Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform,
175 SCRA 343
Facts:
The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified farmers under P.D. No. 27. The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.
Petitioners invoke the cases of EPZA v. Dulay and Manotok v. National Food Authority. Moreover; that “the just compensation contemplated by the Bill of Rights is payable in money or in cash and not in the form of bonds or other things of value.”
Issue:
Whether or not the payment of just compensation is payable only in cash and not in the form of bonds.
Held:
No. This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
Ratio:
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is money and no other. However, we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner.
No comments:
Post a Comment