B2017 | Constitutional Law | Prof.

Dante Gatmaytan | 1
J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc. (petitioner) v. Land Tenure Administration (respondent)
Doctrine: Constitutional Construction
Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
Date: February 18, 1970
Ponente: Justice Fernando
Short version: RA 2616--the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate authorized by Congress (the first statute to be
specifically tailored to expropriate land), was decided unconstitutional by the lower court, in favor of the petitioner JM
Tuason & Co. The Supreme Court then reversed this decision, reviewing the scope of power given to Congress under the
Constitution to authorize expropriation of lands.
With the ff opinions:
Zaldivar, Sanchez and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Barredo, J. concurs in a separate opinion.
Tehankee, J., concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L. Dizon and Castro, JJ., concur in the opinion of Justice Tehankee
Facts:

I.
Congress: RA 2616
August 3, 1959
RA 2616 took effect without executive approval
expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City
owned by petitioner JM Tuason & Co. (to be subdivided
into small lots and sold to their occupants) was
authorized by Congress in view of social and economic
problems.
November 15, 1960
Respondent Land Tenure Administration instituted the
proceeding for the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate
RA 2616, as directed by the Executive Secretary.

II.
Lower Court: RA 2616 is unconstitutional
November 17, 1960
Petitioner JM Tuason & Co. filed special action for
prohibition of RA 2616 with preliminary injunction
against the respondents to restrain expropriation
proceedings.
January 10, 1963
RA 2616 was decided unconstitutional, granting the writ
of prohibition.

III.

SC: Reversing the decision and further

proceedings
February 18, 1970
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision
that RA 2616 is unconstitutionaldenying the writ of
prohibition, and setting aside the preliminary injunction
filed by petitioner JM Tuason & Co.
March 30, 1970
Motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner
invoking his rights to due process & equal protection of
laws.
May 27, 1970

SG Felix Antonio filed detailed opposition to the

reconsideration.
June 15, 1970
Petitioner filed for a rejoinder. The expropriation of
Tatalon Estate in Quezon City is unconstitutional
pursuant to RA 2616 sec 4. (as amended by RA 3453)-prohibiting the enforceability of ejectment proceedings or
the continuance of a proceeding that has already been
commenced.
Issue: Is RA 2616 (rightfully amended) unconstitutional
because it violates the petitioners rights to due process
and equal protection of law?
Held: No.

B2017 | Constitutional Law | Prof. Dante Gatmaytan | 1

Petitioners Contention
The statute is unconstitutional because:

(1) It violates the due process for landowners.

(2) It applies only to the petitioner and singles out the
Tatalon Estate among the land estates in Quezon
City.
Implications:
Disregard of constitutional principles
Misuse of power by Congress

Supreme Court
The statute is valid and therefore, constitutional because:

(1) It gives protection and opportunity to bona fide

land owners (notwithstanding procedural mistakes
made) in recognizing their right to expropriation
proceedings and just compensationa barrier to
arbitrariness.
(2) The statute jives with the vision of dynamism and
public welfare, as intended by the framers of the
Constitution.
(3) There is nothing to prevent Congress to follow a
system of priorities. It could determine which lands
would be the first subject of expropriation for valid
reasons.