Anda di halaman 1dari 2

ASSO. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF DAR [175 SCRA 343; G.R. NO.

L78742; 14 JUL 1989]


Friday, January 30, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case:
a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657.
Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants.
Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The
petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislatures power.
b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victorias Mill Negros Occidental
against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian
Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion.
c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer.
d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands
not exceeding seven hectares.
Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EOs, PD, and RA were constitutional.
Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police
power and eminent domain.
The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was
authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore
it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain.
RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes
necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain
for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a
mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and
the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favour of the farmer.
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the
lawful subject and the method. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is
valid, however what is to be determined is the method employed to achieve it.
National Housing Authority v Allarde

Facts: Private respondent Rufino Mateo had lived in the disputed lots since his birth in
1928. In1959, he started farming and working on a six-hectare portion of said lots, after
the death of his father who had cultivated a thirteen-hectare portion of the same lots. On
September 1, 1983, the National Housing Authority notified the respondent spouses of
the scheduled development of the Tala Estate including the lots in question, warning
them that it would not be responsible for anydamage which may be caused to the crops
planted on the said lots. In 1989, private respondent Rufino Mateo filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform a petition for the award to them of subject disputed lots
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In January1992,
petitioner caused the bulldozing of the rice fields of private respondents, damaging the
dikes and irrigations thereon, in the process. On March 18, 1992, the respondent
spouses, relying on their claim that subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage
of the CARP, brought before the respondent Regional Trial Court a complaint for
damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the petitioner from
bulldozing further and making constructions on the lots under controversy. Petitioner
contended that the said lots which were previously reserved by Proclamation No. 843
for housing and resettlement purposes are not covered by theCARP as they are not
agricultural lands within the definition and contemplation of Section 3 (c)of R. A. No.
6657. The RTC issued the writ.
Issue:Whether or not the disputed land is covered by CARP
Held:Lands reserved for, or converted to, non-agricultural uses by government agencies
other than the Department of Agrarian Reform, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No.
6657 arenot considered and treated as agricultural lands and therefore, outside the
ambit of said law.Thus, since as early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate was reserved,
inter alia under PresidentialProclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the
National Housing Authority, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the
agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3 (c)of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore,
outside the coverage of the CARL.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai