G.R. No. L-21064 - J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Concurring & Dissenting OpinionJustice Teehankee

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21064 February 18, 1970

J.M. TUASON and CO., INC.,petitioner-appellee,
vs.
THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL and THE AUDITOR GENERAL,respondents-appellants.

Araneta, Mendoza and Papa for petitioner-appellee.

Office of the Solicitor General and M. B. Pablo for respondents appellants.

FERNANDO,J.:

In this special civil action for prohibition to nullify a legislative act directing the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate, Quezon City,1this Court is called upon to inquire further into how far the power of Congress under the constitution to authorize upon payment of just compensation the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals2may extend, the more so as this is the first time the judiciary is confronted with such a challenge addressed to the validity of a statute specifically made applicable to a particular piece of land, owned by petitioner J. M. Tuason & Co. In the leading case ofGuido v. Rural Progress,3decided in 1949. this Court in passing upon the scope of the power of the President conferred by statute "to acquire private lands or any interest therein, through purchase or expropriation, and to subdivide the same into home lots or small farms for resale at reasonable prices and under such conditions as he may fix to theirbona fidetenants or occupants"4had occasion to delineate the contours of the above constitutional provision, reconciling the undoubtedly broad grant of constitutional authority to Congress with the right of property that might be adversely affected by its exercise.

The prevailing opinion in the later caseRepublic v. Baylosis5tilted the balance in favor of property. In deciding this suit, filed with the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, the lower court, as was understandable, bowed to what it considered the compulsion such an opinion carries and being unable to perceive any relevant ground for distinction, declared the challenged statute invalid. The respondents, the Land Tenure Administration, the Solicitor General and the Auditor General in this prohibition proceeding, appealed. We are possessed undoubtedly of greater discretion on the matter. Nor is it to be lost sight of, as abovementioned, that this is the first controversy where the expropriation of a particular property authorized by Congress under the above constitutional provision is assailed as beyond its power. The opportunity is thus here present of making more definite the boundaries of such congressional competence.

As will hereafter be explained with some measure of fullness, we cannot affix the stamp of approval to the judgment of the lower court; we reach a different conclusion. There is to our mind no sufficient showing of the unconstitutionality of the challenged act. We reverse.

On August 3, 1959, Republic Act No. 2616 took effect without executive approval. It is therein provided: "The expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by the J. M. Tuason and Company, Inc., Gregorio Araneta and Company, Inc., and Florencio Deudor, et al., is hereby authorized."6As noted in the appealed decision:

Thereafter, on November 15, 1960, respondent Land Tenure Administration was directed by the then Executive Secretary to institute the proceeding for the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. Not losing any time, petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed before the lower court on November 17, 1960 a special action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against respondents praying that the above act be declared unconstitutional, seeking in the meanwhile a preliminary injunction to restrain respondents from instituting such expropriation proceeding, thereafter to be made permanent after trial. The next day, on November 18, 1960, the lower court granted the prayer for the preliminary injunction upon the filing of a P20,000.00 bond. After trial, the lower court promulgated its decision on January 10, 1963 holding that Republic Act No. 2616 as amended is unconstitutional and granting the writ of prohibition prayed for.

Hence this appeal by respondents, one we find meritorious. With the problem thus laid bare and with an exposition of the constitutional principles that compel a result different from that arrived at by the lower court, we cannot accept its holding that the statute thus assailed should be annulled.

1. Respondents would interpose two procedural bars sufficient in their opinion to preclude the lower court from passing on the question of validity.8The first is the allegation that in effect this special proceeding for prohibition is "actually a suit against the State, which is not allowed without its consent."9The second would require, on the assumption that the suit could proceed, that the Executive Secretary, as the real party in interest, ought to have been impleaded. Neither objection suffices to preclude the lower court from passing upon the question of validity of the statute in question.

As was held by this Court in the leading case ofAngara v. Electoral Commission,10speaking through Justice Laurel, the power of judicial review is granted, if not expressly, at least by clear implication from the relevant provisions of the Constitution.11This power may be exercised when the party adversely affected by either a legislative or executive act, or a municipal ordinance for that matter, files the appropriate suit to test its validity. The special civil action of prohibition has been relied upon precisely to restrain the enforcement of what is alleged to be an unconstitutional statute.12As it is a fundamental postulate that the Constitution as the supreme law is binding on all governmental agencies, failure to observe the limitations found therein furnishes a sufficient ground for a declaration of the nullity of the governmental measure challenged. The argument then that the government is the adverse party and that therefore must consent to its being sued certainly is far from persuasive. Moreover, it is equally well-settled that for the purpose of thus obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity, it is enough if the respondents or defendants named be the government officials who would give operation and effect to official action allegedly tainted with unconstitutionality. As it cannot be denied that in 1959 the then Land Tenure Administration as well as the Solicitor General were called upon to enforce the statute now assailed, it would appear clear that the existence on the Executive Secretary being made a party lacks support in law.

It would be then to set aside and disregard doctrines of unimpeachable authority if the plea of respondents on these procedural points raised were to meet an affirmative response. That we are not disposed to do.

2. Thus we reach the merits. It would appear, as noted at the outset, that for the purpose of deciding the question of validity squarely raised, a further inquiry 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 individuals13is indicated, if for no other purpose than to attain a greater degree of clarity. The question is one then of constitutional construction. It is well to recall fundamentals. The primary task is one of ascertaining and thereafter assuring the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution.14

We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. We do not of course stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the objective sought to be attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. Thus there are cases where the need for construction is reduced to a minimum.

This is one of them. It does not admit of doubt 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. Nor can it be doubted either that as to when such authority may be exercised is purely for Congress to decide. Its discretion on the matter is not to be interfered with. The language employed is not swathed in obscurity. The recognition of the broad 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.

Reference to thehistoricalbasis of this provision as reflected in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, two of the extrinsic aids to construction along with the contemporaneous understanding and the consideration of the consequences that flow from the interpretation under consideration, yields additional light on the matter. The opinion of Justice Tuason, in the Guido case did precisely that. It cited the speech of delegate Miguel Cuaderno, who, in speaking of large estates and trusts in perpetuity, stated: "There has been an impairment of public tranquility, and to be sure a continuous impairment of it, because of the existence of these conflicts. In our folklore the oppression and exploitation of the tenants are vividly referred to; their sufferings at the hand of the landlords are emotionally pictured in our drama; and even in the native movies and talkies of today, this theme of economic slavery has been touched upon. In official documents these same conflicts are narrated and exhaustively explained as a threat to social order and stability."15He invoked likewise what happened to the family of our national hero Jose Rizal: "But we should go to Rizal for inspiration and illumination in this problem of the conflicts between landlords and tenants. The national hero and his family were persecuted because of these same conflicts in Calamba, and Rizal himself met a martyr's death because of his exposal of the cause of the tenant class, because he would not close his eyes to oppression and persecution with his own people as victims."16Delegate Cuaderno closed with this appeal: "If we are to be true to our trust, if it is our purpose in drafting our constitution to insure domestic tranquility and to provide for the well-being of our people, we cannot, we must not fail to prohibit the ownership of large estates, to make it the duty of the government to break up existing large estates, and to provide for their acquisition by purchase or through expropriation and sale to their occupants, as has been provided in the Constitutions of Mexico and Jugoslavia."17

The above address was delivered during the early days of the convention on August 21, 1934.18Subsequently, the day before the above constitutional provision was voted on January 29, 1935 he reiterated what was said by him in the above address. Thus: "Mr. President, this will be my last speech in the Convention. And I just want to remind the Convention of the first speech that I delivered — the first speech I delivered before this Assembly. I believe, Mr. President, that one of the best provisions that this draft of the Constitution contains is this provision that will prevent the repetition of the history of misery, of trials and tribulations of the poor tenants throughout the length and breadth of the Philippine Islands."19

This is not to say that such an appeal to history as disclosed by what could be accepted as the pronouncement that did influence the delegates to vote for such a grant of power could be utilized to restrict the scope thereof, considering the language employed. For what could be expropriated are "lands," not "landed estates." It is well to recall what Justice Laurel would impress on us, "historical discussion while valuable is not necessarily decisive."20It is easy to understand why.

The social and economic conditions are not static. They change with the times. To identify the text of a written constitution with the circumstances that inspired its inclusion may render it incapable of being responsive to future needs. Precisely, it is assumed to be one of the virtues of a written constitution that it suffices to govern the life of the people not only at the time of its framing but far into the indefinite future. It is not to be considered as so lacking in flexibility and suppleness that it may be a bar to measures, novel and unorthodox, as they may appear to some, but nonetheless imperatively called for. Otherwise it might expose itself to the risk of inability to survive in the face of complexities that time may bring in its wake.

It would thus be devoid of the character of permanency, which is the distinguishing mark of a constitution. Such was the conclusion deliberately arrived at after extensive discussion in the Constitutional Convention that the Constitution as adopted in 1935 would be good not only for the Commonwealth but for the Republic, with all the vicissitudes that time and circumstance would bring. Our people in signifying their adherence to the Constitution at the plebiscite thereafter held were of a similar persuasion.

The continuing life of a constitution was stressed by one of the chief architects of the Constitution, Manuel A. Roxas, later to be the first President of the Republic. For him it is "the essence of such an instrument."21It was his view that the constitution to be adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1934 would "have an indefinite life, will be permanent, subject of course, to revisions, amendments and other changes that may be adopted constitutionally."22That would be an assurance that constitutional guarantees "will be maintained, property rights will be safeguarded and individual rights maintained immaculate and sanctified. ..."23Another prominent delegate, Gregorio Perfecto, later a member of this Tribunal, aptly noted that the transitory character is essentially incompatible with the nature of laws, and necessarily so of a constitution, which is the supreme law of a people and therefore must be impressed with such attribute of permanency, much more than ordinary statutes passed under its authority.24

It could thus be said of our Constitution as of the United States Constitution, to borrow from Chief Justice Marshall's pronouncement inM'Culloch v. Maryland25that it is "intended to endure for ages to come and consequently, to be adapted to the various crisis of human affairs." It cannot be looked upon as other than, in the language of another American jurist, Chief Justice Stone, "a continuing instrument of government."26Its framers were not visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but men of affairs, at home in statecraft, laying down the foundations of a government which can make effective and operative all the powers conferred or assumed, with the corresponding restrictions to secure individual rights and, anticipating, subject to the limitations of human foresight, the problems that events to come in the distant days ahead will bring. Thus a constitution, to quote from Justice Cardozo, "state or ought to state not rules for the passing hour, but principles for an expanding future."27

To that primordial intent, all else is subordinated. Our Constitution, any constitution, is not to be construed narrowly or pedantically, for the prescriptions therein contained, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form, but are organic living institutions, the significance of which is vital nor formal. There must be an awareness, as with Justice Brandeis, not only of what has been, but of what may be. The words employed by it are not to be construed to yield fixed and rigid answers but as impressed with the necessary attributes of flexibility and accommodation to enable them to meet adequately whatever problems the future has in store. It is not, in brief, a printed finality but a dynamic process.

3. The conclusion is difficult to resist that the text of the constitutional provision in question, its historical background as noted in pronouncements in the Constitutional Convention and the inexonerable need for the Constitution to have the capacity for growth and ever be adaptable to changing social and economic conditions all argue against its restrictive construction. Such an approach was reflected succinctly in the dissenting opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, concurred in by the present Chief Justice, in the Baylosis case. We find it persuasive.

His dissenting opinion opens thus: "I am constrained to dissent from the opinion of the majority. The reasons set forth by it against the validity of the proposed expropriation strike me as arguments against the expropriation policies adopted by the government rather than reasons against the existence and application of the condemnation power in the present case."28Then he stated: "The propriety of exercising the power of eminent domain under Article XIII, section 4 of our Constitution can not be determined on a purely quantitative or area basis. Not only does the constitutional provision speak of lands instead oflanded estates,but I see no cogent reason why the government, in its quest for social justice and peace, should exclusively devote attention to conflicts of large proportions, involving a considerable number of individuals, and eschew small controversies and wait until they grow into a major problem before taking remedial action."29

As to the role of the courts in the appraisal of the congressional implementation of such a power, he had this to say: "The Constitution considered the small individual land tenure to be so important to the maintenance of peace and order and to the promotion of progress and the general welfare that it not only provided for the expropriation and subdivision of lands but also opened the way for the limitation of private landholdings (Art. XIII, section 3). It is not for this Court to judge the worth of these and other social and economic policies expressed by the Constitution; our duty is to conform to such policies and not to block their realization."30

The above dissent, as well as that penned by the then Chief Justice Paras with whom the then Justice Pablo was in agreement, with Justice Alex Reyes writing a concurring opinion, resulted in that the main opinion of Justice Montemayor, while prevailing, failed to elicit the necessary majority vote of six. If for that reason alone re-examination would not appear to be inappropriate. Moreover, it could not be considered as controlling the present suit, in view of the fact that the exercise of the congressional authority to expropriate land was not direct as in this case but carried out in pursuance of the statutory authority conferred on the President under Commonwealth Act No. 539.

The absence of any controlling force of such prevailing opinion can likewise be predicated on facts which would differentiate the present situation from that found in the Baylosis case. Thus Justice Montemayor noted: "The evidence shows that both Sinclair and Cirilo P. Baylosis at one time were willing to sell to some of the tenants and occupants herein involved under certain conditions and provided that they buy in groups, presumably to avoid subdivisions and the problem of dealing with many individual buyers, but the tenants failed to buy. Naturally, they may not now compel Sinclair and Cirilo P. Baylosis to sell to them through the Government by means of expropriation. Besides, the bulk of the lands that Sinclair and Cirilo P. Baylosis had formerly offered to them for sale which offer they failed to take advantage of, has now been sold to others, the other co-defendants herein, in small lots."31Likewise, it was noted by him: "There is another point that merits consideration. The defendants claim and correctly that many of the tenants and occupants now insisting on expropriation have lands of their own."32

The more fundamental reason though why we find ourselves unable to yield deference to such opinion of Justice Montemayor, well-written and tightly-reasoned as it is, is its undue stress on property rights. It thus appears then that it failed to take into account the greater awareness exhibited by the framers of our Constitution of the social forces at work when they drafted the fundamental law. To be more specific, they were seriously concerned with the grave problems of inequality of wealth, with its highly divisive tendency, resulting in the generous scope accorded the police power and eminent domain prerogatives of the state, even if the exercise thereof would cover terrain previously thought of as beyond state control, to promote social justice and the general welfare.

This is not to say of course that property rights are disregarded. This is merely to emphasize that the philosophy of our Constitution embodying as it does what Justice Laurel referred to as its "nationalistic and socialist traits discoverable upon even a sudden dip into a variety of [its] provisions" although not extending as far as the "destruction or annihilation" of the rights to property,33negates the postulate which at one time reigned supreme in American constitutional law as to their well-nigh inviolable character. This is not so under our Constitution, which rejects the doctrine oflaissez fairewith its abhorrence for the least interference with the autonomy supposed to be enjoyed by the property owner.Laissez faire,as Justice Malcolm pointed out as far back as 1919, did not take too firm a foothold in our jurisprudence.34Our Constitution is much more explicit. There is no room for it for Laissez faire. So Justice Laurel affirmed not only in the above opinion but in another concurring opinion quoted with approval in at least two of our subsequent decisions.35We had occasion to reiterate such a view in the ACCFA case, decided barely two months ago.36

This particular grant of authority to Congress authorizing the expropriation of land is a clear manifestation of such a policy that finds expression in our fundamental law. So is the social justice principle enshrined in the Constitution of which it is an expression, as so clearly pointed out in the respective dissenting opinions of Justice J.B.L. Reyes and Chief Justice Paras in the Baylosis case. Why it should be thus is so plausibly set forth in the ACCFA decision, the opinion being penned by Justice Makalintal. We quote: "The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say absolute. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals," continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice."

It would thus appear that the prevailing opinion in the Baylosis case is far from compelling. To the extent that the conclusion reached by us in this suit proceeds from a different reading of the constitutional provision in question, it must be deemed as being possessed of less than decisive weight.

4. There need be no fear that such constitutional grant of power to expropriate lands is without limit. As in the case of the more general provision on eminent domain, there is the explicit requirement of the payment of just compensation. It is well-settled that just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the property at the time of its taking. Anything beyond that is more, and anything short of that is less, than just compensation. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity. The market value of the land taken is the just compensation to which the owner of condemned property is entitled, the market value being that sum of money which a person desirous, but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received for such property. There must be a consideration then of all the facts which make it commercially valuable. The question is what would be obtained for it on the market from parties who want to buy and would give full value. Testimonies as to real estate transactions in the vicinity are admissible. It must be shown though that the property as to use must be of similar character to the one sought to be condemned. The transaction must likewise be coeval as to time. To the market value must be added the consequential damages, if any, minus the consequential benefits. The assessed value of real property while constitutingprima facieevidence of its value in case of condemnation proceedings is not conclusive.37

Then, too, it is a prerequisite for the valid exercise of such a congressional power that the taking be for thepublic use.To quote from the Guido decision: "It has been truly said that the assertion of the right on the part of the legislature to take the property of one citizen and transfer it to another, even for a full compensation, when the public interest is not promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, and one inconsistent with every just principle and fundamental maxim of a free government."38It is on that account that we granted prohibition to restrain respondent Rural Progress Administration from proceeding with the expropriation of petitioner's land, two adjoining lots, part commercial with a combined area of slightly more than two hectares. As was stressed by Justice Tuason in his opinion: "No fixed line of demarcation between what taking is for public use and what is not can be made; each case has to be judged according to its peculiar circumstances. It suffices to say for the purpose of this decision that the case under consideration is far wanting in those elements which make for public convenience or public use."39Such is not the situation before us now. Nor are we disposed to dispute the legislative appraisal of the matter.

5. The failure to meet the exacting standard of due process would likewise constitute a valid objection to the exercise of this congressional power. That was so intimated in the above leading Guido case. There was an earlier pronouncement to that effect in a decision rendered long before the adoption of the Constitution under the previous organic law then in force, while the Philippines was still an unincorporated territory of the United States.40

It is obvious then that a landowner is covered by the mantle of protection due process affords. It is a mandate of reason. It frowns on arbitrariness, it is the anti-thesis of any governmental act that smacks of whim or caprice. It negates state power to act in an oppressive manner. It is, as had been stressed so often, the embody of the sporting idea of fair play. In that sense, it stands as a guaranty of justice. That is the standard that must be met by any governmental agency in the exercise of whatever competence is entrusted to it.41As was so emphatically stressed by the present Chief Justice, "acts of Congress, as well as those of the Executive, can deny due process only under pain of nullity, . ... ."42

It is easily understandable then why the expropriation of lots less than one hectare inCity of Manila v. Arellano Law College,43Lee Tay v. Choco44andRepublic vs. Samia45and of lots less than two hectares inCommonwealth v. De Borja46andRepublic v. Prieto47was not given the sanction of approval by this Court, the failure to meet the due process requirement being quite evident.

6. It is primarily the equal protection guaranty though that petitioner's case is made to rest. The Constitution requires that no person be denied "the equal protection of the laws."48A juridical being is included within its terms.

The assumption underlying such a guaranty is that a legal norm, whether embodied in a rule, principle, or standard, constitutes a defense against anarchy at one extreme and tyranny at the other. Thereby, people living together in a community with its myriad and complex problems can minimize the friction and reduce the conflicts, to assure, at the very least, a peaceful ordering of existence. The ideal situation is for the law's benefits to be available to all, that none be placed outside the sphere of its coverage. Only thus could chance and favor be excluded and the affairs of men governed by that serene and impartial uniformity, which is of the very essence of the idea of law.

The actual, given things as they are and likely to continue to be, cannot approximate the ideal. Nor is the law susceptible to the reproach that it does not take into account the realities of the situation. The constitutional guaranty then is not to be given a meaning that disregards what is, what does in fact exist.49To assure that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property. Those adversely affected may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can show that the governmental act assailed, far from being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support in reason. .

It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances, which if not identical are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest.

It is precisely because the challenged statute applies only to petitioner that he could assert a denial of equal protection. As set forth in its brief: "Republic Act No. 2616 is directed solely against appellee and for this reason violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Unlike other laws which confer authority to expropriate landed estates in general, it singles out the Tatalon Estate. It cannot be said, therefore, that it deals equally with other lands in Quezon City or elsewhere."50With due recognition then of the Power of Congress to designate the particular property to be taken and how much thereof may be condemned in the exercise of the power of expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence, the party adversely affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. That the equal protection clause will not allow.

The judiciary can look into the facts then, no conclusiveness being attached to a determination of such character when reliance is had either to the due process clause which is a barrier against arbitrariness and oppressiveness and the equal protection guaranty which is an obstacle to invidious discrimination.

We start of course with the presumption of validity, the doubts being resolved in favor of the challenged enactment.51As this is the first statute of its kind assailed, we should not stop our inquiry there. The occasion that called for such legislation, if known, goes far in meeting any serious constitutional objection raised. We turn to the Explanatory Note of the bill,52which was enacted into the challenged statute. It started with the declaration that it provides for the "expropriation of the Tatalon Estate, Quezon City, and for the sale at cost of the lots therein to their present bona fide occupants, authorizing therefor the appropriation of ten million pesos." Then it continued: "The Tatalon Estate has an area of more than ninety six hectares and the lots therein are at present occupied by no less than one thousand five hundred heads of families, most of whom are veterans of World War II. It is the earnest desire of this group of patriotic and loyal citizens to purchase the lots at a minimum cost." Why there was such a need for expropriation was next taken up: "The population of Quezon City has considerably increased. This increase in population is posing a serious housing problem to city residents. This bill will not only solve the problem but will also implement the land-for-the-landless program of the present Administration."

What other facts are there which would remove the alleged infirmity of the statute on equal protection grounds? The brief for respondents invited our attention to the social problem which this legislation was intended to remedy. Thus: "There is a vital point which should have great weight in the decision of this case. The petitioner led the occupants of Tatalon Estate to believe that they were dealing with the representatives of the real owners, the Veterans Subdivision, in the purchase of their lots. The occupants believed in good faith that they were dealing with the representatives of the owners of the lots. This belief was bolstered by the fact that the petitioners herein even entered into a compromise agreement on March 16, 1953 with the Deudors, agreeing to give the latter millions of pesos in settlement of their claim over the Tatalon Estate. The occupants, therefore, purchased their respective portions from the Veterans Subdivision in good faith. The petitioner allowed the Veterans Subdivision to construct roads in the Tatalon Estate; it allowed said firm to establish an office in the Tatalon Estate and to advertise the sale of the lots inside the Tatalon Estate. Petitioner admits having full knowledge of the activities of the Veterans Subdivision and yet did not lift a finger to stop said acts. The occupants paid good money for their lots and spent fortunes to build their homes. It was after the place has been improved with the building of the roads and the erection of substantial residential homes that petitioner stepped into the picture, claiming for the first time that it is the owner of the Tatalon Estate. Some of the occupants had erected their houses as early as 1947 and 1948. ..."53

The cutting edge of the above assertions could have been blunted by the brief for petitioner. This is all it did say on the matter though: "Appellants alleged that appellee 'led the occupants of Tatalon Estate to believe that they were dealing with the representatives of the real owners, the Veterans Subdivision, in the purchase of their lots' ... . There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish this ludicrous allegation."54Only the alleged duplicity of petitioner was denied, leaving unanswered the rather persuasive recital of conditions that could rightly motivate Congress to act as it did. Clearly, there is no sufficient refutation of the seriousness of the problem thus underscored by respondents, the solution of which is the aim of the statute now under attack.

This is not to deny that whenever Congress points to a particular piece of property to be expropriated, it is faced with a more serious scrutiny as to its power to act in the premises. It would require though a clear and palpable showing of its having singled out a party to bear the brunt of governmental authority that may be legitimately exerted, induced, it would appear by a feeling of disapproval or ill-will to make out a case of this guaranty having been disregarded. If such were the case, then in the language of Justice Laurel, it "will be the time to make the [judicial] hammer fall and heavily. But not until then."55The most careful study of the matter before us however yields the conclusion that petitioner was unable to sustain the burden of demonstrating a denial of equal protection.

Moreover, there is nothing to prevent Congress in view of the public funds at its disposal to follow a system of priorities. It could thus determine what lands would first be the subject of expropriation. This it did under the challenged legislative act. As already noted, Congress was moved to act in view of what it considered a serious social and economic problem. The solution which for it was the most acceptable was the authorization of the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate. So it provided under the statute in question. It was confronted with a situation that called for correction, and the legislation that was the result of its deliberation sought to apply the necessary palliative. That it stopped short of possibly attaining the cure of other analogous ills certainly does not stigmatize its effort as a denial of equal protection. We have given our sanction to the principle underlying the exercise of police power and taxation, but certainly not excluding eminent domain, that "the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to the policy of "all or none".56Thus, to reiterate, the invocation by petitioner of equal protection clause is not attended with success.

7. The other points raised may be briefly disposed of. Much is made of what the lower court considered to be the inaccuracy apparent on the face of the challenged statute as to the ownership of the Tatalon Estate. It could very well be that Congress ought to have taken greater pains to avoid such imprecision. At any rate, the lower court, unduly alarmed, would consider it a deprivation of property without due process of law.57Such a fear is unwarranted. In the course of the expropriation proceedings, there undoubtedly would be a judicial determination as to the party entitled to the just compensation. As of now then, such a question would appear at the very least to be premature. Reference is likewise made as to the effect of the authorized expropriation on those purchasers of lots located in the Tatalon Estate. Again, on the occasion of the expropriation, whatever contractual rights might he possessed by vendors and vendees could be asserted and accorded the appropriate constitutional protection.

8. What appears undeniable is that in the light of the broad grant of congressional power so apparent from the text of the constitutional provision, the historical background as made clear during the deliberation for the Constitutional Convention, and the cardinal postulate underlying constitutional construction that its provisions are not to be interpreted to preclude their being responsive to future needs, the fundamental law being intended to govern the life of a nation as it unfolds through the ages, the challenged statute can survive the test of validity. If it were otherwise, then the judiciary may lend itself susceptible to the charge that in its appraisal of governmental measures with social and economic implications, its decisions are characterized by the narrow, unyielding insistence on the primacy of property rights, contrary to what the Constitution ordains. In no other sphere of judicial activity are judges called upon to transcend personal predilections and private notions of policy, lest legislation intended to bring to fruition the hope of a better life for the great masses of our people, as embodied in the social justice principle of which this constitutional provision under scrutiny is a manifestation, be unjustifiably stricken down. The appealed decision cannot stand.

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 petitioner.

Zaldivar, Sanchez and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.

Footnotes