Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 298 views

    Case Digest (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    The document discusses four consolidated cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws related to agrarian reform in the Philippines. It summarizes the issues raised in each case regarding eminent domain, due process, just compensation, and the implementation of presidential decrees and executive orders related to land redistribution. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the laws were constitutional exercises of eminent domain for the public interest, and that while money is traditionally how just compensation is provided, this was a unique case of large-scale land reform that was a revolutionary form of expropriation. The petitioners were also entitled to retention rights under the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    298 views2 pages
    The document discusses four consolidated cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws related to agrarian reform in the Philippines. It summarizes the issues raised in each case regarding eminent domain, due process, just compensation, and the implementation of presidential decrees and executive orders related to land redistribution. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the laws were constitutional exercises of eminent domain for the public interest, and that while money is traditionally how just compensation is provided, this was a unique case of large-scale land reform that was a revolutionary form of expropriation. The petitioners were also entitled to retention rights under the new law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses four consolidated cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws related to agrarian reform in the Philippines. It summarizes the issues raised in each case regarding eminent domain, due process, just compensation, and the implementation of presidential decrees and executive orders related to land redistribution. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the laws were constitutional exercises of eminent domain for the public interest, and that while money is traditionally how just compensation is provided, this was a unique case of large-scale land reform that was a revolutionary form of expropriation. The petitioners were also entitled to retention rights under the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    298 views2 pages

    Case Digest (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    The document discusses four consolidated cases that challenge the constitutionality of laws related to agrarian reform in the Philippines. It summarizes the issues raised in each case regarding eminent domain, due process, just compensation, and the implementation of presidential decrees and executive orders related to land redistribution. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the laws were constitutional exercises of eminent domain for the public interest, and that while money is traditionally how just compensation is provided, this was a unique case of large-scale land reform that was a revolutionary form of expropriation. The petitioners were also entitled to retention rights under the new law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE

    PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. vs. HONORABLE


    SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM
    G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989

    FACTS:
    These are consolidated cases because they involve
    common legal questions, involving serious challenges to the
    constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, Proc.
    No. 131 and R.A. No. 665.
    G.R. No. 79777
    The petitioners are questioning the constitutionality P.D.
    No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
    separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the
    constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken
    for public use without just compensation.
    G.R. No. 79310
    This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation of
    Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. The petitioners claim that,
    even assuming that the interim legislative power of the
    President was properly exercised, Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No.
    229 would still have to be annulled for violating the
    constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process,
    and equal protection.
    G.R. No. 79744
    The petitioners argue that E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are
    violative of the constitutional provision that no private property
    shall be taken without due process or just compensation.
    G.R. No. 78742
    The petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants
    and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention because the
    DAR has so far not issued the implementing rules required
    under the above-quoted decree.

    1

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229,
    Proc. No. 131 and R.A. No. 665 are the constitutional.

    RULING:
    YES, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Cruz
    SUSTAINED R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and
    E.O. Nos. 228 and 229. The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by
    President Marcos has already been sustained in Gonzales v.
    Estrella, and the Court found no reason to modify or reverse it
    on that issue. As for the power of President Aquino to
    promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the
    same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory
    Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
    This brings us now to the power of eminent domain.
    Private rights must yield to the irresistible demands of the
    public interest on the time-honored justification that the
    welfare of the people is the supreme law. In any event, the
    decision to redistribute private agricultural lands in the manner
    prescribed by the CARP was made by the legislative and
    executive departments in the exercise of their discretion. The
    Court is not justified in reviewing that discretion in the absence
    of a clear showing that it has been abused.
    It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional
    medium for the payment of just compensation is money and
    no other. However, we do not deal here with the traditional
    exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an
    ordinary expropriation 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. What we
    deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
    In connection with these retained rights, assuming that
    the petitioners have not yet exercised their retention rights, if
    any, under P.D. No. 27, the Court held that they are entitled to
    the new retention rights provided for by R.A. No. 6657.

    You might also like