Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform (GR No. 78742)

1935 Constitution mandated the policy of social justice to
insure the well-being and economic security of all the
people, especially the less privileged.
In 1973, Constitution affirmed this goal with the
specification that the State shall regulated acquisition,
ownership, etc. of private property and equitably diffuse
property ownership and profits.
In 1987 Constitution, there was Art XIII on Social Justice
and Human Rights, and the mandate to the State to
undertake an agrarian reform program.
August 8, 1963: RA 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform
Code was enacted.
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 was
enacted, providing for compulsory acquisition of private
lands (rice and corn lands) for distribution among tenantfarmers and specified maximum retention limits for
landowners to 7 hectares.
On July 17, 1987, Executive Order no. 228 declared full
land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD No. 27.
July 22, 1987: Proclamation no. 131 instituted the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Executive
Order no. 229 providing mechanics for implementation.
June 10, 1988: RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law changed earlier mentioned enactments but
gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not
inconsistent with its provisions. Retention limit change
d to 5 hectares, but 3 hectares may be awarded to each
child of the landowner, subject to the following
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of
age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly
managing the farm.
FACTS

taken for public use without just compensation, meaning

that it should be payable in cash, and (5) it doesnt solve the
agrarian problem because even small farmers are deprived
of retaining their lands.
GR No. 79310
Petitioners are landowners and sugar planters in Negros
Occidental. They seek to prohibit Proclamation No. 131
and EO 229 because the power to provide for a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) belongs
to Congress not President.
Even if the use of the Presidents legislative power then
was valid, EO 229 still violates constitutional provisions on
(1) just compensation in that the taking of the land must be
simultaneous with payment in money and in full, (2) due
process and equal protection in that no effort was made to
carefully study and find out that there is no tenancy
problem in the sugar areas that can justify the application of
the CARP to them.
GR No. 79744
Petitioner Inocente Pabico alleges that his landholding was
placed by the Secretary of DAR under Operation Land
Transfer. Certificates of Land Transfer were then issued to
private respondents who then refused to pay him lease
rentals. He protested the erroneous inclusion of his
landholding to the OLT, but his motion was rendered moot
upon issuance of EO 228 and 229 which directly effected
the transfer of his land to the private respondents.
He argues that (1) EO 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by
the President in violation of the principle of separation of
powers, (2) the same orders violate the constitutional
provision that no private property shall be taken without
due process or just compensation, (3) he was denied right
of maximum retention provided for in the Constitution and
vested property rights by EO 228 treating lease rentals paid
as advance payment for the land, and (4) inclusion of even
small landowners along with those who own 7 hectares or
more is undemocratic.

GR No. 79777
Petitioner Nicholas Manaay and his wife owned a 9-hectare
riceland worked by 4 tenants. Petitioner Augustin Hermano
Jr, owned a 5-hectare riceland worked by 4 tenants.
The tenants were declared full owners of the lands by EO
228 as qualified farmers under PD 27.
Petitioners question PD 27, EO 228-229 on grounds of (1)
separation of powers President Aquino usurped legislative
power in promulgating EO 228, (2) being deprived of
property rights as protected by due process, (3) equal
protection clause violated because it burdens agricultural
land owners but not owners of other properties, and (4) the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be

GR No. 78742
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
invoke 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 7 hectares but they are
occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating the lands.
However, they cannot eject their tenants and are thus
unable to enjoy right of retention because there were no
IRRs issued yet for PD 27, so petitioners ask Court to
compel DAR Secretary to issue the rules already.
ISSUES

Whether or not Proclamation 131, EO 228-229, and RA

6657 are valid and constitutional.
Under what powers of government do agrarian reform
measures fall under?

Agrarian reform measures fall under the governments

power of eminent domain.

HELD/RATIO
Yes, valid and constitutional.

The Presidents power to promulgate Proclamation

No. 131 and EO 228 and 229 are authorized under
Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the
Constitution.
Also, the Presidents legislative measures continue
to be in force, like any statute, unless modified or
repealed by subsequent law or declared invalid by
the courts. Her loss of power does not invalidate
all the measures enacted by her when she
possessed it.
On fund/appropriations on Proclamation No. 131:
The creation of the fund is only incidental to the
main objective of the proclamation, which is
agrarian reform. Also, when the proclamation was
issued, the House of Representatives (that is now
in charge of appropriation measures) had not yet
been convened.
On the argument that small farmers should not be
made to share the burden of agrarian reform and
that other property owners should be covered by
the law, no evidence was submitted to the Court
that the requisites of a valid classification have
been violated. For valid classification, (1) it must
be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not
be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it
must apply equally to all the members of the class.
The Court finds that all requisites are met.

There is police power to the extent of the measures

prescribing retention limits to the landowners, in
regulation of private property. But this necessitates
the need to use power of eminent domain to take
the land with requisites of (1) public use and (2)
just compensation.
As for public purpose, public use is clear and
binding. No less than the 1987 Constitution calls
for agrarian reform, which is the reason why
private agricultural lands are to be taken from their
owners subject to retention limits. PD 27, Proc
131, RA 6657 only elaborate on what the
Constitution has provided.
This concerns not only a mere regulation of the use
of private lands under the police power, but the
actual taking of lands that has dispossessed the
owners of their property and deprived them of all
its beneficial use and enjoyment for just
compensation.
As for just compensation arguments, yes, the
traditional medium for payment of just
compensation is money and no other. However,
those apply to traditional exercise of power of
eminent domain. This is not merely a case where
the State is taking a specific property of limited
area for public purpose. This is a revolutionary
expropriation that affects all private agricultural
lands of whatever kind, intended for the benefit of
the entire Filipino nation and whose effects impact
future generations but as a result, will involve a
tremendous cost.
Therefore the means employed in this case is the
proper exercise of the power of eminent domain.