fact not even fully available at this time.

Section 18 of the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution.

The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass
from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just
compensation.  Jurisprudence on this settled principle is... consistent both here
and in other democratic jurisdictions.

all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. No. 27, as recognized under
E.O. No. 228, are retained by him even now under R.A. No. 6657

Issues:

roc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide
for retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution is no
longer... tenable.

Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidated because they do not
provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section 4 of the
Constitution is no longer... tenable.

E.O. No. 229 violates the constitutional requirement that a bill shall have only
one subject, to be expressed in its title, deserves only short attention.  It is
settled that the title of the bill does not... have to be a catalogue of its contents
and will suffice if the matters embodied in the text are relevant to each other
and may be inferred from the title.

The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land.

The challenge to Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on the ground that no
retention limits are prescribed has already been discussed and dismissed.

he DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the

compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other
interested parties to submit evidence as to the... just compensation for the land,
within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice.  After the expiration of
the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision.  The DAR shall
decide the case within thirty (30) days after... it is submitted for decision.

Ruling:

The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his

powers under martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella and
we find no reason to modify or reverse it on that issue.  As for the power of
President

Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was
authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution,... An appropriation law is one the primary and specific purpose of
which is to authorize the release of public funds from the... treasur

The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main objective of the
proclamation, which is agrarian reform.

R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in
fact is one of its most controversial provisions.  This section declares:
Retention Limits. - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own
or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of
which shall vary according to factors governing a viable... family-sized farm,
such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created
hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares.  Three

(3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications:  (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2)
that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That
landowners whose... lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further,
That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the
original homestead at the time of the approval of... this Act shall retain the same
areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

But restriction imposed to protect the public health, safety or morals from
dangers threatened is not a taking.

o the police power, on the other hand, they assigned the less intrusive task of
preventing harmful externalities

So long as suppression of a privately authored harm bore a plausible relation to

some legitimate "public purpose," the pertinent measure need... have afforded
no compensation whatever.

there is an... exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution.

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.

(1) public use... just compensation.

Principles:

that... private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly

acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation
to the owner.

as in the case of the police power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme
law.

he power of expropriation is by no means absolute... private property shall not

be taken for public use without just... compensation"

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from its owner by the expropriator.[39] It has been repeatedly stressed by this
Court that the measure is not the taker's gain... but the owner's loss.[40] The
word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to
convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the... property to be taken
shall be real, substantial, full, ample... deal here with an actual taking of private
agricultural lands that has dispossessed the... owners of their property and
deprived them of all its beneficial use and enjoyment, to entitle them to the just
compensation mandated by the Constitution.

Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

The fundamental rule in expropriation matters is that the owner of the property
expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more
nor less, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money...
equivalent of said property.  Just compensation has always been understood to
be the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing
expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.

It is well-settled that just compensation means the equivalent for the value of
the property at the time of its taking.  Anything beyond that is more, and
anything short of that is less, than just compensation.  It means a fair and... full
equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not
whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity.  The market value of
the land taken is the just compensation to which the owner of condemned
property is entitled,... the market value being that sum of money which a person
desirous, but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but not compelled to
sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received for such property.

"Just compensation" for property taken by condemnation means a fair

equivalent in money, which must be paid at least within a reasonable time after
the taking, and it is not within the power of the Legislature to substitute for such
payment future obligations,... bonds, or other valuable advantage.[... we do not
deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain.  This is
not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited
area is sought to be taken by the State from... its owner for a specific and
perhaps local purpose.  What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation.

his kind of expropriation 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... heir intention
was to allow such manner of payment as is now provided for by the CARP Law,
particularly the... payment of the balance (if the owner cannot be paid fully with
money), or indeed of the entire amount of the just compensation, with other
things of value

Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not always
required to be made fully in money, we find further that the proportion of cash
payment to the other things of value constituting the total payment, as
determined on the basis of the areas of the lands... expropriated, is not unduly
oppressive upon the landowner... he other modes, which are likewise available
to the landowner at his option, are also not unreasonable... because payment is
made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and
other things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.
1.  R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are
SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein
petitions.

2.  Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon
full payment of compensation to their respective owners.

3.  All rights previously acquired by the tenant-farmers under P.D. No. 27 are
retained and recognized.

4.  Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under P.D.
No. 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under the
conditions therein prescribed.

5.  Subject to the above-mentioned rulings, all the petitions are DISMISSED,
without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case:

a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA
6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectareRiceland worked by
four tenants. Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers
under PD 27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the
legislature’s power. 

b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in

Victoria’s Mill NegrosOccidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229.
Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of
P50Billion.

c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under

thecoverage of Operation Land Transfer.

d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and

corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.

Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and RA were

constitutional.

Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of

Police power and eminent domain.

The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229
was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent
Domain.

RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP

becomes necessary to deprive 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 and the physical possession of said excess
and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner infavour of the farmer.

A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence
of the lawful subject and the method. 

Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be
determined is the method employed to achieve it.

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC

G.R. No. 78742 [July 14, 1989]

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, et al., petitioners, 
vs.

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent. 

FACTS

The association of the Small Landowners of the Philippines invokes the right of retention
granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long as they are
cultivating on intend to cultivate the same. Their respected lands do not exceed the statutory
limits but are occupied by tenants who re actually cultivating such lands.
Because PD No. 316 provides that no tenant-farmer in agricultural land primarily devoted to rice
and corn shall be ejected or removed from his farm holding until such time as the respective
rights of the tenant-farmers and the land owners shall have been determined, they petitioned the
court for a writ of mandamus to compel the DAR Secretary to issue the IRR, as they could not
eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention.

ISSUE

Whether or not the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police power.

Whether or not the content and manner of just compensation provided for the CARP is violative
of the Constitution.

Whether or not the CARP and EO 228 contravene a well accepted principle of eminent domain
by divesting the land owner of his property even before actual payment to him in full of just
compensation

HELD

Yes. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself,
which satisfies the first requirement of the lawful subject. However, objection is raised to the
manner fixing the just compensation, which it is claimed is judicial prerogatives. However, there
is no arbitrariness in the provision as the determination of just compensation by DAR is only
preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts will still have the
right to review with finality the said determination.
No. Although the traditional medium for payment of just compensation is money and no other,
what is being dealt with here is not the traditional exercise of the power and eminent domain.
This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation, which involves not mere millions of pesos. The
initially intended amount of P50B may not be enough, and is in fact not even fully available at
the time. The invalidation of the said section resulted in the nullification of the entire program.
No. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmer-beneficiaries were deemed full owners
of the land they acquired under PP 27, after proof of full payment of just compensation. The
CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of
DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also
remains with the landowner.