Association of Small Landowners v.

DAR Secretary
GR Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, and 79777
14 July 1989
FACTS:
GR No. 79777: PD 27, EOs 228 & 229 Nicolas Manaay and his wife own 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 lands by EO 228 as
qualified farmers under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano question the constitutionality of PD 27 and EOs 228 and 229.
GR No. 79310: PP 131, EO 229 Landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District
in Negros, as well as Planters Committee, Inc. seek to prohibit the implementation of PP 131
and EO 229 for being violative of the constitutional provisions 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
abovementioned statutes.
GR No. 79744: EOs 228 & 229 Inocentes Pabico alleges that the 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 CLTs,
which was denied without hearing. Although he filed an MR, 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 farmers-tenants.
GR No. 78742: PD 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 cultivating or intend to cultivate the same. Their respective
lands do not exceed the statutory limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually
cultivating such lands.
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 landowner 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.
ISSUES:
1. WON PD 27, PP 131, and EOs 228 and 229 were validly enacted.
2. WON the CARP fund provision in PP131 conforms to the requirements of a valid
appropriation.
3. WON PP 131 and EO 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for
retention limits.
4. WON the assailed statutes violate the equal protection clause.
5. WON the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police power.

6. WON the content and manner of just compensation provided for in the CARP Law is
violative of the Constitution.
7. WON the CARP and EO 228 contravene a well-accepted principle of eminent domain
by divesting the landowner of his property even before actual payment to him in full
of just compensation.
HELD:
1. YES. The promulgation of PD 27 by 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 Pres. Aquino to promulgate PP 131 and EOs 228 &
229, the same was authorized by Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution. Significantly, the Congress she is alleged to have undercut has not
rejected 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 provisions.
2. NO. PP 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 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.
3. 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.
4. NO. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled
to a different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of
other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform
must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of
owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see.
5. YES. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the
Constitution itself, which satisfies the first requirement of a lawful subject. However,
objection is raised to 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 the 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.
6. 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 of
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 this time. The invalidation of the said section
will result in the nullification of the entire program.
7. NO. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmer-beneficiaries were deemed
full owners of the land they acquired under PD 27, after proof of full-fledged

membership in the farmers cooperatives and 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 receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or
the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner.
DOCTRINE:
To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for
landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes
necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for
which payment of just compensation is imperative.
Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of
compensation to their respective owners.
Obiter: One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the
individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. There is no question that not
even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public need, subject only to a few
notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an individuals rights. It is no exaggeration
to say that a person invoking a right guaranteed under Art III of the Constitution is a
majority of one even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right.