G.R. No. L-35739 - JULY 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-35739July 2, 1979 Lilia Y. Gonzales vs. Conrado F. Estrella G.R. No. L-48687July 2, 1979 Genconsu Free Workers Union vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-34843July 5, 1979 Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Guillermo P. Villasor G.R. No. L-22947July 12, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Borja G.R. No. L-24866July 13, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Gilberto O. Llamoso, et al. G.R. No. L-28548July 13, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Toling, et al. G.R. No. L-50752-50830July 13, 1979 Eva V. Cantelang, et al. vs. Rustico C. Medina A.M. No. 1431-MJJuly 16, 1979 Ana F. Retuya vs. Paulo A. Equipilag G.R. No. L-30101July 16, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Juancho R. Corachea G.R. No. L-32320July 16, 1979 National Rice & Corn Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46773July 16, 1979 Robert Tabil vs. Ceferino T. Ong G.R. No. L-48931July 16, 1979 Ilaw At Buklod Ng Manggagawa vs. Director of Labor Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-23431July 20, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Repato, et al. G.R. No. L-29994July 20, 1970 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Balictar, et al. G.R. No. L-31911July 20, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Benito De La Cruz G.R. No. L-39532July 20, 1979 Flora Valero Vda. De Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. 913July 25, 1979 Jose B. Peña vs. Nestor M. Andrada G.R. No. L-21159July 25, 1979 Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-36385July 25, 1979 Arcadio R. Tolentino vs. Amado Inciong G.R. No. L-37838July 25, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Vegayan, et al. G.R. No. L-38705July 25, 1979 Carlito Gaña vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48219July 25, 1979 Manuel J.C. Reyes vs. Leonor Ines-Luciano A.M. No. 440July 30, 1979 Eliseo D. Verzosa, et al. vs. Ma. Nena Magdaluyo A.M. No. 532-MJJuly 30, 1979 Paula S. Quizon, et al. vs. Judge Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. G.R. No. L-44625July 30, 1979 Bruno B. Pacoli vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24740July 30, 1979 Republic of the Philippines vs. Celestino C. Juan Separate OpinionsChief Justice Fernando, Justice Barredo, Justice Aquino, Justice Teehankee, Justice Antonio G.R. No. L-28104July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Mil G.R. No. L-30060July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Demetrio Robles, et al. G.R. No. L-30354July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Estante, Jr. G.R. No. L-30793-94July 30, 1979 Misael P. Vera, et al. vs. Hon. Serafin R. Cuevas, et al. G.R. No. L-32506July 30, 1979 Dominador Bermisa vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-32974July 30, 1979 Bartolome Ortiz vs. Union C. Kayanan G.R. No. L-34355July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Adelando Ramos G.R. No. L-34628July 30, 1979 Philippine Virginia Tobacco Adm. vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales G.R. No. L-34785July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Renato Barrios, et al. G.R. No. L-35279July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Porfirio Dumdum, Jr. G.R. No. L-39144July 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Arevalo, et al. G.R. No. L-41432July 30, 1979 Ivor Robert Dayton Gibson vs. Hon. Pedro A. Revilla G.R. No. L-42800July 30, 1979 Lim Se, et al. vs. Manuel A. Argel, et al. G.R. No. L-43665July 30, 1979 Amparo S. Jocoba vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-43955-56July 30, 1979 Renato Lazatin vs. Hon. Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-44702July 30, 1979 Facundo A. Dalisay vs. the Hon. Francisco Z . Consolacion G.R. No. L-46096July 30, 1979 Eufemio T. Correa vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, et al. G.R. No. L-46200July 30, 1979 Felixberto Villones vs. Employees Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-46430-31July 30, 1979 Francisca al sua-Betts, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-47121July 30, 1979 Rodolfo Bermudez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-47385July 30, 1979 St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc., et al. vs. Regino Cleofas, et al. G.R. No. L-48235-36July 30, 1979 Faustino M. Meracap vs. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., et al. G.R. No. L-44550-51 & L-44552-53 Nora Aguilar Matura vs. Hon. al fredo C. Laya July 30, 1979 Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Lilia Y. Gonzales vs. Conrado F. Estrella Genconsu Free Workers Union vs. Amado G. Inciong Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Guillermo P. Villasor People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Borja People of the Philippines vs. Gilberto O. Llamoso, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Toling, et al. Eva V. Cantelang, et al. vs. Rustico C. Medina Ana F. Retuya vs. Paulo A. Equipilag People of the Philippines vs. Juancho R. Corachea National Rice & Corn Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Robert Tabil vs. Ceferino T. Ong Ilaw At Buklod Ng Manggagawa vs. Director of Labor Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Repato, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Balictar, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benito De La Cruz Flora Valero Vda. De Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals Jose B. Peña vs. Nestor M. Andrada Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Arcadio R. Tolentino vs. Amado Inciong People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Vegayan, et al. Carlito Gaña vs. Court of Appeals Manuel J.C. Reyes vs. Leonor Ines-Luciano Eliseo D. Verzosa, et al. vs. Ma. Nena Magdaluyo Paula S. Quizon, et al. vs. Judge Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. Bruno B. Pacoli vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines vs. Celestino C. Juan Separate OpinionsChief Justice Fernando, Justice Barredo, Justice Aquino, Justice Teehankee, Justice Antonio People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Mil People of the Philippines vs. Demetrio Robles, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cirilo Estante, Jr. Misael P. Vera, et al. vs. Hon. Serafin R. Cuevas, et al. Dominador Bermisa vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Bartolome Ortiz vs. Union C. Kayanan People of the Philippines vs. Adelando Ramos Philippine Virginia Tobacco Adm. vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales People of the Philippines vs. Renato Barrios, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Porfirio Dumdum, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Arevalo, et al. Ivor Robert Dayton Gibson vs. Hon. Pedro A. Revilla Lim Se, et al. vs. Manuel A. Argel, et al. Amparo S. Jocoba vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Renato Lazatin vs. Hon. Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr., et al. Facundo A. Dalisay vs. the Hon. Francisco Z . Consolacion Eufemio T. Correa vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, et al. Felixberto Villones vs. Employees Compensation Commission, et al. Francisca al sua-Betts, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rodolfo Bermudez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc., et al. vs. Regino Cleofas, et al. Faustino M. Meracap vs. International Ceramics Mfg. Co., et al. Nora Aguilar Matura vs. Hon. al fredo C. Laya Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name "Sycip. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-35739 July 2, 1979
LILIA Y. GONZALES,petitioner,
vs.
CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,respondent.
Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza and Assistant Solicitor General Reynato S. Puno for respondent.
FERNANDO,C.J.:1äwphï1.ñët
The constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 27 was assumed in Chavez v. Zobel,1decided on the first anniversary of the 1973 Constitution. It is entitled "Decreeing 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".2Its constitutionality is the specific question raised in this suit for prohibition, In the language of the petition itself: "The main issue in this case is whether martial law was validly declared throughout the country by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, thru Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972. For, if it is valid, then, General Order No. 1 and Presidential Decree No. 27 resting on it, are likewise valid. Otherwise, they are not.3The problem as thus posed admits of but one answer. This Court unequivocally upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 1081 inAquino Jr. v. Ponce Enrile,4decided as far back as September 17, 1974. The outcome then cannot be in doubt. This petition must be dismissed. Presidential Decree No. 27 has survived the test of constitutionality.
The facts are undisputed. Petitioner Lilia Y. Gonzales is the owner of Lot 2159 of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, with an area of 63.5959 hectares, her paraphernal property. It is an irrigated riceland held by thirty (30) tenants under leasehold tenancy.5Clearly then, she was adversely affected by Presidential Decree No. 27, which ordered the emancipation of all tenant farmers as of said date and provided that the tenants should become the owners of a family-size farm of five (5) hectares, if the land is not irrigated, and three (3) hectares, if irrigated, while the landowner could retain seven (7) hectares6if such owner should cultivate or would cultivate it.
As set forth at the outset, there was in the express terms of the specific issue raised no showing of invalidity.ℒαwρhi৷
1. The then Chief Justice Makalintal in expressing his individual opinion as well as summarizing the voting of this Court on the major issues involved in the aforesaidAquino Jr. v. Ponce Enriledecision, after first stating that on "the final result the vote is practically unanimous," set forth the following: "ln the first place I am convinced (as are the other Justices), without need of receiving evidence as in an ordinary adversary court proceeding, that a state of rebellion existed in the country when Proclamation No. 1081 was issued. It was a matter of contemporary history within the cognizance not only of the courts but of all observant people residing here at the time. Many of the facts and events recited in detail in the different 'Whereases' of the proclamation are of common knowledge. The state of rebellion continues up to the present. The argument that while armed hostilities go on in several provinces in Mindanao there are none in other regions except in isolated pockets in Luzon, and that therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all over the country, ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of rebellion in a modern setting. It does not consist simply of armed clashes between organized and Identifiable groups on fields of their own choosing. It includes subversion of the most subtle kind, necessarily clandestine and operating precisely where there is no actual fighting. Underground propaganda, through printed news sheets or rumors disseminated in whispers; recruitment of armed and Ideological adherents, raising of funds, procurement of arms and material, fifth-column activities including sabotage and intelligence — all these are part of the rebellion which by their nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. They cannot be counteracted effectively unless recognized and dealt with in that context.7He went further: "Secondly, my view, which coincides with that of other members of the Court as stated in their opinions, is that the question of validity of Proclamation No. 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII, Sec. 3 (2)] that 'all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shag be part of the law of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding and effective even after ... the ratification of this Constitution ... '"8
2. The imperative need for such a decree was stressed inChavez v. Zobel.An excerpt from the opinion in that case is relevant: "On this vital policy question, one of the utmost concern, the need for what for some is a radical solution in its pristine sense, one that goes at the root, was apparent, Presidential Decree No. 27 was thus conceived. It was issued in October of 1972. The very next month, the 1971 Constitutional Convention voiced its overwhelming approval. There is no doubt then, as set forth expressly therein, that the goal is emancipation. What is more, the decree is now part and parcel of the law of the land according to the present Constitution. Ejectment therefore of petitioners is simply out of the question. That would be to set at naught an express mandate of the Constitution. Once it has spoken, our duty is clear; obedience is unavoidable. This is so not only because of the cardinal postulate of constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental law. It is also because any other approach would run the risk of setting at naught this basic aspiration to do away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war with the promise and the hope associated with an open society. To deprive petitioners of the small landholdings in the face of a presidential decree considered ratified by the new Constitution and precisely in accordance with its avowed objective could indeed be contributory to perpetuating the misery that tenancy had spawned in the past as well as the grave social problems thereby created. There can be no justification for any other decision then whether predicated on a juridical norm or on the traditional role assigned to the judiciary of implementing and not thwarting fundamental policy goals.9
WHEREFORE,this petition for prohibition is dismissed.
Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët
Teehankee and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.
Footnotes