In Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (R.A. No. 9646), affirming the state’s power to regulate the real estate industry. This law mandates that real estate developers must comply with licensing and registration requirements, ensuring that licensed professionals oversee property sales. This decision ensures higher standards in real estate transactions, protecting the public from potential misconduct while balancing the property rights of developers with public welfare.

Balancing Development: How Far Can the Government Regulate Real Estate?

Remman Enterprises, Inc. and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Association (CREBA) challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9646, also known as the “Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines.” Specifically, they questioned Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 of the law, arguing that these provisions unduly restricted the rights of real estate developers and violated constitutional principles. The core issue was whether the government could impose licensing and registration requirements on real estate developers without infringing on their property rights or violating the equal protection clause.

The petitioners argued that the new law violated Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which stipulates that “[e]very bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” They also claimed a conflict with Executive Order (E.O.) No. 648, asserting that it encroached on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to regulate real estate developers. Furthermore, they contended that it violated the due process clause and the equal protection clause, as it treated real estate developers differently from other property owners.

The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in these arguments. The Court emphasized that the law aims to professionalize the real estate service sector by ensuring that those engaged in the practice are duly licensed and supervised. This objective, the Court reasoned, is a valid exercise of the State’s police power, which allows the government to regulate activities for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The Court also clarified that the law does not prevent real estate developers from using or disposing of their property but merely requires them to engage licensed professionals to oversee sales activities.

In its analysis, the Court addressed each of the petitioners’ concerns. First, it found that R.A. No. 9646 did not violate the “one title-one subject” rule. The Court referenced Fariñas v. The Executive Secretary, ^[9] where it was explained that the constitutional provision “merely calls for all parts of an act relating to its subject finding expression in its title.” The Court stated:

Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act.^[10]

Building on this principle, the Court determined that the inclusion of real estate developers within the regulatory scope of the law was germane to the primary objective of developing a corps of competent and responsible real estate service practitioners. Because marketing and selling real estate projects fall under the defined acts of real estate service, it logically falls under the law’s regulatory scheme.

Second, the Court found no conflict between R.A. No. 9646 and P.D. No. 957, as amended by E.O. No. 648. The Court explained that repeals by implication are not favored and that the later statute must be irreconcilably inconsistent with the existing law to effect a repeal. The Court found no such inconsistency, emphasizing that while P.D. No. 957 grants HLURB the authority to regulate real estate trade and issue licenses to sell, R.A. No. 9646 imposes additional professional licensure requirements on all real estate service practitioners. Therefore, real estate developers must now comply with both sets of regulations, ensuring a more comprehensive oversight of the real estate sector.

Third, the Court addressed the due process argument, asserting that the law does not deprive property owners of their rights but merely regulates the manner in which they conduct their business. The Court reasoned that the regulation of professions is a valid exercise of police power, particularly when the conduct of such professions affects public welfare. In this context, the legislature recognized the need to professionalize real estate practitioners to protect the public from fraud and manipulation, thereby contributing to the overall economic development of the country.

Finally, the Court rejected the equal protection challenge, noting that the law’s classification between real estate developers and other property owners is based on substantial differences that are reasonably related to the purpose of the legislation. The Court cited Ichong v. Hernandez,^[24] clarifying that the equal protection clause “merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.” Because real estate developers engage in selling properties in the ordinary course of business, they are subject to stricter regulations than individuals with isolated transactions over their own property. This distinction is justified by the need to protect home and lot buyers from fraudulent practices.

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the validity and constitutionality of R.A. No. 9646. The decision underscores the State’s broad authority to regulate professions for the common good and its power to impose reasonable restrictions on property rights in the interest of public welfare. This ruling set a precedent by clarifying the extent to which the government can regulate the real estate industry and professionalize its practitioners.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (R.A. No. 9646) unconstitutionally infringed upon the rights of real estate developers by requiring them to comply with licensing and registration requirements. The petitioners argued that the law violated constitutional principles such as the “one title-one subject” rule, due process, and equal protection.
What is the “one title-one subject” rule?	The “one title-one subject” rule, as enshrined in Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, mandates that every bill passed by Congress should embrace only one subject, which must be expressed in the title of the law. This rule aims to prevent omnibus bills and ensure transparency in legislation.
How does R.A. No. 9646 affect real estate developers?	R.A. No. 9646 requires real estate developers to employ licensed real estate brokers to oversee the marketing and sale of their properties. It also mandates that the persons authorized to act for a real estate partnership or corporation must be duly registered and licensed as real estate brokers, appraisers, or consultants.
Does R.A. No. 9646 conflict with P.D. No. 957?	The Court found no conflict between R.A. No. 9646 and P.D. No. 957. While P.D. No. 957 grants the HLURB the authority to regulate real estate trade and issue licenses to sell, R.A. No. 9646 imposes additional professional licensure requirements on real estate service practitioners, ensuring more comprehensive oversight.
What is the basis for the equal protection challenge?	The petitioners argued that Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 9646 violates the equal protection clause because it treats real estate developers differently from other natural or juridical persons who directly perform acts of real estate service with reference to their own property, without any substantial distinctions.
What did the Court say about due process?	The Court held that R.A. No. 9646 does not violate the due process clause because it does not deprive property owners of their rights to use and enjoy their property. Instead, it merely regulates the manner in which they conduct their business by requiring them to engage licensed real estate professionals.
What is the significance of the State’s police power in this case?	The State’s police power allows the government to regulate activities for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The Court found that R.A. No. 9646 is a valid exercise of this power because it aims to professionalize the real estate sector and protect the public from fraudulent practices.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9646. The Court found that the law is a valid and constitutional exercise of the State’s police power.

This case reinforces the government’s role in ensuring professionalism and ethical conduct within the real estate sector. By mandating the licensure of real estate service practitioners, the Supreme Court has prioritized the protection of the public, setting a precedent for future regulations in the industry. This decision serves as a reminder that property rights are not absolute and can be reasonably regulated to promote the common good.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE, G.R. No. 197676, February 04, 2014