Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-32049 June 25, 1984
MATAAS NA LUPA TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., NICOLAS AGLAA!, "n# T$o%e Men&'one#
'n Anne( )A) o* Co+,-"'n&, petitioners,
vs.
CARLOS .IMA!UGA "n# JULIANA .IE/ 0#". #e GARIEL, respondents.
Ramon Gonzales for petitioners.
The Solicitor General and Magno T. Bueses for respondents.

MA1ASIAR, J.:
his petition for revie! on certiorari presents for revie! the order dated October "#, $%&% of the
defunct Court of 'irst Instance of Manila, (ranch IV, !hich )ranted the *otion to dis*iss the
co*plaint of petitioners in Civil Case No. +,"%$ on the )round that the sa*e failed to state a cause
of action -p. $&, rec.. pp. $, $##, C'I rec./.
he undisputed facts are as follo!s0
On 1anuar2 $+, $%&%, petitioners filed a co*plaint for the e3ercise of preferential ri)hts !ith the then
Court of 'irst Instance of Manila, (ranch IV, doc4eted as Civil Case No. +,"%$ -p. "5, rec.. p. $, C'I
rec./.
he said co*plaint alle)ed that petitioner association has for its *e*bers Nicolas 6)laba2, et al.,
na*ed and listed in 6nne3 767 of said co*plaint, !hich *e*bers are heads of $$# tenant fa*ilies,
and !ho have been, for *ore than ten 2ears prior to $%,%, occupants of a parcel of land -!ith their
$$# houses built thereon/, for*erl2 o!ned b2 the respondent, 1uliana Die8 Vda. de 9abriel, to !ho*
petitioners have been pa2in) rents for the lease thereof, but !ho, on Ma2 $:, $%&;, !ithout notice to
petitioners, sold the sa*e to respondent Carlos Di*a2u)a, !ho, in turn, *ort)a)ed the sa*e to her
for the balance of the purchase price. that accordin) to Republic 6ct $$&5, as a*ended b2 Republic
6ct 5":5, a parcel of land in Manila and suburbs, !ith at least fift2 -,#/ houses of tenants erected
thereon and actuall2 leased to said tenants for at least ten -$#/ 2ears prior to 1une 5#, $%,%, *a2 not
be sold b2 the lando!ner to an2 person other than such tenants, unless the latter renounced their
ri)hts in a public instru*ent. that !ithout said tenants<appellants havin) renounced their preferential
ri)hts in public instru*ent, respondent Vda. de 9abriel sold the land to respondent Di*a2u)a. that
petitioners<tenants are !illin) to purchase said land at the sa*e price and on the sa*e ter*s and
conditions observed in the contract of sale !ith respondent Di*a2u)a. and that since aforesaid
contract of sale is e3pressl2 prohibited b2 la!, the sa*e is null and void, !hile it is *andator2 for
respondent Vda. de 9abriel to e3ecute such sale to petitioners, Petitioners therefore pra2ed that
said contract of sale be declared void, and that respondent Vda. de 9abriel be ordered to e3ecute a
deed of sale in favor of petitioners at the sa*e price and conditions follo!ed in the contract !ith
respondent Di*a2u)a, plus attorne2=s fees and da*a)es -p. "5, rec.. p. $, C'I rec./.
On 1anuar2 "$, $%&%, respondent Vda. de 9abriel filed a *otion to dis*iss on the )round that the
co*plaint stated no cause of action because the land sub>ect of the co*plaint is not a landed estate,
and not bein) such, the sa*e cannot be e3propriated, and not bein) e3propriable, no preferential
ri)hts could be availed of b2 the tenants -p. :$, rec.. p. 55, C'I rec./.
Respondent Di*a2u)a filed his ans!er to aforesaid co*plaint on 'ebruar2 &, $%&% ad*ittin) therein
certain factual alle)ations, denied so*e aver*ents, interposed the affir*ative defenses that plaintiffs
had no personalit2 to initiate the action since the ?and enure 6d*inistration possessed the po!er
to institute the proper e3propriation proceedin)s before the co*petent court and that the sub>ect
co*plaint stated no cause of action a)ainst respondent, alle)ed a counterclai* to e>ect plaintiffs
fro* the propert2, and pra2ed for the dis*issal of the co*plaint and other re*edies -p. ::, rec.. p.
$,,, C'I rec./.l wphl @i t
On 'ebruar2 &, $%&%, plaintiffs<petitioners filed their opposition to the *otion to dis*iss, *aintainin),
a*on) others, that Republic 6ct $$&5, as a*ended b2 Republic 6ct 5":5 -la! !hich respondent
Vda. de 9abriel invo4ed/, does not necessaril2 refer to landed estates, but to an2 piece of land
occupied b2 *ore than ,# fa*ilies leasin) the sa*e for *ore than ten -$#/ 2ears prior to 1une 5#,
$%,%. that their preferential ri)hts are independent of the e3propriabilit2 of the land. that therefore,
said ri)hts *a2 be e3ercised even if the land is not e3propriable. and that these ri)hts !ere )ranted
pursuant to the police po!er of the State for the )eneral !elfare, !ith pra2er that aforesaid *otion to
dis*iss be denied -p. :+, rec.. p. 5&, C'I rec./.
On 'ebruar2 $", $%&%, respondent Vda. de 9abriel replied to the aforesaid opposition to *otion to
dis*iss, reiteratin) therein her pra2er to dis*iss the co*plaint -p. ,+, rec.. p. ";, C'I rec./.
Plaintiffs<petitioners filed their re>oinder to above repl2 to their opposition on 'ebruar2 $%, $%&%,
la2in) e*phasis on the alle)ed distinction bet!een the t!o !a2s of ac@uirin) occupied land under
Republic 6ct $$&5, !hich are e3propriation and voluntar2 disposal of the land b2 the o!ner thereof,
and !hich are e3ercisable independentl2 of each other -p. ,&, rec.. p. :5, C'I rec./.
On October "#, $%&%, (ranch IV of the Court of 'irst Instance of Manila issued the sub>ect order
!hich found respondent=s *otion to dis*iss !ell<ta4en and thereb2 dis*issed the co*plaint -p. &%,
rec.. p. $##, C'I rec./.
Petitioners *oved for reconsideration of the aforecited order on 1anuar2 +, $%+#, !hich *otion !as
denied in the lo!er court=s order of 1anuar2 5+, $%+# -p. $$$, $%#, C'I rec./.
On 'ebruar2 %, $%+#, petitioners filed a notice of appeal !ith the lo!er court to !hich respondent
Vda. de 9abriel *oved for dis*issal of the sa*e on 'ebruar2 $$, $%+# on the alle)ed )round that
pursuant to Republic 6ct ,::#, petitioners should have appealed fro* the @uestioned order b2 !a2
of a petition for certiorari to this Court since the *atter involved onl2 errors or @uestions of la! -p.
$:", C'I rec./.
6fter a series of *otions, repl2, re>oinder, sur<re>oinder, and ans!er bet!een both parties, the lo!er
court issued its order of Ma2 $$, $%+# dis*issin) petitioners= appeal -p. 55,, C'I rec./.
Petitioners thus resorted to this petition.
Petitioners contend that the lo!er court co**itted an error in dis*issin) their co*plaint on the
)round that since the land is not e3propriable, it follo!s that the tenants therein have no preferential
ri)hts to bu2 said land, if the sa*e is sold voluntaril2. Petitioners= contention is anchored on the
a*end*ent introduced b2 Republic 6ct ",$& into Section $ of Republic 6ct $$&5, !hich latter la!
had been invo4ed in the decision of the lo!er court.
6ccordin) to petitioners, the phrase 7an2 landed estates or haciendas herein authori8ed to be
e3propriated7 had been a*ended to read 7an2 landed estates or haciendas or lands herein
authori8ed to be e3propriated7. hence, Republic 6ct $$&5 does not refer e3clusivel2 to landed
estates or haciendas, but even to s*aller lands. he particular section as a*ended reads thus0
he e3propriation of landed estates or haciendas, or lands !hich for*erl2 for*ed
part thereof, or an2 piece of land in the Cit2 of Manila, Aue8on Cit2 and suburbs,
!hich have been and are actuall2 bein) leased to tenants for at least ten 2ears, is
hereb2 authori8ed0 Provided, hat such lands shall have at least fort2 fa*ilies of
tenants thereon. -Sec. $ of R. 6. ",$&/.
Petitioners li4e!ise invo4e the a*ended title of Republic 6ct $$&5 !hich had been introduced b2
Republic 6ct 5":5 !hich title no! reads as follo!s0
6n 6ct Providin) for the E3propriation of ?anded Estates or Baciendas or ?ands
Chich 'or*erl2 'or*ed Part hereof or n! Piece of "and in the Cit2 of Manila,
Aue8on Cit2 and Suburbs, heir Subdivision into S*all ?ots, and the Sale of Such
?ots at Cost or heir ?ease on Reasonable er*s, and for Other Purposes
-e*phasis supplied/.
Petitioners further alle)e that Republic 6ct $$&5 is both an e3ercise of the po!er of e*inent do*ain
and the police po!er of the State. he e3ercise of the police po!er of the State refers to the )rant of
preferential ri)hts to the tenants of such land, if the sa*e is disposed of voluntaril2. Si*pl2 stated,
petitioners theori8e that Republic 6ct $$&5 covers both co*pulsor2 and voluntar2 sale. hence, !hile
e3propriabilit2 is pertinent to co*pulsor2 sale, the sa*e does not relate to voluntar2 sale. Even if the
land is not e3propriable, if the sa*e is ho!ever actuall2 leased to the occupants for *ore than ten
2ears prior to Ma2 55, $%&" -!hen R.6. ",$& too4 effect/ !ith at least :# fa*ilies, said land, if sold
voluntaril2, is sub>ect to the preferential ri)hts of the tenants.
Respondent Vda. de 9abriel *aintains, on the other hand, that there is no *ore issue re)ardin) the
non<e3propriabilit2 of sub>ect land, !hich condition or status !as e3pressl2 ad*itted b2 petitioners in
the lo!er court. that the title of Republic 6ct $$&5, as a*ended b2 Republic 6ct Nos. 5":5 and ",$&
clearl2 e*braces e3propriation. that the prohibitive acts enu*erated in Section , of R.6. $$&5, as
a*ended, are entirel2 dependent on the e3propriabilit2 of the land in controvers2. that there is
nothin) in the aforecited la! !hich validl2 supports the alle)ed preferential ri)ht of petitioners to
purchase the propert2 at the sa*e price and under the sa*e conditions. that the onl2 reasonable
interpretation of the openin) lines of Section , of Republic 6ct $$&5, as a*ended, is that pendin)
e3propriation, the lando!ner shall not sell the land to an2 other person than the tenant or occupant
unless the latter renounces his ri)hts in a public instru*ent. but if the land is not e3propriable, as
petitioners have ad*itted, the prohibition does not appl2. and that clearl2, fro* the provision of
Section & of the a*ended la!, Section , thereof *a2 be violated onl2 if the land is 7herein
authori8ed to be e3propriated7 and since petitioners have ad*itted the non<e3propriabilit2 of sub>ect
land, it necessaril2 follo!s that said Section , cannot appl2.
Respondent Di*a2u)a avers that Section %, in relation to the title of R.6. $$&5, clearl2 provides that
the preferential ri)ht could be e3ercised onl2 !hen the land under @uestion is sub>ect to
e3propriation, or better still, if the tenanted propert2 !hich for*erl2 for*ed part of an hacienda or is
a landed estate, had been e3propriated. and, that R.6. $$&5, as a*ended, e*braces onl2 landed
estates or haciendas !ith an e3tensive area.
he sole issue raised b2 petitioners is !hether or not the2 have the pre<e*ptive or preferential ri)hts
to bu2 the land in @uestion.
CE find for petitioners.
I
he third proviso in Section , of Republic 6ct ",$&, !hich la! further a*ended R.6. $$&5, reads0
Provided, further*ore, hat no lot or portion thereof actuall2 occupied b2 a tenant or
occupant shall be sold b2 the lando!ner to an2 other person than such tenant or
occupant, unless the latter renounce in a public instru*ent his ri)hts under this 6ct0
Provided, finall2, hat if there shall be tenants !ho have constructed #ona
fide i*prove*ents on the lots leased b2 the*, the ri)hts of these tenants should be
reco)ni8ed in the sale or in the lease of the lots, the li*itation as to area in Section
three not!ithstandin).
he provision clearl2 defines the preferential ri)ht of herein petitioners to bu2 the parcel of land. It
should be noted that respondent Vda. de 9abriel voluntaril2 sold the land to respondent Di*a2u)a
!ithout infor*in) the petitioners of the transaction. Respondent Vda. de 9abriel did not )ive the first
offer to petitioners !ho !ere then tenants<lessees and !ho !ould have either accepted or refused to
bu2 the land in a public + docu*ent. he fact is that on discover2 of the sale to respondent dent
Di*a2u)a, petitioners filed their ori)inal clai* for preferential ri)hts ei)ht *onths after the
clandestine sale. hus, the condition set forth in the aforesaid proviso D that of offerin) first the sale
of the land to petitioners and the latter=s renunciation in a public instru*ent D !ere not *et !hen
the land !as sold to respondent Di*a2u)a. Evidentl2, said sale !as *ade ille)all2 and, therefore,
void. Petitioners have still the first option to bu2 the land as provided for in the above provision.
II
6 brief run do!n of this Court=s decisions easil2 reveal the adherence to the principle that the test for
a valid e3propriation of private land for resale to its occupants, is the nu*ber of fa*ilies to be
benefited thereb2, and not the area.
In his boo4 on Constitutional ?a!, Dean Isa)ani 6. Cru8 recapitulates thus0
In the earlier case of Rural Progress dministration v. Re!es, the Supre*e Court
held that the criterion for deter*inin) the validit2 of e3propriation under this provision
!as not the area of the landsou)ht to be ta4en #ut the num#er of people intended to
#e #enefited thereb2. The land, in other !ords, could #e small provided it was
tenanted #! a siza#le num#er of people.
his rulin) !as abandoned in the case of Guido v. Rural Progress
dministration !here the Supre*e Court declared, also b2 a split decision as in
the Re!es case$ that the test to be applied was the area of the land and not the
num#er of people who stood to #e #enefitted b2 the e3propriation. The land should
#e a landed estate or one co*prisin) a ver! fast area. It !as stressed that one of the
purposes of the fra*ers !as precisel2 to brea4 up these estates in the hands of onl2
a fe! individuals or fa*ilies and thus *ore e@uitabl2 distribute the* alon) the
landless.
333 333 333
It has also been held that !here a landed estate is bro4en up into reasonable
portions !hich are thereafter sold to separate purchasers, the resultant portions
cannot be dee*ed as still sub>ect to e3propriation under this provision si*pl2
because the2 used to for* part of a landed estate.
In the case of Tuason v. P%%&, !hich !as a petition for prohibition to nullif2 a la!
directin) the e3propriation of atalon Estate in Aue8on Cit2, 'ustice (ernando
suggested a ruling to the Re!es ruling arguing that the propriet! of e)propriation
*could not #e determined on a purel! +uantitative or area #asis$* @uotin) fro* 1ustice
1.(.?. Re2es in his dissentin) opinion in the Ba!losis &ase. ... -p +$,$%;" Ed..
e*phasis supplied/.
'ro* the Re2es case !here the nu*ber of beneficiaries test !as applied in deter*inin) public use
do!n to the 9uido and (a2losis cases !here the land or area si8e test !as invo4ed, then to the
uason case !here a return to the Re2es decision !as *ade and then up to the recent case
of Pulido vs. &ourt of ppeals -?<,+&5,, Ma2 ", $%;". $55 SCR6 &"/ !here this Court found it
7unfortunate that petitioner !ould be deprived of his land holdin)s, but his interest and that of his
fa*il2 should not stand in the !a2 of pro)ress and the benefit of the )reater *a>orit2 of the
inhabitants of the countr2,7 there has evolved a clear pattern of adherence to the 7nu*ber of people
to be benefited test.
his is *ade *ore *anifest b2 the ne! constitutional provisions on the e@uitable diffusion of
propert2 o!nership and profits -Sec. &, 6rt. $$/ and the i*ple*entation of an a)rarian refor*
pro)ra* ai*ed at e*ancipatin) the tenant fro* the bonda)e of the soil -Sec. $5, 6rt. EIV/.
It has been noted !ith concern that !hile respondents raised the issue of e3propriabilit2 of the parcel
of land, petitioners li*ited the*selves to the issue of preferential or pre<e*ptive ri)hts.
Chat petitioners *i)ht have failed to reali8e is that had the2 invo4ed the e3propriabilit2 of sub>ect
land, the2 !ould have had a foolproof case. Ri)ht fro* the start, the2 !ould have had the upper
hand. Ironicall2, ho!ever, instead of anchorin) their case on the e3propriabilit2 of such land, the2
concentrated on assertin) their preferential ri)ht to bu2 the land. 'or, Section $ of R.6. $$&5, as
a*ended b2 R.6. ",$&, specificall2 authori8es the e3propriation ofan! piece of land in the &it! of
Manila$ ,uezon &it! and su#ur#s which have #een and are actuall! #eing leasedto tenants for at
least ten -$#/ 2ears, provided said lands have at least fort2 fa*ilies of tenants thereon. he case at
bar co*es !ithin the covera)e of the aforesaid le)al provision since the parcel of land is located in
Manila !hich !as then actuall2 leased to $$# tenant fa*ilies 5# 2ears prior to the co**ence*ent of
this action in the lo!er court. Clearl2, therefore, the land in @uestion is capable of e3propriation.
he above situation no! brin)s Fs bac4 to the case of '.M. Tuason - &o. vs. "and Tenure
dministration -?<5$#&:, 'eb. $;, $%+#, "$ SCR6 :$"<:$+/ !here this Court laid do!n certain basic
doctrines on the po!er of e*inent do*ain. hus, this Court, spea4in) thru then 1ustice 'ernando,
declared0
It does not ad*it of doubt that the con)ressional po!er conferred b2 the Constitution
is far fro* li*ited. It is left to the le)islative !ill to deter*ine !hat lands *a2 be
e3propriated so that the2 could be subdivided for resale to those in need of the*.
Nor can it be doubted either that as to !hen such authorit2 *a2 be e3ercised is
purel2 for Con)ress to decide. Its discretion on the *atter is not to be interfered !ith.
his is sho!n b2 reference to the historical basis of the provision as reflected in the
proceedin)s of the Constitutional Convention.
Bistorical discussion !hile valuable is not necessaril2 decisive. It is eas2 to
understand !h2. he social and econo*ic conditions are not static. he2 chan)e
!ith the ti*es. o Identif2 the te3t of a !ritten constitution !ith the circu*stances that
inspired its inclusion *a2 render it incapable of bein) responsive to future needs.
Precisel2, it is assu*ed to be one of the virtues of a !ritten constitution that it suffices
to )overn the life of the people not onl2 at the ti*e of its fra*in) but far into the
indefinite future. It is not to be considered as so lac4in) in fle3ibilit2 and suppleness
that it *a2 be a bar to *easures, novel and unorthodo3, as the2 *a2 appear to
so*e, but nonetheless i*perativel2 called for.
333 333 333
he fra*ers of the Constitution !ere seriousl2 concerned !ith the )rave proble*s of
ine@ualit2 of !ealth, !ith its hi)hl2 divisive tendenc2, resultin) in the )enerous scope
accorded the police po!er and e*inent do*ain prero)atives of the state, even if the
e3ercise thereof !ould cover terrain of propert2 ri)ht previousl2 thou)ht of as be2ond
state control, to pro*ote social >ustice and the )eneral !elfare.
6s in the case of the *ore )eneral provision on e*inent do*ain, the po!er to
e3propriate lands under Sec. : of 6rt. EIII of the Constitution re@uires the pa2*ent of
>ust co*pensation, the ta4in) to be for the public use, and to *eet the e3actin)
standard of due process and e@ual protection )uarant2 of the Constitution.
333 333 333
he po!er )ranted to Con)ress b2 the Constitution to 7authori8e, upon pa2*ent of
>ust co*pensation, the e3propriation of lands to be subdivided into s*all lots and
conve2ed at cost to individuals7 is unli*ited b2 an2 other provision of the
Constitution. 1ust co*pensation is in realit2 a part of the po!er )ranted rather than a
li*itation thereto, >ust as >ust co*pensation is of the essence in an2 e3ercise of the
po!er of e*inent do*ain as, other!ise it !ould be plain co**andeerin).
Chile the ta4in) *ust be for public use as a *atter of principle, in the >udicial
proceedin), the 9overn*ent need not present evidence of such public use as a fact.
he constitutional provision itself declares the public ob>ective, purpose or use of the
e3propriation conte*plated, hence, it should follo! that as lon) as a con)ressional
le)islation declares that the conde*nation of a particular land is for the specific
purpose stated in the Constitution, it is not for the >udiciar2 to in@uire as to !hether or
not the ta4in) of such land is for public use. he Constitution itself !hich is supposed
to be the supre*e la! on private propert2 ri)hts declares it to be so, and leaves it to
Con)ress, not to the >udiciar2, to *a4e the choice of the lands to be ta4en to attain
the ob>ective the constituent asse*bl2 ai*ed to achieve. he scope and the li*it of
the po!er of the >udiciar2 in this re)ard is onl2 to deter*ine the e3istence of enablin)
le)islation, to see to it that the facts are as conte*plated in such enablin) act and to
provide the vehicle for co*pliance !ith procedural due process in the i*ple*entation
of the con)ressional act.
On the *atter of ta4in) for public use, Chief 1ustice 'ernando su**aril2 observed0
he ta4in) to be valid *ust be for public use. here !as a ti*e !hen it !as felt that a
literal *eanin) should be attached to such a re@uire*ent. Chatever pro>ect is
underta4en *ust be for the public to en>o2, as in the case of streets or par4s.
Other!ise, e3propriation is not allo!able. It is not so an2 *ore. 6s lon) as the
purpose of the ta4in) is public, then the po!er of e*inent do*ain co*es into pla2.
6s >ust noted, the Constitution in at least t!o cases, to re*ove an2 doubt,
deter*ines !hat is public use One is the e3propriation of lands to be subdivided into
s*all lots for resale at cost to individuals. he other is the transfer, throu)h the
e3ercise of this po!er, of utilities and other private enterprise to the )overn*ent. It is
accurate to state then that at present !hatever *a2 be beneficiall2 e*plo2ed for the
)eneral !elfare satisfies the re@uire*ent of public use -he Constitution of the
Philippines, 5nd Ed., $%++, pp. ,5"<5:/.
III
his preferential ri)ht of petitioners and the po!er of e*inent do*ain have been further *andated,
stren)thened and e3panded b2 recent develop*ents in la! and >urisprudence.
It *ust be recalled that the $%+" Constitution e*bodies certain ori)inal and innovative provisions on
e*inent do*ain. he ne! Constitution provides thus0
Private propert2 shall not be ta4en for public use !ithout >ust co*pensation7 -Sec. 5,
6rt. IV/.
he (atasan) Pa*bansa *a2 authori8e, upon pa2*ent of >ust co*pensation, the
e3propriation of private lands to be subdivided into s*all lots and conve2ed at cost to
deservin) citi8ens -See. $", 6rt. EIV/.
he State shall pro*ote social >ustice to ensure the di)nit2, !elfare and securit2 of
affir*ativel2 the people. o!ard this end, the State shall regulate the ac+uisition
.wnership$ use$ en/o!ment and disposition of private propert!$ and e+uita#l! diffuse
propert! ownership and profits -Sec. &, 6rt. $$. e*phasis supplied/.
he State shall establish, *aintain, and ensure ade@uate social services in the field
of education, health, housin), e*plo2*ent, !elfare, and social securit2 to )uarantee
the en>o2*ent b2 the people of a decent standard of livin) -Sec. +, 6rt. $$/.
he State shall for*ulate and i*ple*ent an a)rarian refor* pro)ra* ai*ed at
e*ancipatin) the tenant fro* the bonda)e of the soil and achievin) the )oals
enunciated in this Constitution -Sec. $5, 6rt. EIV/.
he afore@uoted Section & of 6rticle $$, !hich is a *odified version of the ori)inal provision of the
$%", Constitution, 7e*phasi8es the ste!ardship concept, under !hich private propert2 is supposed
to be held b2 the individual onl2 as a trustee for the people in )eneral, !ho are its real o!ners. 6s a
*ere ste!ard, the individual *ust e3ercise his ri)hts to the proper< : t2 not for his o!n e3clusive and
selfish benefit but for the )ood of the entire co**unit2 or nation7 -p. +#, Phil. Political ?a!, Cru8,
$%;" ed./.l wphl @i t
In the case of lmeda vs. &ourt of ppeals$ et al. -?<:";##, +; SCR6 $%: G1ul2 5%, $%++H/, this Court
thus declared0
It is to be noted that under the ne! Constitution, propert2 o!nership is i*pressed
!ith social function. Propert2 use *ust not onl2 be for the benefit of the o!ner but of
societ2 as !ell. he State, in the pro*otion of social >ustice, *a2 7re)ulate the
ac@uisition, o!nership, use, en>o2*ent and disposition of private propert2, and
e@uitabl2 diffuse propert2 D o!nership and profits.7 One )overn*ental polic2 of
recent date pro>ects the e*ancipation of tenants fro* the bonda)e of the soil and the
transfer to the* of the o!nership of the land the2 till.
7he ?e)islature *a2 re)ulate =the ac@uisition, o!nership, use, en>o2*ent and disposition of private
propert2,= to the end that *a3i*u* advanta)e can be derived fro* it b2 the people as a !hole.
hus, it *a2 li*it the si8e of private landholdin)s, i*pose hi)her ta3es on a)ricultural lands that are
not bein) tilled, or provide for a !ider distribution of land a*on) the landless. ... -p. +#, Phil. Political
?a!, Cru8, $%;" ed./.
It is obviousl2 in the spirit of Sections & and + of 6rticle $$ that P.D. No. $,$+ on urban land refor*
!as enacted and the subse@uent i*ple*entin) Procla*ation No. $%&+ !as issued. Si)nificantl2
also, the latest a*end*ent to the Constitution on urban land refor* and social housin) pro)ra*
!hich has been proclai*ed b2 the President as havin) been approved in the recent plebiscite on
1anuar2 $+, $%;: all the *ore e*phasi8es and stren)thens the constitutional base for urban land
refor* consistent !ith the provisions on social >ustice.
Even as !e have consistentl2 and e3plicitl2 pronounced that the po!er of e*inent do*ain is a basic
and inherent po!er of )overn*ent !hich does not have to be spelled out b2 the Constitution, still our
le)islators felt such ur)ent de*ands for redistribution of land in this countr2 that the2 had to
incorporate into the $%", and $%+" Constitutions a specific provision on e3propriation of land for
resale. Section $", 6rticle IV of the $%+" Constitution speciall2 authori8es the e3propriation of private
lands for resale.
hus, as earlier *entioned, P.D. No. $,$+ entitled 7Proclai*in) Frban ?and Refor* in the
Philippines and Providin) for the I*ple*entin) Machiner2 hereof7 !as enacted and beer effective
on 1une $ $, $%+; and Procla*ation No. $%&+ !as issued on Ma2 $:, $%;# as an i*ple*entin) la!.
his decree, !hich is fir*l2 based on Section &, 6rticle $$ of the ne! Constitution, undoubtedl2
adopts and cr2stalli8es the )reater nu*ber of people criterion !hen it spea4s of tenants and
residents in declared urban land refor* 8ones or areas !ithout an2 *ention of the land area covered
b2 such 8ones. he focus, therefore, is on people !ho !ould stand to benefit and not on the si8e of
the land involved.
It should no! be clarified that Section 55 of the aforecited decree declares thus0
Sec. 55. Repealing &lause. D 6ll la!s, decrees, e3ecutive orders, rules and
re)ulations inconsistent here!ith are hereb2 repealed, a*ended or *odified
accordin)l2.
he decree has, therefore, superseded R.6. Nos. $$&5, 5":5 and ",$&.
he issue of pre<e*ptive or preferential ri)hts still re*ains for Our resolution !ithin the purvie! of
the said decree.
he pertinent provisions of P.D. No. $,$+ are as follo!s0
Sec. :. Proclamation of 0r#an "and Reform 1ones. D he President shall proclai*
specific parcels of urban and urbani8able lands as Frban ?and Refor* Iones,
other!ise 4no!n as Frban Iones for purposes of this Decree, !hich *a2 include
(a)on) ?ipunan Sites, as defined in P.D. $"%& -par. $ of the section/.
333 333 333
Sec. &. ?and enanc2 in Frban ?and Refor* 6 eas. Cithin the Frban Iones
le)iti*ate tenants !ho have resided on the land for ten 2ears or *ore !ho have built
their ho*es on the land and residents !ho have le)all2 occupied the lands b2
contract, continuousl2 for the last ten 2ears shall not be dispossessed of the land and
shall be allo!ed the ri)ht of first refusal to purchase the sa*e !ithin a reasonable
ti*e and at reasonable prices, under ter*s and conditions to be deter*ined b2 the
Frban Ione E3propriation and ?and Mana)e*ent Co**ittee created b2 Section ; of
the Decree.
333 333 333
Sec. %. &ompulsor! 2eclaration of Sale and Preemptive Rights. 0pon the
proclamation #! the President of an area as an 0r#an "and Reform 1one$ all
landowners$ tenants and residents thereupon are re+uired to declare to the Ministr!
an! proposal to sell$ lease or encu*ber lands and i*prove*ents thereon, including
the proposed price, rent or value of encu*brances and secure approval of said
proposed transactions.
he Ministr2 sha) have the pre<e*ptive ri)ht to ac@uire the above<*entioned lands
and i*prove*ents thereon !hich shall include, but sha) not be li*ited to lands
occupied b2 tenants as provided for in Section & of this Decree -e*phasis supplied/.
Pursuant to the above decree and for purposes of *a4in) specific the applicabilit2 of the sa*e and
other subse@uent la!s on the *atter, the President issued Proclamation 3o. 4567 dated Ma! 48$
459: declaring Metropolitan Manila rea as 0r#an "and Reform 1one. hus, on pa)e 5, No. $: of
said procla*ation, Mataas na ?upa, the land in controvers2, -an area bounded on the north!est b2
Auirino 6venue, South Superhi)h!a2 on the east, San 6ndres Street on the south, and on the !est,
b2 6na4 (a2an Street/ was declared as an area for priorit! development and ur#an land reform
zone.
he afore@uoted provisions of P.D. $,$+ and the declaration in the aforesaid procla*ation are clear
and leave no roo* for an2 interpretation. Evidentl2, petitioners= case falls s@uarel2 !ithin the la!.
Fnder Section & of the decree, the $$# tenant<fa*ilies have been vested !ith the ri)ht of first refusal
to purchase the land in @uestion !ithin a reasonable ti*e and reasonable prices, sub>ect to Ministr2
of Bu*an Settle*ents rules and re)ulations.
CBERE'ORE, BE ORDER D6ED OCO(ER "#, $%&% O' BE BEN M6NI?6 COFR O'
'IRS INS6NCE, (R6NCB IV, IS BERE(J SE 6SIDE 6ND BE MINISRJ O' BFM6N
SE?EMENS IS BERE(J DIRECED O '6CI?I6E 6ND 6DMINISER BE
IMP?EMEN6ION O' BE RI9BS O' BEREIN PEIIONERS. COSS 696INS
RESPONDENS.
SO ORDERED.
&oncepcion$ 'r.$ Guerrero and ;scolin$ ''.$ concur.
+uino '.$ concurs in the result.
#ad Santos$ '.$ < reserve m! vote.