G.R. No. 197676 ; February 4, 2014
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. and CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS’ ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, vs. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Remman Enterprises, Inc. and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Association challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions of Republic Act No. 9646 , the Real Estate Service Act of 2009. The law professionalized the real estate service sector, transferring regulatory supervision from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Professional Regulation Commission. Petitioners specifically assailed Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of the Act.
Petitioners argued the law was constitutionally infirm on several grounds. They claimed it violated the one-title-one-subject rule, conflicted with prior executive orders granting the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board authority over the real estate trade, and violated due process by impinging on property owners’ right to use and dispose of their property. They specifically contended that Section 28(a) violated equal protection by exempting all persons dealing with their own property from the law’s coverage, except real estate developers, without a substantial distinction.

ISSUE

Whether Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of R.A. No. 9646 are unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions. On the procedural challenge, the Court ruled the law’s title, “The Real Estate Service Act,” sufficiently embraces its subject of regulating real estate service practitioners. On the alleged conflict with HLURB authority, the Court clarified that R.A. No. 9646 regulates the profession of real estate service practitioners, while HLURB regulates the business of real estate development and subdivision projects; these are distinct regulatory spheres that can coexist.
Regarding due process and equal protection, the Court found a valid legislative purpose in professionalizing the sector to protect the public from incompetent practitioners. The distinction in Section 28(a) between real estate developers and other property owners is based on substantial differences. Real estate developers are engaged in a business of selling properties to the public on a large, commercial scale, creating a greater public need for regulation and consumer protection. An ordinary individual selling his own property is not similarly situated. The restrictions imposed are reasonable means to achieve the law’s objective and do not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property rights. The law passes the rational basis test for a valid exercise of police power.