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., BERNARD O M. ALMONTE, CANUTO RAMIR B. CABRITO, ISIDRO T. G UICO, FELISA I. LLAMIDO, FAUSTO J. SALVA, REYNALDO G. ESTRADA, FELISA C. BAUTISTA, ESMENI A 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 AGRA RIAN 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 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 acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenantfarmers & 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 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. 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 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 t he 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. o f Agrarian Reform have yet to issue 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 o f 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 m anner 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 agreed in principle.
