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., BERNARDO M.
ALMONTE, CANUTO RAMIR B. CABRITO, ISIDRO T. GUICO, FELISA I. LLAMIDO,
FAUSTO J. SALVA, REYNALDO G. ESTRADA, FELISA C. BAUTISTA, ESMENIA 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 AGRARIAN 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 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 of private lands for
distribution among tenant-farmers & 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 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. 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 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 the
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. of 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.
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 of 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 manner 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.

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