Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. Name of Digester: G.

Sison
v Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No: 78742 Date: July 14, 1989 Ponente: Cruz

Subject / Syllabus Topic: Social Justice and Human Rights

Petitioner: Association of… Respondent: Secretary of Agrarian Reform

Recit Summary: Landowners assail constitutionality of agrarian reform-related statutes. This is a

consolidated petition, multiple issues but only the ones for Consti 1 will be included.
Facts:
G.R. 79777
- Raised here is the constitutionality of PD 27, Eos 228 & 229, and RA 6657.
- 9 ha. Riceland worked by four tenants, owned by petitioner Manaay;
- 5 ha Riceland worked by four tenants, owned by Hermano Jr.
- Tenants declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27.
- petitioners question PD 27/Eos 228 and 229 on grounds of separation of powers, due process,
equal protection, constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public
use without just compensation.
- Contention is that Cory Aquino as president usurped legislative power when she promulgated EO
228. It is also contended for violation of Article XIII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution for failure to
provide retention limits for small landowners, also that it does not conform to Article VI, Sec. 25(4)
and other requisites for valid appropriation.
- RA 6657 is assailed for the same infirmities as previous measures.

GR 79310
- Petitioners are landowners and sugarplanters in Negros Occidental.

GR 79744
- Petitioner alleges that public respondent placed his landholding under Operation Land Transfer,
whereas Certificates of Land Transfer were subsequently issued to private respondents who then
refused payment of lease rentals to him.
- He protests erroneous inclusion of his small landholding under said operation, and claims that his
petition was denied without hearing.
- His filing for reconsideration that had not been acted upon when EO 228 and 229 were issued
rendered his motion moot and academic.

GR 78742
- Petitioners 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/intend to cultivate the same.
- Their lands do not exceed the limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such.
(PD 316 is implementing of PD 27)
- They claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy right of retention because DAR
has not issued IRR for PD 316.
CONSOLIDATED ISSUE GUIDE
On GR 79777
Just Compensation
1. Petitioners argue that just compensation may only be made by a court of justice and not by the
President.
2. Moreover, that just compensation is payable in money/cash and not in the form of bonds.
 Due process/Equal protection clause
3. In considering the rentals as advance payment on land, EO deprives petitioners of property
rights as protected by due process.
4. In declaring beneficiaries under PD 27 to be owners of the lands they occupied, EO 228 ignored
judicial prerogatives and violated due process.
5. Equal protection clause is violated because order places burden of solving agrarian problems
only on the owners of agricultural lands, and that no similar obligation is imposed on owners of
other properties.

On GR 79310
1. They claim that power to provide for CARP as decreed by the Constitution belongs to Congress
and not President. They contend that she could only exercise legislative power for emergency
measures.
2. Even assuming arguendo that she was allowed, Proclamation 131 and EO 229 would be null for
violating constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process, and equal protection.
3. They also contend that taking must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation (cash
and in full) but is not in Section 5 of EO 229.

On GR 79744
1. Petitioner argues that EO 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President;
2. EOs were violative of the constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken without
due process or just compensation;
3. That he was denied the right of maximum retention provided for by Article XIII Sec. 4 of the
1987 Constitution.
4. He also assails EO 228, specifically the provision that declares lease rentals as advance payment
for the land as unconstitutional taking of a vested property right.

On GR 78742
1. Petitioners 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/intend to cultivate the same.
2. Their lands do not exceed the limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such.
(PD 316 is implementing of PD 27)
3. They claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy right of retention because
DAR has not issued IRR for PD 316.
Issue/s: Ruling:
a. Are P.D. 27, E.O.s 228 and 229, as well as R.A. 6657
unconstitutional? 1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc.
No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and
229 are SUSTAINED against all
the constitutional objections raised
in the herein petitions.
2. Title to all expropriated properties
shall be transferred to the State
only upon full payment of
compensation to their respective
owners.
3. All rights previously acquired by
the tenant- farmers under P.D. No.
27 are retained and recognized.
4. Landowners who were unable to
exercise their rights of retention
under P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the
retention rights granted by R.A.
 No. 6657 under the conditions
therein prescribed.
5. Subject to the above-mentioned
rulings all the petitions are
DISMISSED.

Holding:

On constitutionality of the assailed statutes:

1. Promulgation of PD 27 by Marcos under martial law has been sustained. As for Aquino’s power to
promulgate Proclamation 131 and EOs 228 & 229, it was authorized by Section 6 of the Transitory
Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
2. These measures were issued before July 27, 1987 when Congress convened and took over legislative
power. EO 228 was issued on July 17, and Proc 131 and EO 229 were issued on July 22. They did
not cease to be valid, for like any statute, they are in force until modified or repealed by
subsequent law/invalidated by courts.
3. Congress substantially affirmed these measures and specifically provided that they be suppletory to
RA 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its provision. Specifically, Sec 2 of Proc 131 (the creation of
the 50 billion peso budget) and Secs 20 and 21 of EO 229 have been incorporated to the CARP Law.
4. The constitutional provisions invoked (Sec 24 and 25(4) of Article VI) are not applicable since the
HoR, that now has the exclusive power to initiate appropriation measures, had not convened when
the proclamation was issued. Legislative power was then in the President.
5. RA 6657 provides for retention limits in Section 6 of the law.

On compensable taking of land

1. Expropriation (eminent domain) requires payment of just compensation.
2. (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon) Law cannot be sustained without compensating the grantor.
3. When the statutes prescribe retention limits for landowners, it is only an exercise of police power to
regulate private property in accordance to the Constitution. However, if to carry out the regulation
makes it necessary to deprive owners of excess land, there is a taking under eminent domain for
which payment is imperative.
4. Requirement for public use has been settled by the Constitution itself. The 1987 charter calls for
agrarian reform. PD 27, Proclamation 131 and RA 6657 are only elaborations of the constitutional
injunction that the State take measures to undertake just distribution of all agricultural lands to enable
farmers. This public use is binding.

On due process and equal protection

1. On Proc 131 and EOs 228 and 229 being assailed for no prescribed retention limits, they have
already been discussed and dismissed.
2. The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because of the
absence of retention limits has also become academic under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657.
3. There is also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an
objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular class with
particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the
requisites of a valid classification have been violated.
4. Equal protection means that all persons similarly situated must be treated alike as to rights conferred,
and liabilities imposed. Petitioners have not shown they belong to a different class and entitled to
different treatment.
On just compensation
1. Just compensation is defined as full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. This is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
2. The actual taking of private agricultural lands that deprive owners of their property (and
accompanying beneficial use and enjoyment), which entitles them to just compensation mandated by
the Constitution.
3. However, when the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to make a deposit upon its
taking possession of property, as “the compensation is a public charge, the good faith of the public is
pledged for its payment, and all the resources of taxation may be employed in raising the amount.”
4. The determination of just compensation is solely a judicial function. (see endnotes)
5. It is violative of due process to deny the owner opportunity to prove valuation in tax documents to
be unfair of wrong. DAR determination is preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned.
Otherwise, courts will have the right to review with finality determination of such.

On mode of compensation
1. Although the traditional medium for compensation is money, what we are dealing with here is a
revolutionary kind of expropriation.
2. It affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as in excess of
maximum retention limits. It is intended to benefit the entire Filipino nation.
3. The cost will be tremendous and lawmakers had no illusions that there would be enough money to
pay in cash and in full for land distribution.
4. Intent assumed is to allow manners of payment with other things of value.
5. Invalidation of Sec 18 of the CARP Law will result in nullification of the entire program. This is not,
in their view, the intention of the Constitution. CARP Law is declared not violative of the
Constitution.

On divesting of property before full payment

1. Recognized rule is that title shall pass only upon full payment.
2. However, EO 228 categorically stated in Sec 1 that all farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full
owners of land acquired via PD 27.
3. This refers to lands validly acquired under said PD. In Section 2, lease rentals also shall be considered
advance payment for the land.
4. All rights acquired by tenant-farmer in PD 27 as recognized under EO 228 are retained under RA
6657 (CARP Law).
The argument of some of the petitioners that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidated because
they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution is no longer
tenable. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its
most controversial provisions. This section declares:

Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced,
terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed
five (5) hectares. Three (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; Provided, That landowners whose
lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area
originally retained by them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this
 Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

On due process, #2
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars
and different from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following
requirements: (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 these requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary
and discriminatory.

On #4, just compensation

EPZA v. Dulay resolved a challenge to several decrees promulgated by President Marcos providing that the
just compensation for property under expropriation should be either the assessment of the property by the
government or the sworn valuation thereof by the owner, whichever was lower. In declaring these decrees
unconstitutional, the Court held through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.:

The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes
impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in
a matter which under this Constitution is reserved to it for final determination.