Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4268) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Remman Enterprises, Inc. and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA) v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service and Professional Regulation Commission, petitioners Remman Enterprises, Inc. and CREBA challenged the constitutionality of Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of Republic Act No. 9646 (the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines), enacted on June 29, 2009 under the 1987 Constitution. The law transferred the regulation of real estate service practitioners—brokers, appraisers, assessors, consultants, and salespersons—from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Professional Regulation Commission through the newly created Board of Real Estate Service. Petitioners, representing real estate developers, filed Civil Case No. 10-124776 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42 on December 7, 2010, seeking to declare the said provisions void for violating the one-title-one-subject rule (Art. VI, Sec. 26[1]), conflicting with P.D. No. 9 Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4268) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Case Background
- On June 29, 2009, Republic Act No. 9646 (Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines) was enacted to professionalize real estate service practitioners (brokers, appraisers, assessors, consultants, salespersons) through licensing, registration, and supervision under the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES). The IRR was promulgated on July 21, 2010.
- Prior to RA 9646, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) supervised real estate service practitioners. RA 9646 transferred that function to the PRC/PRBRES.
- Petition and Trial Court Proceedings
- On December 7, 2010, Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REI) and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA) filed Civil Case No. 10-124776 in RTC Manila, Branch 42, seeking to declare Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of RA 9646 unconstitutional.
- Petitioners’ grounds:
- Violation of the “one title–one subject” rule (Art. VI, Sec. 26(1), 1987 Constitution).
- Conflict with PD 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree) as amended by E.O. 648 (HLURB’s jurisdiction to issue license to sell).
- Violation of substantive due process (property owners’ right to use and dispose of property, Art. 428 Civil Code).
- Violation of equal protection (no reasonable basis to treat real estate developers differently under Section 28(a)).
- Alleged adverse economic impact on industry employment and revenues.
- The RTC denied the petition, ruling that:
- The assailed provisions are germane to the title.
- No real conflict exists between RA 9646 and PD 957/E.O. 648; HLURB licenses to sell remain valid.
- No due process violation, as property use/disposal is not precluded; licensing is a valid exercise of police power.
- Section 28(a) classification is reasonable for consumer protection.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners raised issues: justiciability; one-title–one-subject rule; conflict with PD 957/E.O. 648; due process; equal protection.
- The Supreme Court granted review under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional/Procedural
- Is there a justiciable controversy between petitioners and respondents?
- Substantive Constitutional
- Does RA 9646 violate the one-title–one-subject rule (Art. VI, Sec. 26(1))?
- Does RA 9646 conflict with PD 957, as amended by E.O. 648, regarding HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction?
- Do Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of RA 9646 violate substantive due process?
- Does Section 28(a) of RA 9646 violate the equal protection clause?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)