Association of Small Landowners v.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 78742
Petitioners: Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., Juanito D. Gomez, Gerardo B. Alarcio,
Felipe A. Guico, Jr., Bernardo M. Almonte, Canuto Ramir B. Cabrito, Isidro T. Guico, Felisa I. Llamido, Fausto
J. Salva, Reynaldo G. Estrada, Felisa C. Bautista, Esmenia J. Cabe, Teodoro B. Madriaga, Aurea J. Prestosa,
Emerenciana J. Isla, Felicisima C. Apresto, Consuelo M. Morales, Benjamin R. Segismundo, Cirila A. Jose &
Napoleon S. Ferrer
Respondent: Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 79744
Petitioners: Inocentes Pabico
Respondents: Philip E. Juico (Sec. of Ag. Ref.), Joker Arroyo (Exec. Sec.) and Salvador Talento, Jaime
Abogado, Conrado Avancea, and Roberto Taay
G.R. No. 79310
Petitioners: Arsenio Al. Acua, Newton Jison, Victorino Ferraris, Dennis Jereza, Herminigildo Gustilo, Paulino
D. Tolentino and Planters' Committee, Inc., Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental
Respondents: Joker Arroyo, Philip E. Juico and Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
G.R. No. 79777
Petitioners: Nicolas S. Manaay and Agustin Hermano
Respondents: Philip E. Juico and Land Bank of the Philippines
July 14, 1989
Cruz, J:
FACTS
Legal history of agrarian reform
o 1935, 1987 Constitution
provide for the States policy re: agrarian reform1
o RA 3844 (Agri Land Reform Code), August 8, 1963
o PD 27, October 21, 1972
(Compulsory acquisition of private lands)
o EO 228, July 17, 1987
full land ownership to beneficiaries of PD 27, July 17, 1987
o Proc 131 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), July 22, 1987
o EO 229, CARP implementing rules
o RA 6657 (Comprehensive. A. R. Law), 1988 June 10

G.R. No. 79777 (Manaays (w/ 9-hectare riceland) and Hermano (5-hectare riceland) with tenants
declared full owners)
o Constitutionality of PD 27, EO 228, EO 229, RA 6657

1 Art. XIII, 4, CONST.: 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.

Corys usurpation of legislative power, failed to provide retention limits of small landowners2
Just compensation may only be made by a court of justice, not the President
Their property rights are deprived due to rentals as advance payment
Due process not effected; their retention rights violated
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Determination of just compensation is initial or preliminary
Such does not foreclose judicial intervention
No valuation of property has been made
Petitioners not proper parties because the lands they own are not beyond the 7-hectare
retention limit
Petitioners Reply
PD 27 does not provide retention limit on tenanted lands
Determination of just compensation is final ascertainment
RA 6657 repealed PD 27, EO 228 and 229

G.R. No 79310 (Acuna, et al., Negros landowners and sugar planters)

o CARP a power of legislature, not president
o 50B-peso Agrarian Reform Fund is not in actually in existence, but in the future
o Taking of land must be in simultaneous payment with just compensation
o CARP does not apply to them (as sugar planters) because there are no tenancy problems in the
sugar areas (note that they were lumped with regular farmers as a classification)
o If lands are not registered, these will be expropriated equal to the governments valuation for tax
purposes. If landowner provides own valuation, he shall immediately pay taxes, violating the
uniformity rule (in tax)
o Intervenor National Federation of Sugarcane Planters
Cory had no authority to fund the Ag. Ref. Program
No clear and convincing evidence to exercise power of eminent domain
Violation of right to property
o SOLICTOR GENERAL
Presumption of constitutionality
Petitioners failed to show that they are different from farmers
Prohibited is the payment of public money without appropriation
o Prudencio Serrano
Only public lands should be in the CARP
EO 229 has more than one subject
Power of Prexy to legislate ended on1987 July 2
50B special fund did not originate from House of Representatives

G.R. No. 79744 (Pabico)

o The Sec. of Ag. Ref. erroneously included his landholding under Operation Land Transfer
o EO 228 and 229, invalid due to arbitrary issuance
o Executive orders violate constitutional provision on just compensation
o Petitioner denied of maximum retention
o Lease rentals are unconstitutional taking of vested property right
o SOLICITOR GENERAL
Reconsideration not yet resolved
Incumbent president continues exercise of leg powers until first Congress is convened
Leasehold rentals should be borne by the

2 Id.

G.R. No. 78742 (Petitioner)

o Invoke right of retention under PD 27, for those with less than 7 hectares as long as they cultivate
the land
o RESPONDENT
PD 27 was amended by LOI 474
removes right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lands greater 7
hectares
Case prematurely initiated because they are appealing to the President
o Petitioners Reply
Not applicable to them because they have less than < 7 hectares

ISSUES + RATIO

Issue (Procedural)
o

COURT: Petitioners will sustain direct injury due to the subject laws thus, they have standing.

Issues (Substantive)
o

Constitutionality of the subject laws (did they fail to include retention limits, as per Art. XIII, 4?)
COURT: RA 6657, Sec. 6 actually provides for retention limits.3 Hence, PD 27, EO 228 and
229 need not indicate said limits and are therefore not unconstitutional.

Separation of Powers
COURT: No violation of Separation of Powers
PD 27, enacted by Marcos, was already sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella.
Proc 131, EO 228 and 229, enacted by Cory, were authorized by the Transitory
Provisions of the 1987 CONST. and were made before the Congress formally
convened.

Right to Equal Protection

COURT: The classification of farmers, with which sugar planters were lumped
together, conformed to the requirements:
Based on substantial distinctions
Germane to the purposes of the law
Not limited to existing conditions
Applies equally to all members of the class

Right to fund the Agrarian Reform Program

COURT: Cory may declare such proclamation as law
Funding is merely incidental to Proc 131

3 Republic Act No, 6657, Section 6. 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 familysized 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.

Appropriation is not its primary purpose

Eminent Domain4 vis--vis Police Power

Property under police power is noxious / has noxious purpose
Such cannot be compensable, unlike in expropriation
Regulation too far = unjust taking
Restriction imposed to protect public health, safety and morals = not taking

Requisites of Eminent Domain

Public Use
Should public agricultural lands be distributed first?
COURT: NO. All agricultural lands are subject to just distribution
Is the decision to include private agricultural land a political question?
COURT: YES. There was no illegality found, and thus this was subject to the wisdom
of Congress.
Agrarian Reform = subject to public use, as justified by the Constitution

Just Compensation
Full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by expropriator
Owners loss, not takers gain
Requisites
o Expropriator enters a private property
o Entry is more than momentary
o Under legal authority
o Devoted to public use
o Utilization deprives owner of beneficial enjoyment
Determination of compensation is not final. Calculation of compensation is not
under the sole discretion of government
o Owner may reject government offer, but summary proceedings to determine
compensation shall ensue.
CARP is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
o Involved here are not mere millions, but a tremendous amount of money for
the benefit of the entire nation.
o To deliver such amounts all at once, in full equivalence to the value of
properties taken, is impractical.
o Thus, payment in other forms like bonds is applicable. RA 6657 does
not contemplate any transfer of ownership until full compensation. (This
refers to Sec. 18, RA 6656).

Dispositive
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.
Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation
to their respective owners.
4 EMINENT DOMAIN is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forciblyacquire private lands intended for public use upon
payment of just compensation to the owner. Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under terms
also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. It is only where the owner
is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain will
come into play to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the property owner. Private rights must then yield to
the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that the welfare of
the people is the supreme law.

All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained and recognized.
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.
Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the petitions are DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to
costs.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

REYES VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, 395 SCRA 494, 20 JAN 2003
Petitioners: MARINA Z. REYES; ALFREDO A. FRANCISCO; ANGELITA Z. GARCIA; ALFREDO Z.
FRANCISCO, JR; ARMANDO Z. FRANCISCO; ALMA C. FRANCISCO; EUGENIA Z. LUNA; CLARITA Z.
ZABALLERO, LEONARDO Z. ZABALLERO, JR, and TEODORO Z. ZABALLERO, in substitution of
LEONARDO M. ZABALLERO; AUGUSTO M. ZABALLERO; FRINE A. ZABALLERO; ELENA FRONDA

ZABALLERO; VICTOR GREGORIO F. ZABALLERO; MARIA ELENA F. ZABALLERO; LOURDES

ZABALLERO-LAVA; SOCORRO EMILIA ZABALLERO-YAP; and TERESITA F. ZABALLERO
Respondent: NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
Ponente: Puno, J.
FACTS:
NHA EXPROPRIATES LANDS
National Housing Authority (NHA) filed complaints for the expropriation of sugarcane lands belonging to
the petitioners
The land expropriated originated from three different titles with an area of 79,167 square meters,
10,872 square meters, 159,985 square meters situated in Barrio Bangkal, Dasmarinas Cavite
The stated public purpose of the expropriation was the expansion of the Dasmarias Resettlement
Project to accommodate the squatters who were relocated from the Metropolitan Manila area.
RTC RULING
The trial court rendered judgment ordering the expropriation of these lots and the payment of just
compensation.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
PETITIONERS FILE FOR RETURN OF EXPOPRIATED LANDS
A few years later, petitioners contended that respondent NHA violated the stated public purpose for the
expansion of the Dasmarias Resettlement Project
o it failed to relocate the squatters from the Metro Manila area, as borne out by the ocular
inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most of the expropriated properties
remain unoccupied
Petitioners likewise question the public nature of the use by respondent NHA
o They allege that NHA entered into a contract for the construction of low cost housing units,
which is allegedly different from the stated public purpose in the expropriation proceedings
The continued failure of the respondent (NHA) to pay just compensation for a long period of time
justifies the forfeiture of its rights and interests over the expropriated lots
NHA has forfeited its rights and interests by virtue of the expropriation judgment and the expropriated
properties should now be returned to herein petitioners.
ISSUE: W/N THE JUDGEMENT OF EXPROPRIRATION WAS FORFEITED IN LIGHT OF NHAS ALLEGED
FAILURE TO USE THE EXPROPRIATED PROPERTY FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE BUT FOR A
TOTALLLLY DIFFERENT PURPOSE
HELD:
Petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the eminent domain provision of the Constitution by
contending that the contract for low cost housing is a deviation from the stated public use.
It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes
o The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest," "public
benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience."
Thus, whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public
use."
The act of respondent NHA in entering into a contract with a real estate developer for the construction
of low cost housing on the expropriated lots to be sold to qualified low income beneficiaries cannot be
taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of their taking

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, commercials firms, entertainment and
service companies, and other private concerns.
The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the marginalized sector
is in furtherance of social justice.
The Constitution itself allows the State to undertake, for the common good and in cooperation with the
private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make at affordable
cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and
resettlement areas.
With respect to the amount of the just compensation still due and demandable from respondent (NHA),
the lower courts erred in not awarding interest computed from the time the property is actually taken to
the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited in court.
RULING: NHA IS ORDERED TO PAY PETITIONERS P1,218,574.35 with legal interest at 12% per annum
computed from the taking of the expropriated properties in 1997 until the amount due shall have been fully paid

City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, 350 SCRA 487 (2001)

Petitioner: City of Mandaluyong

Respondents: Antionio N., Francisco N., Thelma N., Eusebio N., Rodolfo N., all surnamed Aguilar
FACTS:
RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS
Resolution No. 125 of the Board of Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
o Classified these lots as an Area for Priority Development under Proclamation nos. 1967 and
2284 of then President Marcos
Tenants offered to purchase the land from respondents
But they refused to sell
Tenants under Kapitbisig (association of tenants and occupants of the subject land) adopted Resolution
No. 516 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
o enabling Mayor Abalos of Mandaluyong to initiate action for expropriation on Nov. 1996.
MAYOR OF MANDALUYONG TRIES TO PURCHASE THE LOTS
January 10, 1996, Abalos sent a letter to purchase the lots 3000Php per square meter
Respondents Reply:
o denied having received a copy of the letter
o countered that the expropriation is arbitrary and capricious and not for public purpose.
o Zonal value set by Bureau of Internal Revenue is at 7000 Php per square meter.
CITY OF MANDALUYONG FILES FOR EXPROPRIATION
August 4, 1997, a complain for expropriation was filed by the City of Mandaluyong against the
respondents
The three lots in the complaint were registered under the names of Aguilars and residential houses
were built and being leased until the complaint
RTC RULING
Dismissed complaint
o Small property owners land is exempt from expropriation under Republic Act No. 72795.
CITY OF MANDALUYONG APPEALS WITH SC
Claims that the size of lots does not exempt the same from expropriation of lots declared to be within the
Area for Priority Development (APD) No. 5 of Mandaluyong (Proclamation No. 1967)
ISSUE: W/N THE LAND OF THE AGUILARS CAN BE EXPROPRIATED FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING

5 The acquisition of lands for socialized housing is governed by several provisions in the law. Section 9 of R.A. 7279 provides:Sec. 9. Priorities in the
Acquisition of Land.Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas for Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement
Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS Sites which have not yet been acquired;
(f) Privately-owned lands.

HELD: No, the land in question cannot be expropriated.

This is because in Section 9 of RA 7292 would consider priority in the acquisition.
It was not stated by the petitioner if all other means were exhausted before trying to acquire the land of the
respondents.
Section 106 of the same article would also state that besides priority, small property owners shall be
exempted for purposes of the act.
Since the Aguilars have shown that they own no other property, they would fall under this exemption as
well.
RULING: Petition DENIED. RTC AFFIRMED.

6 Section 10. Modes of Land Acquisition.The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land
swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and
expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided,
further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this
Act: Provided, finally, That abandoned property, as herein defined, shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the
procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.

Lagcao vs. Labra, 440 SCRA (2004)

Petitioners: DIOSDADO LAGCAO, DOROTEO LAGCAO AND URSULA LAGCAO
Respondents: JUDGE GENEROSA G. LABRA, BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU, AND THE
CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENT.
FACTS:
DONATION OF LAND AND THE ACTIONSO OF THE PARTIES
1964, the Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu
o One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in Capitol Hills, Cebu City, with an area of 4,048
square meters
1965, petitioners purchased the lot on installment
Bu the 210 lots, including Lot 1029, reverted to the Province of Cebu in the same year.
The province tried to annul the sale of Lot 1029 by the City of Cebu to the petitioners
The Petitioners sued the province for specific performance and damages in the then Court of First
Instance
RTC RULING
July 9, 1986, the court a quo ruled in favor of petitioners
Ordered the Province of Cebu to execute the final deed of sale in favor of petitioners
CA RULING AND PROVINCE OF CEBU COMPLIANCE
June 11, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court
Pursuant to the ruling of the appellate court, the Province of Cebu executed on June 17, 1994 a deed of
absolute sale over Lot 1029 in favor of petitioners.
Thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 129306 was issued in the name of petitioners and
Crispina Lagcao.
PETITIONERS EJECTMENT PROCEEDINGS
June 15, 1997, petitioners instituted ejectment proceedings against the squatters
o After acquiring title, petitioners tried to take possession of the lot only to discover that it was
already occupied by squatters
April 1, 1998, The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Cebu City, ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot.
The RTC affirmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order of demolition
PROVINCE OF CEBU MOVES TO DEFER EJECTMENT AND ENACTS ORDINANCE 1843
when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two
letters to the MTCC, requesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground that the City was still
looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
July, 19, 2000, during the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed
on Ordinance No. 1843
o authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of Lot
1029 which was registered in the name of petitioners
o The intended acquisition was to be used for the benefit of the homeless.
PETITIONERS MOVE TO NULLIFY ORDINANCE 1843
August 29, 2000, petitioners filed with the RTC an action for declaration of nullity of Ordinance No.
1843 for being unconstitutional
o It sanctions the expropriation of their property for the purpose of selling it to the squatters, an
endeavor contrary to the concept of public use contemplated in the Constitution.

The RTC dismissed the complaint and denied the MR

ISSUE: W/N CEBU CITY ORDINANCE 1843 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

HELD: Yes, Ordinance No. 1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right
to due process.
Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain
They can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature
RA 7160, the Local Government Code, conferred upon local government units the power to expropriate.
Ordinance No. 1843 was enacted pursuant to Section 19 of RA 7160:
SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the
power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just
compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws x x x

2 provisions the limit the exercise of eminent domain [Article 3, Section 1 & 9, 1987 Constitution.]
(1) no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws
(2) private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
There was no showing at all why petitioners property was singled out for expropriation by the city
ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection
Ordinance No. 1843 stated no reason for the choice of petitioners property as the site of a socialized
housing project.
Piecemeal or random condemnation of private lands to accommodate few tenants or squatters is
certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution.
Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing
RA 7279 is the law that governs the local expropriation of property for purposes of urban land reform
and housing.
SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: x x x
(f) Privately-owned lands.
SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others,
community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint venture
agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when
other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land
owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: xxx

Limitations on on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units:
1) the order of priority in acquiring land for socialized housing and
2) the resort to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquiring it

Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted.
Compliance with these conditions is mandatory
These are the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against what may be a
tyrannical violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken
The City of Cebu did not comply with these safeguards
There was no evidence of a valid and definite offer to buy petitioners property as required by Section
19 of RA 7160.
In 1998, petitioners had already obtained a favorable judgment of eviction against the illegal occupants
of their property.
The judgment in this ejectment case had, in fact, already attained finality, with a writ of execution and
an order of demolition.

But Mayor Garcia requested the trial court to suspend the demolition on the pretext that the City was
still searching for a relocation site for the squatters.
However, instead of looking for a relocation site during the suspension period, the city council suddenly
enacted Ordinance No. 1843 for the expropriation of petitioners lot.
It was trickery and bad faith, pure and simple. The unconscionable manner in which the questioned
ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA 7160
and RA 7279.

Ordinance No. 1843 failed to comply with the substantive requirements for a valid ordinance. A clear
case of constitutional infirmity having been thus established, this Court is constrained to nullify the
subject ordinance because
For an ordinance to be valid:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and
(6) must not be unreasonable
First, as earlier discussed, the questioned ordinance is repugnant to the pertinent provisions of the
Constitution, RA 7279 and RA 7160;
Second, the precipitate manner in which it was enacted was plain oppression masquerading as a propoor ordinance;
Third, the fact that petitioners small property was singled out for expropriation for the purpose of
awarding it to no more than a few squatters indicated manifest partiality against petitioners, and
fourth, the ordinance failed to show that there was a reasonable relation between the end sought and
the means adopted. While the objective of the City of Cebu was to provide adequate housing to slum
dwellers, the means it employed in pursuit of such objective fell short of what was legal, sensible and
called for by the circumstances.
RULING: the petition is hereby GRANTED. The July 1, 2002 decision of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court
of Cebu City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.