Yu vs.

Orchard Golf and Country Club

FACTS:
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.

Two months later, the Board resolved it was going to

implement the suspension as the August 8 cut-off had already
lapsed. Petitioners filed a petition for indirect contempt with the
RTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite. The RTC restored the writ of
preliminary injunction. Respondents appealed with the CA,
which reversed the RTC’s decision and the petitioner’s
suspension was finally implemented.

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.
Meanwhile petitioners filed a motion ad cautelam in the RTC of
Imus, Cavite, praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or writ of
injunction to enjoin respondents from implementing the
suspension orders. The RTC issued the TRO. It was after this
issuance that the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
with the CA. The CA denied the motion and thus the first case
was elevated to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: