G.R. No.

L-21064 June 30, 1970

J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., petitioner-appellee,
vs.
THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION

Facts:
This is an appeal by the petitioner towards the previous Court decision that Republic Act 2616 is
constitutional. 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. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not Republic Act 2616 is constitutional as the Congress has the legislative will to
expropriate the lands it deem fit for sale.

Ruling:
Yes, because it cannot be denied that congress has the capacity to exercise such authority.

Ratio Decidendi:
• 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.
• 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.
• We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. We do not of
course stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which
constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained. They are
to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which
case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a
lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be
present in the people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should be
understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the
provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter
it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Thus these
are the cases where the need for construction is reduced to a minimum.