You are on page 1of 4

Association of Small Landowners vs.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform

175 SCRA 343 (1989)

G.R. No. 79777:
Presidential Decree no. 27, Executive Orders 228 & 229 - Nicolas Manaay and his wife own a 9-hectare
Riceland; while Agustin Hermano, Jr. Owned 5. They both have 4 tenants each on their respective
landholdings, who were declared full owners of the said lands by EO 228 as qualified farmer under PD
The Manaays and Hermano questions the questions the constitutionality of PD 27 and Eos 228 and 229.
Are Presidential Decree 27 and Proclamation 131 Eos 228 and 229 were validly enacted?
Yes. The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his legislative powers under the
martial law has already been sustained and there is no reason to modify or reverse it on that issue. As
for the power of President Aquino to promulgate PP131 and Eos 228 and 229, the same was authorized
by section 6 of the transitory provision of the 1987 Constitution. Significantly, the congress she is alleged
to have undercut has not rejected but in fact substantially affirmed the challenged measure and has
specifically provided that they shall be suppletory to R.A 6657 whenever not inconsistent with the
G.R. No. 79310:
Proclamation 131, Executive Order 229 Landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District in
Negros, as well as Planters Committee, Inc. seek to prohibit the implementation of Proclamation 131
and Executive Order 229 for being violative of the constitutional provision on just compensation, due
process, and equal protection.
Subsequently, the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters (NASP), Manuel Barcelona, and Prudencio
Serrano filed their own petitions, which also assailed the constitutionality of the above mentioned
Is the CARP fund provision in Proclamation 131 conforms to the requirement of a valid appropriation?
No. Proclamation 131 is not an appropriation measure even if it does provide for the creation of the 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 realase of public funds from the treasury. The creation of fund is only
incidental to the main objective of the proclamation
G.R. No. 79744
Executive Orders 228 & 229 Inocentes Pabico alleges that the then DAR secretary placed his
landholding under the coverage of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), in violation of due process and the
requirement for just compensation. Certificates of Land Transfer were subsequently issued to tenants,
who then refused to pay lease rentals to him. He then protested the erroneous inclusion of his small
landholding under the CLT and asked for the recall and cancellation of the said CLTs, which was denied
without hearing. Although he filed a motion for reconsideration, Eos 228 and 229 were issued, rendering
his MR moot and Academic because the said Eos directly effected the transfer of his land to his farmer-
Are Proclamation 131 and EO 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for the retention
No. this argument is no longer tenable because RA 6657 does provide for such limits now in section 6 of
the law. As such, landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under PD 27 shall
enjoy the retention rights granted by RA 6657 under the conditions therein prescribed.
G.R. No. 78742:
Presidential Decree 316 The association of small Landowners in 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
cultivation or intend to cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limits but
are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such land.
Because PD 316 provides that no tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn
shall be ejected or removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of the tenant-
farmers and the landowners 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 so are
unable to enjoy their right of retention.
Is the assailed statues are valid exercises of police power?
Yes. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself, which
satisfies the first requirement for lawful subject however, objection is raised the manner of fixing the
just compensation, which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of
judicial prerogatives. However there is no arbitrariness in the provision as determination of just
compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other
interested party, because the law provides that the determination made by the 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.

Luz Farm vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 51 (1990)
G.R. 86889

In 1998, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines. It includes the raising of livestock,
poultry, and swine in its coverage.
In 1989, the secretary of Agrarian reform promulgated the IRR of Sections 11, 13 and 39 of the said Law.
Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, allegedly stands to be adversely
affected by the enforcement of certain sections of RA 6657, of the guidelines and Procedures
implementing production and profit sharing under RA 6657, and of the IRR of section 11. It prays that
the aforesaid statues be declared unconstitutional.
1.) Is the CARL should include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage?
2.) Is the requirement in sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing corporate farms to execute and
implement production-sharing plans is unreasonable for being confiscatory and violative of
due process, with respect to livestock and poultry raisers?
1.) NO. It was never the intention of the framers of the constitution to include the livestock and
poultry industry in the coverage of the agrarian reform program of the government. The
intention of the Committee was to limit the application of the word agriculture. Thus, section
II of RA 6657 which includes private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry,
and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is invalid to the extent that the
aforecited a gro-industrial activities are made to be covered by agrarian reform program of the
2.) YES. As there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian
reform, there is no need to call upon them to distribute from 3% of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers as additional compensation.

Natalia Realty Inc. vs DAR
225 SCRA 278 (1993)
G.R. No. 103302

PP 1637 set aside several hectares of land in Antipolo, San Mateo, and Montalban as townsite areas to
absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan
Townsite, where Natalia Realtys properties were situated. Estate Developer and Investor Corporation
(EDIC), the developer of Natalia properties, was granted approval to develop the said properties into
low-cost housing subdivisions. The Natalia properties then became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
When CARL came into effect, the DAR issued a notice of coverage on the underdeveloped portion of
Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia immediately registered its objection to the said notice and requested
the DAR Secretary to canel the same. However, members of the samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok ng
Antipolo (SAMBA) filed a complaint against Natalia and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator (RA)
to restrain them from developing areas under their cultivation. The RA issued a writ of Preliminary
Injunction. Natalia and EDIC both appealed to the DARAB but the latter merely remanded the case to
RA. Natalia then requested DAR Secretary to set aside the notice of coverage. Neither the DAR Secretary
nor the DAR Director concerned action on the protest letters.
1.) Is the Natilia properties were validly converted from agricultural to residential land?
2.) Is the Natilia Properties covered by CARL?
1.) YES. Natalia and EDIC complied with all the requirement of law, even securing prior approval
from DAR. As a matter of fact, there was no need for Natalia and EDIC to do so because the
Natalia properties were within the areas set aside for Lungsod Silangan Reservation since
PP1637 created the townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional housing to the
burgeoning population Metro Manila, it can effect converted for residential use what were
erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites were met.
2.) No. the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be considered
Agricultural Lands these lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural
lands upon the approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation