Yu vs.

Orchard Golf and Country Club

FACTS:
The events leading to these consolidated cases began with a game of golf.

Yu and Yuhico were set to play golf at the Orchard Golf and Country Club
with one more member of the club. Unfortunately, this other member cancelled at
the last minute. Because of the Club’s policy, which prohibited “twosomes” from
teeing off on weekends and public holidays before 1pm, petitioners requested
management to look for another player to join them. When a third player could not
be found, petitioners requested that they be allowed to play. The Club refused, but
they played anyway, in violation of the Club’s rules. As a result, an incident report
was filed with the Club’s Board of Directors. The Board resolved to suspend both
members for 3 months.

ISSUE:

Is the DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 invalid? Is PD No. 27 unconstitutional?

LAW:

PD No. 27 decrees the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them
the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor.

PD No. 816 provides that rentals are to be paid to the landowner by agricultural lessee until after
the valuation of the property shall have been determined.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rolando Sigre and granted his consolidated petitions. The
Court ruled that DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 is not in conflict with PD 816, which states
that tenant-farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of
the property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and DAR. The circular only
supplements such Presidential Decree by mandating that tenant-farmer pays rental to LBP after
the value has been determined. Moreover, the Court reiterated that there is no question on the
constitutionality of PD 27, providing for the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil
and transferring to them the ownership of the land they till.