1. Association Of Small Landowners In The Philippines, Inc., Et Al.

Vs
Honorable Secretary Of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 78742 July 14,
1989) Constitutionality of CARP
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 are actually cultivating
such lands.
Because PD 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 E0228 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 eventually 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 P27, 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.