ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN
REFORM
G.R. No. 78742
14 JULY 1989
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,
petitioners
vs
HON. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
respondents
G.R. No. 79310
ARSENIO AL. ACUÑA, NEWTON JISON, VICTORINO FERRARIS, DENNIS JEREZA,
HERMINIGILDO GUSTILO, PAULINO D. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS’
COMMITTEE, INC., Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental,
petitioners
vs
JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO and PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM
COUNCIL,
respondents
G.R. No. 79744
INOCENTES PABICO,
petitioners
vs
HON. PHILIP E. JUICO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, HON. JOKER ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE PRESIDENT,
and Messrs. SALVADOR TALENTO, JAIME ABOGADO, CONRADO AVANCEÑA,
and ROBERTO TAAY,
respondents
G.R. No. 79777
NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR.,
petitioners
vs
HON. PHILIP ELLA JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents
Petitions to review the decisions of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Justice Cruz
FACTS:
 BACKGROUND: Recognizing the need to address the
imbalance in the distribution of land among the people,
The State enacted the following laws:
o R.A. No. 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform
Code
o P.D. No. 27, which provided for the compulsory
acquisition of private lands for distribution among
tenant-farmers & to specify maximum retention
limits for landowners.
o E.O. No. 228, which declared full landownership
in favor of beneficiaries of PD 27, & provided the
valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the
decree as well as the manner of payment.
o P.P. No. 131, which instituted a comprehensive
agrarian reform.
o E.O. No. 229, which provided the mechanics for
its implementation.
o R.A. No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law.
 G.R. 79777 – This petition raises the constitutionality of
PD 27, EO 228, EO 229 & RA 6657.
o The case involved a 9-ha riceland worked by 4
tenants & owned by petitioner Manaay; & a 5-ha
riceland worked by 4 tenants & owned by
petitioner Hermano. The said tenants were
declared full owners of the lands by virtue of EO
228, as qualified farmers under PD 27.
Petitioners are questioning the aforementioned
statutes on grounds of separation of powers, due
process, equal protection & the constitutional
limitation that no private property shall be taken
for public use without just compensation.
 G.R. 79310 – This petition seeks to prohibit the
implementation of PP 131 & EO 229.
o Petitioners herein are landowners & sugar
planters in the Victorias Mill District; while co-
petitioner Planter’s Committee, Inc. is an
organization composed of planter-members.
Petitioners claim that the power to provide for a
CARP as decreed by the Constitution belongs to
Congress & not the President.
 G.R. 79744
o Petitioner alleges that his rights to due process
and just compensation were violated when his
landholding was placed under the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer. When he filed a protest
for the error, his petition was denied without
hearing. Petitioner contends that the issuance of
EO 228 and EO 229 shortly before Congress
convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides
violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
 G.R. 78742
o Petitioners in this case invoke the right of
retention granted by PD 27 to owners of rice &
corn lands not exceeding 7-ha as long as they
are cultivating or intend to cultivate the same.
Their lands do not exceed the statutory limit but
are occupied by tenants who are actually
cultivating such lands. PD 316, promulgated in
implementation of PD 27, provides that no
tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily
devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected or
removed until the rights of tenant-farmers and
landowners have been determined. Petitioners
contend that they cannot eject their tenants since
 the Dept. of Agrarian Reform have yet to issue agreed in principle.
the implementing rules. Hence, they are
requesting that the Court issue a writ of
mandamus to compel the public respondent to
issue the said rules.

ISSUE: Whether or not the case at bar involves a

traditional exercise of the power of eminent
domain where only a specific property of
relatively limited area is sought to be taken
by the State from its owner for a specific
and perhaps local purpose.

HELD: NO.

RATIO:
 The SC clarified that the case at bar deals with a
revolutionary kind of expropriation. Such expropriation
affects all private agricultural lands whenever found
and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of
the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. It
is intended to benefit not only a particular community
or of a small segment of the population but of the
entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society,
from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted
owner.
 Such a program will involve not mere millions of
pesos. Considering the vast areas of land subject to
expropriation under the laws before us, we estimate
that hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far
more indeed than the amount of P50 billion initially
appropriated.
 We assume that the framers of the Constitution were
aware of this difficulty when they called for agrarian
reform as a top priority project of the government. It is
a part of this assumption that when they envisioned
the expropriation that would be needed, they also
intended that the just compensation would have to be
paid not in the orthodox way but a less conventional if
more practical method. There can be no doubt that
they were aware of the financial limitations of the
government and had no illusions that there would be
enough money to pay in cash and in full for the lands
they wanted to be distributed among the farmers.
 We may therefore assume that their intention was to
allow such manner of payment as is now provided for
by the CARP Law, particularly the payment of the
balance (if the owner cannot be paid fully with
money), or indeed of the entire amount of the just
compensation, with other things of value. We may
also suppose that what they had in mind was a similar
scheme of payment as that prescribed in P.D. No. 27,
which was the law in force at the time they deliberated
on the new Charter and with which they presumably