Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Case Digest - Remman Ent vs. PRC

    Uploaded by

    Julio Ceazar Sedano
    The petitioners challenged provisions of the Real Estate Service Act, arguing it violated constitutional guarantees. The Manila RTC rejected these claims. On appeal, the court found: (1) the law's subject was reasonably expressed; (2) it did not conflict with prior decrees; and (3) the licensing requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive developers of property rights or violate equal protection by distinguishing them from individual owners. The court upheld the law in its entirety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Remman Ent vs. PRC

    Uploaded by

    Julio Ceazar Sedano
    56 views1 page
    The petitioners challenged provisions of the Real Estate Service Act, arguing it violated constitutional guarantees. The Manila RTC rejected these claims. On appeal, the court found: (1) the law's subject was reasonably expressed; (2) it did not conflict with prior decrees; and (3) the licensing requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive developers of property rights or violate equal protection by distinguishing them from individual owners. The court upheld the law in its entirety.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest Remman vs PRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners challenged provisions of the Real Estate Service Act, arguing it violated constitutional guarantees. The Manila RTC rejected these claims. On appeal, the court found: (1) the law's subject was reasonably expressed; (2) it did not conflict with prior decrees; and (3) the licensing requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive developers of property rights or violate equal protection by distinguishing them from individual owners. The court upheld the law in its entirety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Case Digest - Remman Ent vs. PRC

    Uploaded by

    Julio Ceazar Sedano
    The petitioners challenged provisions of the Real Estate Service Act, arguing it violated constitutional guarantees. The Manila RTC rejected these claims. On appeal, the court found: (1) the law's subject was reasonably expressed; (2) it did not conflict with prior decrees; and (3) the licensing requirement was a valid exercise of police power and did not deprive developers of property rights or violate equal protection by distinguishing them from individual owners. The court upheld the law in its entirety.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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:

    After the enactment of “Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines”, which aims to professionalize the
    real estate service sector through licensing. The petitioners assailed the law before the Manila RTC as to
    its constitutionality as follows (section 28, 29 and 32) :

     It violates 1987 Philippine Constitution which mandates that "[e]very bill passed by Congress
    shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof"
     It conflicts the Executive order that the licensing jurisdiction was transferred from NHA.
     It violates the right to use their properties
     It violates equal protection clause as developers are substantially the same with owners dealing
    with their own property (the bill exempts owners, not developers)

    The Manila RTC denied the prayer.

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether or not the law is violating on title one subject.


    2. Whether or not in conflict with PD957
    3. Whether or not the effect of this to the right of developers to substantive due process.
    4. Whether or not the distinction between developers and owners are unconstitutional under
    equal protection clause.

    Ruling:

    1. No, the requirement regarding the subject of the law should be reasonably expressed but
    not technically. It is not necessary for the law to include each end of the law. A general,
    consistent, and reasonable subject that encompasses the whole law shall be enough.
    2. No conflict with PD957. Repeal by implication is not favored under statutory construction.
    The act does not repeal any provisions in RA 9656. In fact, it empowers the NHA to require
    the trade be supervised by licensed practitioners. NHA also has the authority to revoke or
    issue brokers licenses. No conflicts on jurisdiction as HLURB only supervises sale of
    subdivision lots and condominium.
    3. No, the contention has no basis. There’s no deprivation or restriction of us of property.
    Burden of additional cost related to sales and marketing of their properties due to additional
    competency is unavoidable while the government exercise valid police power.
    4. No. Individual owners are not generally engaged in developing real properties and selling it.
    In fact induvial owners usually sells property in an isolated instances only. While developers
    constitute a sector that hire large number of brokers and salesperson. The purpose is to
    protect the buyers from unfair operations of subdivision and condominium sellers.

    Digested by:

    Sedano , Julio Cceazar R

    You might also like