ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC

G.R. No. 78742 [July 14, 1989]

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, et al., petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

FACTS
The association of the Small Landowners of the Philippines invokes the right of retention granted by
PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long as they are cultivating on
intend to cultivate the same. Their respected lands do not exceed the statutory limits but are
occupied by tenants who re actually cultivating such lands.
Because PD No. 316 provides that no tenant-farmer in agricultural land primarily devoted to rice
and corn shall be ejected or removed from his farm holding until such time as the respective rights of
the tenant-farmers and the land owners shall have been determined, they petitioned the court for a
writ of mandamus to compel the DAR Secretary to issue the IRR, as they could not eject their
tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention.
ISSUE
Whether or not the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police power.
Whether or not the content and manner of just compensation provided for the CARP is violative of
the Constitution.
Whether or not the CARP and EO 228 contravene a well accepted principle of eminent domain by
divesting the land owner of his property even before actual payment to him in full of just
compensation
HELD
Yes. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself,
which satisfies the first requirement of the lawful subject. However, objection is raised to the
manner fixing the just compensation, which it is claimed is judicial prerogatives. However, there is
no arbitrariness in the provision as the determination of just compensation by DAR is only
preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts will still have the right
to review with finality the said determination.
No. Although the traditional medium for payment of just compensation is money and no other, what
is being dealt with here is not the traditional exercise of the power and eminent domain. This is a
revolutionary kind of expropriation, which involves not mere millions of pesos. The initially intended
amount of P50B may not be enough, and is in fact not even fully available at the time. The
invalidation of the said section resulted in the nullification of the entire program.
No. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmer-beneficiaries were deemed full owners of
the land they acquired under PP 27, after proof of full payment of just compensation. The CARP
Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government
on the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner.