ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES ET. AL.

, VERSUS SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN

REFORM
GR. NO. 79310, JULY 14, 1989 (175 SCRA 343)

FACTS:

Landowners of rice and corn lands of no more than 7 hectares, as provided as they are farming the area
or intend to grow it. Their recognized lands need not exceed the statutory limitations, but are inhabited
by tenants who cultivate them. They asked the court for a warrant of mandamus, which would require
the Department of Agriculture (DAR) to issue an Irradiation Notice (IRR). No tenant-farmer in agricultural
land largely committed to rice and maize shall be expelled or moved from his farm holding until the
relative rights of tenant-farmers and land owners are decided, according to DP No. 316. In this case, a
group of farmers has petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of Agriculture
and Rural Development (DAR) to give them an Irradiation Notice (IRR).

ISSUE AND RULING:

1. If the disputed legislation are legitimate acts of police authority.

Yes. The Constitution itself specifies the objective and aim of agricultural reform, which
fulfills the legitimate subject's first need However, an objection is raised to the method
in which the just is fixed. Compensation is argued to be a judicial prerogative. However,
there is no arbitrary nature to the provision. Unless all parties involved agree, DAR's
assessment of appropriate compensation is merely provisional. Otherwise, the courts
will retain the authority to review the aforementioned judgment with finality.
2. If the CARP's substance and manner of equitable recompense are in violation of the
Constitution.
No. Despite the fact that money is the only conventional instrument for payment of
appropriate recompense, what is being The issue at hand is not the ordinary use of
authority and eminent domain. This is a ground-breaking innovation. Expropriation that
goes beyond a few million pesos. It is possible that the initial sum of P50B would not be
met. sufficient, and is not even completely available at the moment. The invalidation of
the aforementioned provision resulted in The entire software is rendered null and void.

3. If the CARP and EO 228 violate a well-accepted concept of eminent domain by divesting the
landowner of his property even before real payment in full of equitable recompense to him.
No. EO 228 stated unequivocally that all qualifying farmer-beneficiaries were considered
full proprietors of the property on which they worked. obtained under PP 27, upon
verification of complete payment of reasonable compensation The CARP Law, for its
part, stipulates the transfer of control and ownership of the property to the government
upon receipt of the accompanying payment or deposit of DAR of remuneration in cash
or LBP bonds with a readily accessible bank. Until that day, title is held by the
landowner.