Remman Enterprises, Inc v.

Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service

G.R. No. 197676 [February 4, 2014]

FACTS:

• In 2009, RA 9646 (Real Estate Service Act) was signed into law by PGMA. Said Act aims to
professionalize the real estate service industry by requiring a licensure examination for
practitioners in said field.
• In 2010, the PRC, pursuant to RA 9646, promulgated the IRR implementing the Act. It required
any person engaged in the real estate service to comply with the requirements, with a certain
exemption (per Sec. 28):
o “Any person, natural or juridical, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts
mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property, except real
estate developers”
• Petitioners now appeal by way of certiorari to the SC, contending the following, inter alia,
infirmities of said law:
o Sec. 28, and relevant provisions, are violative of substantive due process
▪ Petitioners aver that this is “unduly oppressive,” for it burdens them to employ
first licensed practitioners before they can dispose of their properties; that it
interferes with their right to handle their property as they see fit.
o Sec. 28, and relevant provisions, are violative of the equal protection clause
▪ Petitioners aver that the exemption of other persons from the law unduly
discriminates towards their own class.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not Sec. 28, inter alia, violates constitutional due process
• Whether or not Sec. 28, inter alia, violates the equal protection clause

RULING:

• NO. There is no deprivation of their property rights. Regulatory laws are a valid use of police
power.
o The burden imposed upon petitioners is a consequence of the lawful subject, i.e. the
professionalization and regulation of the real estate service; That said subject is in
furtherance of public welfare, to prevent unscrupulous practices.
• NO. The Equal Protection Clause allows for valid classification, so long as there is a substantive
purpose therefor. In this case, the classification is valid because real estate developers sell
property not solely as an exercise of their patrimonial rights, but as a business. Thus, to curtail
certain evils in the practice thereof, such classification is indeed necessary.