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.

G.R. No. 79777 [July 14, 1989]

NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR., petitioners,

vs.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

FACTS
Nicolas Manaay and his wife owned a 9-hectare Riceland; while Agustin Hermano Jr. owned 5. They both
have four tenants, each on their respective landholdings, who were declared full owners of the said land
by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano questioned the constitutionality of PD 27 and Eos 228 and 229.
ISSUE
Whether or not the PD No.27, RA 6657 and EO Nos. 228 and 229 were constitutional.
HELD
Yes. The promulgation of PD No. 27 by then Pres. Marcos in the exercise of his powers under martial law
has already been sustained and there is no reason to modify or reverse it on that issue. As for the power
of then Pres Aquino to promulgate PP 131 and Eos 228 and 229, the same was authorized by Section 6
of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Significantly, the Congress which was alleged to
have been undercut by her did not reject but in fact substantially affirmed the challenged measures and
has specifically provided that they shall be suppletory to RA 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its
provision.

G.R. No. 79310 [July 14, 1989]

PLANTERS' COMMITTEE, INC. et al., petitioners,

vs.

PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL, respondents.

FACTS
Landowners and sugar planters in the Victoria Mills District in Negros as well as Planters’ Committee,
Inc., seek to prohibit the implementation o the PP131 and EO 229 for being violative of the Constitutional
provisions on just compensation, due process and equal protection.
Subsequently, the National Federation of Sugar Planters (NASP), Manuel Barcelona and Prudencio
Serrano filed their own petitions, which also assailed the abovementioned statutes.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CARP fund provision in PP No.131 conforms to the requirements of a valid
appropriation.
HELD
No. PP No.131 is not an appropriation measure even if it provide for the creation of the said fund, for that
is not the principal purpose. Appropriation law is one where the primary and specific purpose of which is
to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. The creation of the fund is only incidental to the
main objective of the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.

G.R. No. 79744 [July 14, 1989]

INOCENTES PABICO, petitioner,

vs.

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, et al, respondents.

FACTS
Inocentes Pabico alleges that then DAR Secretary placed his landholding under the coverage of OLT, 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 OLT and asked for the recall and cancellation of the
said CLT, which was denied without hearing. Although he filed an MR, EO Nos. 228 and 229 were
issued, rendering his MR moot and academic because the said EOs directly affected the transfer of his
land to his farmer-tenants.
ISSUE
Whether or not PP No. 131 and EO No. 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for
retention limits.
Whether or not the assailed statutes violates the equal protection clause.
HELD
No. This argument is no longer tenable because RA 6657 does not provide for such limits now in Section
6 of the law. As such, landowners who were unable to exercise their rights to retention under PD 27 shall
enjoy the retention rights granted by RA 6657 under the condition therein prescribed.

No. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to different treatment.
The argument that not only landowners but also owners of their properties must be rejected. There is
substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will
not see.