G.R. No. L-14969. April 29, 1961.
LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, petitioner-appellant, vs. CEFERINO ASCUE, and FELISA RAMOS DE ASCUE, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The respondents are the owners of Hacienda Baha, an 808-hectare property in Calatagan, Batangas. The petitioner, Land Tenure Administration, sought to acquire the hacienda for resale to its tenants under Republic Act No. 1400 . Section 6(2) of the Act authorizes expropriation of private agricultural lands, exempting an area of 300 contiguous hectares if owned by a natural person. The negotiations between the parties failed primarily because they could not agree on who had the right to select which specific 300-hectare portion would be retained by the landowners.
The petitioner subsequently filed a special civil action for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, seeking a judicial interpretation of Section 6(2). The trial court rendered a summary judgment, holding that the law should be construed to authorize the landowner to choose the 300 hectares to retain. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is who, under Section 6(2) of Republic Act No. 1400 , has the right to select the 300-hectare contiguous area exempt from expropriation when the government and the landowner cannot agree.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. It held that neither party has the unilateral right to make the selection. The law is silent on the specific procedure for selection, but this silence does not imply a grant of choice to the landowner. The Court reasoned that vesting the landowner with the exclusive right to choose would undermine the declared policy of the State to establish family-size farms and settle agrarian conflicts, as the owner could simply retain the most productive areas cultivated by the petitioning tenants, thereby defeating the law’s purpose.
The legal logic is grounded in statutory construction and legislative intent. The Court examined the legislative history of R.A. No. 1400 , noting that a proposed amendment explicitly granting the selection right to the landowner was ultimately excluded from the final version of the law. This indicates a deliberate congressional choice not to confer such a right. Furthermore, the Court established that expropriation proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court. Therefore, the proper procedure is for the Land Tenure Administration to initially determine the property it seeks to expropriate in its complaint. The landowner may then raise objections and assert the 300-hectare exemption as a defense. Any disagreement between the parties on the selection of the exempt area constitutes a justiciable issue to be settled by the courts in the expropriation proceedings themselves, in accordance with equity, fair play, and the overarching agrarian reform objectives of the statute. The decision was modified accordingly.