Remman Enterprises Vs PRC

Remman Enterprises vs PRC
1. WON sections 28(a), 29 and 32 of the Republic Act No. 9646. RA 9646 was signed into law by
President GMA. It aims to professionalize the real estate service sector under a regulatory
scheme of licencing, registration and supervision of real estate service practitioners in the
country.
2. Petitioners – Remman Enterprises, Inc. and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’Association
(CREBA). They instituted a petition to declare the above as void and unconstitutional in the RTC.
3. Relevant issues interposed by the petitioners:
a. The subject sections violate the due process clause as they impinge upon the real estate
developers’ most basic ownership rights, the right to use and dispose of property, which
is enshrined in Article 428 of the Civil Code; and
b. Section 28(a) violates the equal protection clause as no substantial distinctions exist
between real estate developers and the exempted group mentioned since both are
property owners dealing with their own property.
4. RTC denied the petition.
5. RTC:
a. The questioned provisions do not preclude property owners from using, enjoying, or
disposing of their own property because they can still develop and sell their properties
except that they have to secure the services of a licensed real estate broker who shall
oversee the actions of the unlicensed real estate practitioners under their employ.
b. The subject provisions merely prescribe the requirements for the regulation of the
practice of real estate services, these are consistent with a valid exercise of the State’s
police power.
c. Section 28(1) does not violate equal protection clause. There is reasonable classification
aimed at protecting the buying public from the rampant misrepresentations often
committed by unlicensed real estate practitioners compared to isolated sale
transactions made by private individuals selling their own property.
6. Supreme Court:
a. If petitioners as property owners feel burdened by the new requirement of engaging the
services of only licensed real estate professionlas in the sale and marketing of their
properties, such is an unavoidable consequence of a reasonable regulatory measure.
b. The regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a
legitimate exercise of the police power of the State particularly when their conduct
affectes the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the
State, public health and welfare and public morals.
c. Where the liberty curtailed affects at most property rights, the permissible scope of
regulatory measures is certainly much wider.
d. Real property transactions are susceptible to manipulation and corruption, especially if
they are in the hands of unqualified persons working under an ineffective regulatory
system.
e. Police power has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and
flexible response to conditions and circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits.
f. Police power is the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending
as it does to all the great public needs.
g. It is the power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable laws, statues and ordinances, either with penalties or
without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to before the good and
welfare of the state.
h. Property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights,
though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
i. Police power would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they
will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned provision is invalidated.
j. In the absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the
provision in question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the presumption
of validity which every law has in its favour.
k. Section 28 exempts from its coverage natural and juridical persons dealing with their
own property, and other persons such as receivers, trustees or assignees in insolvency
or bankruptcy proceedings, except real estate developers. – petitioners argue that this
is in violation of the equal protection clause as this unjustifiably treats real estate
developers differently from those exempted persons.
l. They insist that no substantial difference exists as real estate developers are in fact
more capable of entering into real estate transactions and do not need the services of
licensed real estate brokers.
m. If classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class,
and applies equally to present and future conditions, the classification does not violate
the equal protection guarantee.
n. Unlike individuals or entities having isolated transaction over their own property, real
estate developers sell lots, houses, and condominium units in the ordinary course of
business, a business which is highly regulated by the State to ensure the health and
safety of home and lot buyers.
o. As such, there is substantial difference.
p. One who attacks a statue, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Remman Enterprises Vs PRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remman Enterprises Vs PRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remman Enterprises Vs PRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remman Enterprises vs PRC

You might also like