Republic of the Philippines SEC. 29.

Prohibition Against the Unauthorized Practice of Real

SUPREME COURT Estate Service. – No person shall practice or offer to practice
Manila real estate service in the Philippines or offer himself/herself as
real estate service practitioner, or use the title, word, letter,
EN BANC figure or any sign tending to convey the impression that one is a
real estate service practitioner, or advertise or indicate in any
manner whatsoever that one is qualified to practice the
G.R. No. 197676               February 4, 2014 profession, or be appointed as real property appraiser or
assessor in any national government entity or local government
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. and CHAMBER OF REAL unit, unless he/she has satisfactorily passed the licensure
ESTATE AND BUILDERS'ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, examination given by the Board, except as otherwise provided in
vs. this Act, a holder of a valid certificate of registration, and
PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE professional identification card or a valid special/temporary
SERVICE and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION permit duly issued to him/her by the Board and the Commission,
COMMISSION, Respondents. and in the case of real estate brokers and private appraisers,
they have paid the required bond as hereto provided.
DECISION
xxxx
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
SEC. 32. Corporate Practice of the Real Estate Service. – (a) No
Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 is the partnership or corporation shall engage in the business of real
Decision1 dated July 12, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) estate service unless it is duly registered with the Securities and
of Manila, Branch 42 denying the petition to declare as Exchange Commission (SEC), and the persons authorized to act
unconstitutional Sections 28(a), 29 and 32 of Republic Act (R.A.) for the partnership or corporation are all duly registered and
No. 9646. licensed real estate brokers, appraisers or consultants, as the
case may be. The partnership or corporation shall regularly
submit a list of its real estate service practitioners to the
R.A. No. 9646, otherwise known as the "Real Estate Service Act Commission and to the SEC as part of its annual reportorial
of the Philippines" was signed into law on June 29, 2009 by requirements. There shall at least be one (1) licensed real estate
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It aims to professionalize broker for every twenty (20) accredited salespersons.
the real estate service sector under a regulatory scheme of
licensing, registration and supervision of real estate service
practitioners (real estate brokers, appraisers, assessors, (b) Divisions or departments of partnerships and corporations
consultants and salespersons) in the country. Prior to its engaged in marketing or selling any real estate development
enactment, real estate service practitioners were under the project in the regular course of business must be headed by full-
supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) time registered and licensed real estate brokers.
through the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer
Protection (BTRCP), in the exercise of its consumer regulation (c) Branch offices of real estate brokers, appraisers or
functions. Such authority is now transferred to the Professional consultants must be manned by a duly licensed real estate
Regulation Commission (PRC) through the Professional broker, appraiser or consultant as the case may be.
Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES) created
under the new law. In case of resignation or termination from employment of a real
estate service practitioner, the same shall be reported by the
The implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9646 employer to the Board within a period not to exceed fifteen (15)
were promulgated on July 21, 2010 by the PRC and PRBRES days from the date of effectivity of the resignation or termination.
under Resolution No. 02, Series of 2010.
Subject to the provisions of the Labor Code, a corporation or
On December 7, 2010, herein petitioners Remman Enterprises, partnership may hire the services of registered and licensed real
Inc. (REI) and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ estate brokers, appraisers or consultants on commission basis
Association (CREBA) instituted Civil Case No. 10-124776 in the to perform real estate services and the latter shall be deemed
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42. Petitioners sought to independent contractors and not employees of such
declare as void and unconstitutional the following provisions of corporations. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
R.A. No. 9646:
According to petitioners, the new law is constitutionally infirm
SEC. 28. Exemptions from the Acts Constituting the Practice of because (1) it violates Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987
Real Estate Service. – The provisions of this Act and its rules Philippine Constitution which mandates that "[e]very bill passed
and regulations shall not apply to the following: by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof"; (2) it is in direct conflict with
(a) Any person, natural or juridical, who shall directly perform by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 648 which transferred the exclusive
himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with jurisdiction of the National Housing Authority (NHA) to regulate
reference to his/her or its own property, except real estate the real estate trade and business to the Human Settlements
developers; Commission, now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), which authority includes the issuance of license to sell
of subdivision owners and developers pursuant to Presidential
xxxx Decree (P.D.) No. 957; (3) it violates the due process clause as
it impinges on the real estate developers’ most basic ownership
rights, the right to use and dispose property, which is enshrined
in Article 428 of the Civil Code; and (4) Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 3. Whether [R.A. No. 9646] is in conflict with PD 957, as
9646 violates the equal protection clause as no substantial amended by EO 648, with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction of
distinctions exist between real estate developers and the the HLURB to regulate real estate developers;
exempted group mentioned since both are property owners
dealing with their own property. 4. Whether Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of [R.A. No. 9646], insofar
as they affect the rights of real estate developers, are
Additionally, petitioners contended that the lofty goal of nurturing unconstitutional for violating substantive due process; and
and developing a "corps of technically competent, reasonable
and respected professional real estate service practitioners" is 5. Whether Section 28(a), which treats real estate developers
not served by curtailing the right of real estate developers to differently from other natural or juridical persons who directly
conduct their business of selling properties. On the contrary, perform acts of real estate service with reference to their own
these restrictions would have disastrous effects on the real property, is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
estate industry as the additional cost of commissions would clause.3
affect the pricing and affordability of real estate packages. When
that happens, petitioners claimed that the millions of jobs and
billions in revenues that the real estate industry generates for the The Court’s Ruling
government will be a thing of the past.
The petition has no merit.
After a summary hearing, the trial court denied the prayer for
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Justiciable Controversy

On July 12, 2011, the trial court rendered its Decision 2 denying The Constitution4 requires as a condition precedent for the
the petition. The trial court held that the assailed provisions are exercise of judicial power the existence of an actual controversy
relevant to the title of the law as they are intended to regulate between litigants. An actual case or controversy involves a
the practice of real estate service in the country by ensuring that conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
those who engage in it shall either be a licensed real estate susceptible to judicial resolution.5 The controversy must be
broker, or under the latter’s supervision. It likewise found no real justiciable – definite and concrete – touching on the legal
discord between E.O. No. 648 and R.A. No. 9646 as the latter relations of parties having adverse legal interests, which may be
does not render nugatory the license to sell granted by the resolved by a court of law through the application of a law.6 In
HLURB to real estate developers, which license would still other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic
subsist. The only difference is that by virtue of the new law, real assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof
estate developers will now be compelled to hire the services of on the other; that is, it must concern a real and not a merely
one licensed real estate broker for every twenty salespersons to theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual and
guide and supervise the coterie of salespersons under the substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a
employ of the real estate developers. decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion
advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of
On the issue of due process, the trial court said that the facts.7 An actual case is ripe for adjudication when the act being
questioned provisions do not preclude property owners from challenged has a direct adverse effect on the individual
using, enjoying, or disposing of their own property because they challenging it.8
can still develop and sell their properties except that they have to
secure the services of a licensed real estate broker who shall There is no question here that petitioners who are real estate
oversee the actions of the unlicensed real estate practitioners developers are entities directly affected by the prohibition on
under their employ. Since the subject provisions merely performing acts constituting practice of real estate service
prescribe the requirements for the regulation of the practice of without first complying with the registration and licensing
real estate services, these are consistent with a valid exercise of requirements for brokers and agents under R.A. No. 9646. The
the State’s police power. The trial court further ruled that Section possibility of criminal sanctions for disobeying the mandate of
28(a) does not violate the equal protection clause because the the new law is likewise real. Asserting that the prohibition
exemption of real estate developers was anchored on violates their rights as property owners to dispose of their
reasonable classification aimed at protecting the buying public properties, petitioners challenged on constitutional grounds the
from the rampant misrepresentations often committed by implementation of R.A. No. 9646 which the respondents
unlicensed real estate practitioners, and to prevent unscrupulous defended as a valid legislation pursuant to the State’s police
and unethical real estate practices from flourishing considering power. The Court thus finds a justiciable controversy that calls
the large number of consumers in the regular course of business for immediate resolution.
compared to isolated sale transactions made by private
individuals selling their own property. No Violation of One-Title One-Subject Rule

Hence, this appeal on the following questions of law: Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution states:

1. Whether there is a justiciable controversy for this Honorable SEC. 26 (1). Every bill passed by the
Court to adjudicate; Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
2. Whether [R.A. No. 9646] is unconstitutional for violating the
"one title-one subject" rule under Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the In Fariñas v. The Executive Secretary,9 the Court explained the
Philippine Constitution; provision as follows:
The proscription is aimed against the evils of the so-called We hold that R.A. No. 9646 does not violate the one-title, one-
omnibus bills and log-rolling legislation as well as surreptitious subject rule.
and/or unconsidered encroaches. The provision merely calls for
all parts of an act relating to its subject finding expression in its The primary objective of R.A. No. 9646 is expressed as follows:
title.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the vital
To determine whether there has been compliance with the role of real estate service practitioners in the social, political,
constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be economic development and progress of the country by
expressed in its title, the Court laid down the rule that – promoting the real estate market, stimulating economic activity
and enhancing government income from real property-based
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles transactions. Hence, it shall develop and nurture through proper
of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or and effective regulation and supervision a corps of technically
impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the competent, responsible and respected professional real estate
subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a service practitioners whose standards of practice and service
reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the shall be globally competitive and will promote the growth of the
title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general real estate industry.
object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each
and every end and means necessary or convenient for the We find that the inclusion of real estate developers is germane
accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set forth. to the law’s primary goal of developing "a corps of technically
The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act. 10 (Emphasis competent, responsible and respected professional real estate
supplied.) service practitioners whose standards of practice and service
shall be globally competitive and will promote the growth of the
The Court has previously ruled that the one-subject requirement real estate industry." Since the marketing aspect of real estate
under the Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute development projects entails the performance of those acts and
are related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in transactions defined as real estate service practices under
the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9646, it is logically covered by the
the general subject and title.11 An act having a single general regulatory scheme to professionalize the entire real estate
subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of service sector.
provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they
are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and No Conflict Between R.A. No. 9646
may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing and P.D. No. 957, as amended by E.O. No. 648
for the method and means of carrying out the general object.12
Petitioners argue that the assailed provisions still cannot be
It is also well-settled that the "one title-one subject" rule does not sustained because they conflict with P.D. No. 957 which decreed
require the Congress to employ in the title of the enactment that the NHA shall have "exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
language of such precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue real estate trade and business." Such jurisdiction includes the
all the contents and the minute details therein. The rule is authority to issue a license to sell to real estate developers and
sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as to register real estate dealers, brokers or salesmen upon their
to include the general object which the statute seeks to fulfillment of certain requirements under the law. By imposing
effect.13 Indeed, this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather limitations on real estate developers’ property rights, petitioners
than technical construction of the rule "so as not to cripple or contend that R.A. No. 9646 undermines the licenses to sell
impede legislation."14 issued by the NHA (now the HLURB) to real estate developers
allowing them to sell subdivision lots or condominium units
R.A. No. 9646 is entitled "An Act Regulating the Practice of Real directly to the public. Because the HLURB has been divested of
Estate Service in the Philippines, Creating for the Purpose a its exclusive jurisdiction over real estate developers, the result is
Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, an implied repeal of P.D. No. 957 as amended by E.O. No. 648,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes." Aside which is not favored in law.
from provisions establishing a regulatory system for the
professionalization of the real estate service sector, the new law It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals by
extended its coverage to real estate developers with respect to implication are not favored. In order to effect a repeal by
their own properties. Henceforth, real estate developers are implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably
prohibited from performing acts or transactions constituting real inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot
estate service practice without first complying with registration be made to reconcile and stand together. The clearest case
and licensing requirements for their business, brokers or agents, possible must be made before the inference of implied repeal
appraisers, consultants and salespersons. may be drawn, for inconsistency is never presumed. There must
be a showing of repugnance clear and convincing in character.
Petitioners point out that since partnerships or corporations The language used in the later statute must be such as to render
engaged in marketing or selling any real estate development it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An
project in the regular course of business are now required to be inconsistency that falls short of that standard does not
headed by full-time, registered and licensed real estate brokers, suffice.15 Moreover, the failure to add a specific repealing clause
this requirement constitutes limitations on the property rights and indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law,
business prerogatives of real estate developers which are not all unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in
reflected in the title of R.A. No. 9646. Neither are real estate the terms of the new and old laws.16
developers, who are already regulated under a different law,
P.D. No. 957, included in the definition of real estate service There is nothing in R.A. No. 9646 that repeals any provision of
practitioners. P.D. No. 957, as amended by E.O. No. 648. P.D. No. 957,
otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ constituting real estate service, including advertising in any
