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.

FACTS

Republic Act No. 2616, which took effect on August 3, 1959 without executive approval, authorized the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City, jointly owned by J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc., Gregorio Araneta and Company, Inc., and Florencio Deudor, et al. The specific lands involved, a portion of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision with an area of about 109 hectares, are registered in the name of petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 42774 and 49235. On November 15, 1960, the Land Tenure Administration was directed by the Executive Secretary to institute expropriation proceedings. On November 17, 1960, petitioner filed a special action for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, seeking to declare Republic Act No. 2616 unconstitutional and to restrain respondents from instituting the expropriation proceeding. The lower court granted a preliminary injunction and, after trial, declared the statute unconstitutional and granted the writ of prohibition on January 10, 1963. Respondents appealed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 2616, which authorizes the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate for subdivision into small lots and resale at cost to individuals, is constitutional under the constitutional provision granting Congress the power to authorize such expropriation upon payment of just compensation.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The Court held that Republic Act No. 2616 is constitutional. The congressional power conferred by the Constitution to authorize the expropriation of lands for subdivision into small lots and resale at cost to individuals is broad and left to legislative discretion. The Court found no sufficient showing of unconstitutionality. The language of the constitutional provision is clear, and historical context from the Constitutional Convention debates supports the intent to address social conflicts arising from large estates. The Court also rejected respondents’ procedural objections that the suit was against the State without its consent and that the Executive Secretary was not impleaded, holding that the action was proper to test the statute’s validity and that the government officials tasked with enforcing the act were the proper parties.