juvy ageas

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.