J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs.
Land Tenure Administration
G.R. No. L-21064
February 18, 1970
Fernando, J.
SUBJECT MATTER:
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION: INTERPRETATION
LEGAL BASIS
Article 13 Section 4 of the 1935 Constitution -- The Congress may authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the expropriation
of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals.
WHY: the scope of the power of the Congress was called into question
Article 3 Section 1 (1) of the 1935 Constitution -- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
WHY: the petitioners alleged that the assailed RA 2616 broke the due process and equal protection clauses.
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
APPEAL to further inquire into the scope of the constitutional power of Congress to authorize the expropriation of lands to be
subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals.
Petitioner(s)- J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc.
Parties Appellee:
Respondent(s)- The Land Tenure Administration, The Solicitor General, and The Auditor General
Appellants:
SUMMARY:
On August 3, 1959; RA No. 2616, which allows the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City, was passed and immediately
took effect without Executive approval. Shortly after, the respondent instituted the proceeding for the statute. The owners: J.M.
Tuason and Company, Inc., Gregorio Araneta Company, Inc.m and Florencio Deudor, et al.; filed a special action in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City for prohibition with preliminary injunction against respondents praying that the above act (RA 2616) be
declared unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the constitution,
seeking in the meanwhile a preliminary injunction to restrain respondents from instituting such expropriation proceeding, thereafter
to be made permanent after trial. The lower court held; on January 10, 1963; that RA 2616 (as amended) is unconstitutional. The
Respondents then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court by raising a question as to the scope of the constitutional power of
Congress to authorize expropriation of lands and the further subdivision of the land into smaller lots to be sold to occupants-- so as
to attain a greater degree of clarity at the very least.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● August 3, 1959: RA 2616 passed without executive approval.
● November 15, 1960: then Executive Secretary ordered Land Tenure Administration to institute the proceeding for RA 2616
● November 17, 1960: petitioner filed a special action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against respondents
praying that the above act be declared unconstitutional (on grounds of violating equal protection clause and the due
process clause), seeking in the meanwhile a preliminary injunction to restrain respondents from instituting such
expropriation proceeding, thereafter to be made permanent after trial.
● November 18, 1960: Lower court granted the injunction upon filing of a PHP 20,000.00 bond
● January 10, 1960: Lower court held that RA 2616 is unconstitutional and granted the writ of prohibition
● Respondents subsequently filed for an appeal with the Supreme Court to further inquire into the scope of the constitutional
power of Congress to authorize the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to
individuals.
C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN
ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):
1. WoN RA 2616 is constitutional/valid -- YES, it is constitutional.
RATIO:
1. Validity of Judicial Review
○ The power of judicial review may be exercised when the party adversely affected by either a legislative or
executive act files the appropriate suit to test its validity
○ The argument (by respondents) that the government is the adverse party and therefore must consent to its being
sued is far from persuasive
2. Historical Basis / Constitutional Construction
○ The question is of Constitutional Construction of Art 13, Sec 4 of the 1935 Constitution
○ “It does not admit that the congressional power thus conferred is far from limited. It is left to the legislative will to
determine what lands may be expropriated so that they could be subdivided for resale to those in need of them.”
○ “The recognition of the board congressional competence is undeniable. The judiciary in the discharge of its task to
enforce constitutional commands and prohibitions is denied the prerogative of curtailing its well-nigh all-
embracing sweep.”
○ Based on the speech of Delegate Cuaderno, the framers of the constitution were seriously concerned about social
inequality and oppression and exploitation of tenants. This led to the generous scope of the police power of the
state, even if the exercise of such power would overlap the terrain of property rights, which were thought of as
beyond state control, to promote social justice and general welfare.
3. Due Process is not violated
○ The explicit requirement of payment of just compensation and that the prerequisite of the land being taken is for
“public use” are both met in the case at hand.
4. Equal Protection is not violated
○ In order to meet the equal protection clause of the Constitution, it suffices if an expropriation measure operates
equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons are treated in the same
manner, the conditions not being different, both in privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. In this case,
there is no clear and palpable showing that the petitioner was singled out as a party to bear the brunt of
governmental authority of expropriation.
○ “The legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to the policy of ‘all or none’.”
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of January 10, 1963 holding that Republic Act No. 2616 as amended by
Republic Act No. 3453 is unconstitutional is reversed. The writ of prohibition suit is denied, and the preliminary injunction
issued by the lower court set aside. With costs against the petitioner.
Zaldivar, Sanchez and Vilamor, JJ., concur.
Makalintal J., concurs in the result.
Barredo, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Teehankee, J., concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.
Concepcio, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Castro, JJ., concur in the opinion of Justice Teehankee.
MAIN DISSENTING OPINION:
● Teehankee, J.; Concurring and Dissenting
○ Concurs in the RESULT of the main opinion insofar as it reverses the decision of the lower court which granted the
writ of prohibition to the petitioner-appellee
○ The decision now does not foreclose the petitioner from raising in the expropriation proceedings what it may
deem as proper and valid objections and defenses to the action.
○ The constitutional power of Congress is not so limitless that it forecloses courts from inquiring into the necessity
for the taking of the property
C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN
■ It must be noted that this RA is the first one ever to use this power to single out a particular property
● Teehankee questions whether this is in line with the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Constitution
○ This court should have looked more critically for the facts of the situation at hand. Whether or not the mere
population increase in Quezon City is just cause for the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate, for example.
■ The precedent case of Guido vs Rural Progress established that public benefit must be hand-in-hand with
the expropriation of land
■ Otherwise, as established in Arellano Law College case, “the National government may not confer upon its
instrumentalities authority (to expropriate) which it itself may not exercise”
● Meaning, the question of the act’s necessity and the validity of its act is should be open to
judicial scrutiny.
○ Since the owners of the Tatalon Estate are already selling the land directly to the occupants, who are the main
beneficiaries of the RA 2616, the objectives of the act may be achieved faster if the government just purchased the
unsold lots and sold it to the bona fide occupants or if the government loans money to the bona fide occupants
who can then buy it directly from the owner of Tatalon Estates.
C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN
