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.

Yu vs. Orchard Golf and Country Club

FACTS:
Petitioners filed complaints with the Securities Investigation and Clearing
Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission, at that time the tribunal
vested by law with jurisdiction to hear and decide intra-corporate controversies.
The SICD-SEC issued a TRO effective for 20 days, restraining the Club from
implementing the suspension. 2 days before the TRO would lapse, however, the
SEC issued guidelines wherein parties would be allowed to file their cases before
August 8, 2000 but any provisional remedies the SEC granted them were to be
effective only until that date. On August 7, 2000, the SIDC-SEC issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining respondents from implementing the suspensions.