Protective Decree,"17 vested the NHA with exclusive jurisdiction manner one’s qualifications as a real estate service practitioner,
to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with compliance with licensure examination and other registration
its provisions. It empowered the NHA to register, approve and requirements including the filing of a bond for real estate brokers
monitor real estate development projects and issue licenses to and private appraisers. While Section 11 of P.D. No. 957
sell to real estate owners and developers. It further granted the imposes registration requirements for dealers, brokers and
NHA the authority to register and issue/revoke licenses of salespersons engaged in the selling of subdivision lots and
brokers, dealers and salesmen engaged in the selling of condominium units, Section 29 of R.A. No. 9646 regulates all
subdivision lots and condominium units. real estate service practitioners whether private or government.
While P.D. No. 957 seeks to supervise brokers and dealers who
E.O. No. 648, issued on February 7, 1981, reorganized the are engaged in the sale of subdivision lots and condominium
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) and units, R.A. No. 9646 aims to regulate the real estate service
transferred the regulatory functions of the NHA under P.D. 957 sector in general by professionalizing their ranks and raising the
to the HSRC. Among these regulatory functions were the (1) level of ethical standards for licensed real estate professionals.
regulation of the real estate trade and business; (2) registration
of subdivision lots and condominium projects; (3) issuance of There is no conflict of jurisdiction because the HLURB
license to sell subdivision lots and condominium units in the supervises only those real estate service practitioners engaged
registered units; (4) approval of performance bond and the in the sale of subdivision lots and condominium projects,
suspension of license to sell; (5) registration of dealers, brokers specifically for violations of the provisions of P.D. No. 957, and
and salesman engaged in the business of selling subdivision lots not the entire real estate service sector which is now under the
or condominium units; and (6) revocation of registration of regulatory powers of the PRBRES. HLURB’s supervision of
dealers, brokers and salesmen.18 brokers and dealers to effectively implement the provisions of
P.D. No. 957 does not foreclose regulation of the real estate
E.O. No. 90, issued on December 17, 1986, renamed the HSRC service as a profession. Real estate developers already
as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and regulated by the HLURB are now further required to comply with
was designated as the regulatory body for housing and land the professional licensure requirements under R.A. No. 9646, as
development under the Housing and Urban Development provided in Sections 28, 29 and 32. Plainly, there is no
Coordinating Council (HUDCC). To date, HLURB continues to inconsistency or contradiction in the assailed provisions of R.A.
carry out its mandate to register real estate brokers and No. 9646 and P.D. No. 957, as amended.
salesmen dealing in condominium, memorial parks and
subdivision projects pursuant to Section 11 of P.D. No. 957, The rule is that every statute must be interpreted and brought
which reads: into accord with other laws in a way that will form a uniform
system of jurisprudence. The legislature is presumed to have
SECTION 11. Registration of Dealers, Brokers and Salesmen. – known existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted
No real estate dealer, broker or salesman shall engage in the conflicting laws.19 Congress, therefore, could not be presumed to
business of selling subdivision lots or condominium units unless have intended Sections 28, 29 and 32 of R.A. No. 9646 to run
he has registered himself with the Authority in accordance with counter to P.D. No. 957.
the provisions of this section.
No Violation of Due Process
If the Authority shall find that the applicant is of good repute and
has complied with the applicable rules of the Authority, including Petitioners contend that the assailed provisions of R.A. No. 9646
the payment of the prescribed fee, he shall register such are unduly oppressive and infringe the constitutional rule against
applicant as a dealer, broker or salesman upon filing a bond, or deprivation of property without due process of law. They stress
other security in lieu thereof, in such sum as may be fixed by the that real estate developers are now burdened by law to employ
Authority conditioned upon his faithful compliance with the licensed real estate brokers to sell, market and dispose of their
provisions of this Decree: Provided, that the registration of a properties. Despite having invested a lot of money, time and
salesman shall cease upon the termination of his employment resources in their projects, petitioners aver that real estate
with a dealer or broker. developers will still have less control in managing their business
and will be burdened with additional expenses.
Every registration under this section shall expire on the thirty-first
day of December of each year. Renewal of registration for the The contention has no basis. There is no deprivation of property
succeeding year shall be granted upon written application as no restriction on their use and enjoyment of property is
therefore made not less than thirty nor more than sixty days caused by the implementation of R.A. No. 9646. If petitioners as
before the first day of the ensuing year and upon payment of the property owners feel burdened by the new requirement of
prescribed fee, without the necessity of filing further statements engaging the services of only licensed real estate professionals
or information, unless specifically required by the Authority. All in the sale and marketing of their properties, such is an
applications filed beyond said period shall be treated as original unavoidable consequence of a reasonable regulatory measure.
applications.
Indeed, no right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a
The names and addresses of all persons registered as dealers, profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as
brokers, or salesmen shall be recorded in a Register of Brokers, a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power of the
Dealers and Salesmen kept in the Authority which shall be open State particularly when their conduct affects the execution of
to public inspection. legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State,
public health and welfare and public morals. 20 In any case,
On the other hand, Section 29 of R.A. No. 9646 requires as a where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property,
condition precedent for all persons who will engage in acts the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much
wider. To pretend that licensing or accreditation requirements
violate the due process clause is to ignore the settled practice, basis for the exclusion of real estate developers from the
under the mantle of police power, of regulating entry to the exempted group of persons under Section 28(a).
practice of various trades or professions.21
We sustain the trial court’s ruling that R.A. No. 9646 does not
Here, the legislature recognized the importance of violate the equal protection clause.
professionalizing the ranks of real estate practitioners by
increasing their competence and raising ethical standards as In Ichong v. Hernandez,24 the concept of equal protection was
real property transactions are "susceptible to manipulation and explained as follows:
corruption, especially if they are in the hands of unqualified
persons working under an ineffective regulatory system." The
new regulatory regime aimed to fully tap the vast potential of the The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor
real estate sector for greater contribution to our gross domestic and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination
income, and real estate practitioners "serve a vital role in or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit
spearheading the continuous flow of capital, in boosting investor legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is
confidence, and in promoting overall national progress."22 directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It does not
demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires
that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances
We thus find R.A. No. 9646 a valid exercise of the State’s police and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
power. As we said in another case challenging the enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by
constitutionality of a law granting discounts to senior citizens: legislation which applies only to those persons falling within such
class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a distinction
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to between those who fall within such class and those who do not.
the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object. (2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 824-825).25
Police power is not capable of an exact definition, but has been
purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not
comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should
room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and be based on real and substantial differences having a
circumstances, thus assuring the greatest benefits. Accordingly, reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation.26 If
it has been described as "the most essential, insistent and the classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all
least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great members of the class, and applies equally to present and future
public needs." It is "[t]he power vested in the legislature by the conditions, the classification does not violate the equal
constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of protection guarantee.27
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances,
either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution,
as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the R.A. No. 9646 was intended to provide institutionalized
commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same." government support for the development of "a corps of highly
respected, technically competent, and disciplined real estate
service practitioners, knowledgeable of internationally accepted
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined standards and practice of the profession."28 Real estate
by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of developers at present constitute a sector that hires or employs
police power because property rights, though sheltered by due the largest number of brokers, salespersons, appraisers and
process, must yield to general welfare. consultants due to the sheer number of products (lots, houses
and condominium units) they advertise and sell nationwide. As
Police power as an attribute to promote the common good would early as in the ‘70s, there has been a proliferation of errant
be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that developers, operators or sellers who have reneged on their
they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned representation and obligations to comply with government
provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of evidence regulations such as the provision and maintenance of
demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in subdivision roads, drainage, sewerage, water system and other
question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the basic requirements. To protect the interest of home and lot
presumption of validity which every law has in its buyers from fraudulent acts and manipulations perpetrated by
favor.23 (Emphasis supplied.) these unscrupulous subdivision and condominium sellers and
operators, P.D. No. 957 was issued to strictly regulate housing
No Violation of Equal Protection Clause and real estate development projects. Hence, in approving R.A.
No. 9646, the legislature rightfully recognized the necessity of
imposing the new licensure requirements to all real estate
Section 28 of R.A. No. 9646 exempts from its coverage natural service practitioners, including and more importantly, those real
and juridical persons dealing with their own property, and other estate service practitioners working for real estate developers.
persons such as receivers, trustees or assignees in insolvency Unlike individuals or entities having isolated transactions over
or bankruptcy proceedings. However, real estate developers are their own property, real estate developers sell lots, houses and
specifically mentioned as an exception from those enumerated condominium units in the ordinary course of business, a
therein. Petitioners argue that this provision violates the equal business which is highly regulated by the State to ensure the
protection clause because it unjustifiably treats real estate health and safety of home and lot buyers.
developers differently from those exempted persons who also
own properties and desire to sell them. They insist that no
substantial distinctions exist between ordinary property owners The foregoing shows that substantial distinctions do exist
and real estate developers as the latter, in fact, are more between ordinary property owners exempted under Section
capable of entering into real estate transactions and do not need 28(a) and real estate developers like petitioners, and the
the services of licensed real estate brokers.1âwphi1 They assail classification enshrined in R.A. No. 9646 is reasonable and
the RTC decision in citing the reported fraudulent practices as relevant to its legitimate purpose. The Court thus rules that R.A.
No. 9646 is valid and constitutional.
Since every law is presumed valid, the presumption of
constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing
that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution, and only
when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may
the Court pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot
escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.29

Indeed, "all presumptions are indulged in favor of

constitutionality; one who attacks a statute, alleging
unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable
doubt; that a law may work hardship does not render it
unconstitutional; that if any reasonable basis may be conceived
which supports the statute, it will be upheld, and the challenger
must negate all possible bases; that the courts are not
concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a
statute; and that a liberal interpretation of the constitution in
favor of the constitutionality of legislation should be adopted."30

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July

12, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42 in Civil
Case No. 10-124776 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: