Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling

Association of Small
Landowners v. DAR Secretary
GR Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744,
and 79777
14 July 1989
Cruz, J.
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
W/N PD 27, PP 131, and EOs
228 and 229 were validly
enacted.


















W/N the CARP fund provision in
PP131 conforms to the
requirements of a valid
appropriation.










W/N PP 131 and EO 229 should
be invalidated because they do
not provide for retention limits.






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.

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.

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
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.


W/N the assailed statutes violate
the equal protection clause.













W/N the assailed statutes are
valid exercises of police power.

























W/N the content and manner of
therein prescribed.

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.

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.

NO. Although the traditional
just compensation provided for
in the CARP Law is violative of
the Constitution.













W/N 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.
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.

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.
Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary
GR No. 86889
4 December 1990
Paras, J.
In 1988, RA 6657 was
approved by the President of
the Philippines. It includes the
raising of livestock, poultry,
and swine in its coverage.

In 1989, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform promulgated
the IRR of Secs. 11, 13, and 39
of the said law.
W/N the CARL should include
the raising of livestock, poultry
and swine in its coverage.







NO. It was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitution to
include the livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the
agrarian reform program of the
government. The intention of the
Committee was to limit the
application of the word
agriculture. Thus, Section II of
RA 6657 which includes private

Luz Farms, a corporation
engaged in the livestock and
poultry business, allegedly
stands to be adversely affected
by the enforcement of certain
sections of RA 6657, of the
Guidelines and Procedures
Implementing Production and
Profit Sharing under RA 6657,
and of the IRR of Section 11. It
prays that the aforesaid
statutes be declared
unconstitutional.










W/N the requirement in Sections
13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing
corporate farms to execute and
implement production-sharing
plans is unreasonable for being
confiscatory and violative of due
process, with respect to livestock
and poultry raisers.

Separate Opinion: Sarmiento, J.
W/N the assailed provisions
violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry,
and swine raising in the
definition of commercial farms
is invalid, to the extent that the
aforecited agro-industrial
activities are made to be covered
by the agrarian reform program
of the State.

YES. As there is no reason to
include livestock and poultry
lands in the coverage of agrarian
reform, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers
as additional compensation.


NO. Substantial distinctions exist
between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of
fruits or crops and land
exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising that
make real differences:
1. There are no tenants
nor landlords in
livestock and poultry
businesses;
2. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from
land;
3. Land is not a primary
resource;
4. Livestock and poultry
production are
industrial activities;
5. Livestock and poultry
farmworkers are
covered by minimum
wage law rather than
by tenancy law.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi