MOIT, ROMEL JOHN M.

Small Landowners vs. DAR Secretary

G.R. No. 78742
July 14, 1989

Facts:

Small Landowners questioned the constitutionality of

PD 27, RA 6657, and other agrarian reform measures.

Raised EOs are alleged to violate the due process and

just compensation clause of the Constitution.

With regard to the determination of just compensation,

they claimed that such power shall be entrusted to
administrative authorities. They further contended that the
manner of fixing the compensation is violative of the judicial
prerogatives; and the manner of paying the same is violative
of the Bill of Rights under the Constitution, since it shall be in
the form of money or cash, and not in other forms, like
bonds.

Furthermore, they averred that the State shall first

distribute public agricultural lands in the pursuit of agrarian
reform instead of immediately disturbing property rights by
means of forcible acquisition of private agricultural lands.

Lastly, they claimed that under the present CARP,

landowners are being divested of their property even before
the actual and full payment of just compensation, which is
clearly against the eminent domain principle.

Issue:

Whether PD 27, RA 6657, and other agrarian reform

measures are unconstitutional.
Ruling:

No, PD 27, RA 6657, and other agrarian reform

measures raised herein are constitutional.

Since the programs prescribe retention limits, the State

shall exercise its police power over landowners, in light of the
constitutional principles, for the purpose of regulating private
properties in order to abide with the rules set forth. Thus, to
carry out such regulation, eminent domain comes in by way
of taking the excess area, but imperatively accompanied with
the payment of just compensation.

Furthermore, the agrarian reform programs clearly

provides that any party who disagrees with the decision may
bring the matter to the proper court for final determination of
just compensation. This is reasonable to the extent that
determination of just compensation by the DAR is not final
and conclusive upon the landowner by any means.

With regard to the form of payment of just

compensation, practicality shall be considered since what is
being dealt with in such program is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation, which means – cost will be tremendous, and
is, thus, too much to handle.

With the distribution of agricultural lands, what the

Constitution mandates is a just distribution. Hence, the
contention of the petitioners that only public agricultural lands
shall be the subject to the CARP is untenable.

And as to the final claim of the Small Landowners et

al., it shall be understood that no outright change of
ownership is contemplated under the CARL, since the
transfer of possession and ownership of the land is
conditioned to the government on receipt by the landowner
of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank.