Remman Enterprises, Inc. and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Association vs. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service and Professional Regulation Commission

The State may require real estate developers to employ licensed real estate brokers in the sale and marketing of their properties without violating constitutional guarantees, provided such regulation is germane to the professionalization of the real estate service sector, rests on substantial distinctions between developers and individual property owners, and constitutes a reasonable exercise of police power to protect the buying public from fraudulent practices.

Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9646, real estate service practitioners operated under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry through the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection. The Real Estate Service Act of 2009 transferred regulatory authority to the Professional Regulation Commission through the newly created Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, establishing a comprehensive licensing and registration system for brokers, appraisers, assessors, consultants, and salespersons. Real estate developers, who previously sold subdivision lots and condominium units directly to the public under licenses issued by the National Housing Authority (later the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) pursuant to P.D. No. 957, faced new obligations under the challenged provisions requiring them to engage licensed professionals for acts constituting real estate service practice.

• The Assailed Statute: R.A. No. 9646, entitled "An Act Regulating the Practice of Real Estate Service in the Philippines, Creating for the Purpose a Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, Appropriating Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes," was signed into law on June 29, 2009. Its implementing rules and regulations were promulgated on July 21, 2010 by the PRC and PRBRES under Resolution No. 02, Series of 2010.
• Petitioners: Remman Enterprises, Inc., a real estate developer, and the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Association (CREBA), an organization of real estate developers and builders.
• Challenged Provisions: Section 28(a) exempts natural or juridical persons performing real estate acts regarding their own property but specifically excludes real estate developers from this exemption. Section 29 prohibits the unauthorized practice of real estate service without a valid certificate of registration and professional identification card. Section 32 requires corporate practice to be headed by full-time registered and licensed real estate brokers, mandates at least one licensed broker for every twenty accredited salespersons, and requires branch offices to be manned by licensed practitioners.
• Regulatory Framework: Prior to R.A. No. 9646, P.D. No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree) vested the National Housing Authority (now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business, including the issuance of licenses to sell and the registration of dealers, brokers, and salesmen. E.O. No. 648 transferred these regulatory functions to the Human Settlements Commission (now HLURB).
• Petitioners' Position: Real estate developers argued that the new law imposed burdensome costs, restricted their property rights under Article 428 of the Civil Code to use and dispose of property, and conflicted with existing HLURB jurisdiction. They alleged that millions of jobs and billions in revenues would be adversely affected by the additional costs of hiring licensed brokers.

• One Title-One Subject Rule: R.A. No. 9646 violates Article VI, Section 26(1) of the 1987 Constitution because its title refers only to regulating real estate service practice, but the challenged provisions impose limitations on property rights and business prerogatives of real estate developers who are not included in the definition of real estate service practitioners.
• Conflict with P.D. No. 957: The law conflicts with E.O. No. 648 which transferred exclusive jurisdiction over real estate trade regulation to the HLURB, including licensing of developers; R.A. No. 9646 impliedly repeals P.D. No. 957 by divesting the HLURB of exclusive jurisdiction over real estate developers.
• Due Process: Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 violate substantive due process by infringing on the constitutional guarantee against deprivation of property without due process of law; developers are burdened with additional expenses of hiring licensed brokers and lose control over managing their business despite substantial investments in their projects.
• Equal Protection: Section 28(a) creates an invalid classification by exempting natural and juridical persons dealing with their own property while excluding real estate developers; no substantial distinctions exist between developers and other property owners to justify differential treatment, and developers are in fact more capable of entering into real estate transactions without needing licensed brokers.

• Justiciable Controversy: A real and definite controversy exists as petitioners, being real estate developers, are directly affected by the prohibition on performing real estate service acts without compliance with registration and licensing requirements, and face potential criminal sanctions.
• One Title-One Subject Rule: The title "Regulating the Practice of Real Estate Service" is comprehensive enough to include regulation of real estate developers, as the marketing of development projects constitutes real estate service practice under Section 3(g); the inclusion is germane to the law's primary objective of professionalizing the sector and protecting the buying public.
• No Conflict with P.D. No. 957: No implied repeal exists; P.D. No. 957 regulates the sale of subdivision lots and condominium units, while R.A. No. 9646 regulates the real estate service profession generally; HLURB and PRC exercise concurrent jurisdiction over different aspects of the real estate business, and developers remain subject to HLURB regulation while additionally complying with PRC licensure requirements.
• Police Power: The assailed provisions constitute a valid exercise of police power to professionalize real estate practitioners and protect the buying public from fraudulent practices; property rights must yield to general welfare, and the regulation of entry into professions has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of police power.
• Equal Protection: Substantial distinctions exist between real estate developers and individual property owners—developers sell in the regular course of business, employ numerous practitioners, and operate under comprehensive State regulation to protect home buyers; the classification is reasonable and relevant to consumer protection.

• Justiciable Controversy: Whether an actual justiciable controversy exists warranting the exercise of judicial power.
• One Title-One Subject Rule: Whether R.A. No. 9646 violates Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Constitution by embracing more than one subject not expressed in its title.
• Implied Repeal: Whether R.A. No. 9646 conflicts with and impliedly repeals P.D. No. 957, as amended by E.O. No. 648, regarding the HLURB's exclusive jurisdiction to regulate real estate developers.
• Due Process: Whether Sections 28(a), 29, and 32 violate substantive due process by unduly restricting the property rights of real estate developers.
• Equal Protection: Whether Section 28(a) violates the equal protection clause by excluding real estate developers from the exemption granted to other property owners who perform real estate acts regarding their own property.

• Justiciable Controversy: An actual controversy exists ripe for adjudication where petitioners, as real estate developers, face direct adverse effects and potential criminal sanctions from the prohibition on practicing real estate service without licensure, presenting an active antagonistic assertion of legal rights susceptible to judicial resolution.
• One Title-One Subject Rule: No violation exists; the constitutional requirement is satisfied where the title is comprehensive enough to include the general object of the statute, and all provisions are germane to the subject matter. The regulation of real estate developers is properly included as the marketing of development projects entails acts constituting real estate service practice under Section 3(g), furthering the law's objective of developing a corps of technically competent professional real estate service practitioners.
• Implied Repeal: No implied repeal of P.D. No. 957 occurred; repeals by implication are not favored, and the later statute must be irreconcilably inconsistent with the existing law. P.D. No. 957 and R.A. No. 9646 occupy distinct regulatory spheres—the former supervises the sale of subdivision lots and condominium units for violations of the decree, while the latter professionalizes the real estate service sector generally. Real estate developers remain subject to HLURB regulation while additionally complying with PRC licensure requirements under the assailed provisions.
• Due Process: No deprivation of property occurs; the licensing requirements constitute a valid exercise of police power to regulate a profession affecting public welfare. Property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to the primacy of police power where the legislature determines that conditions demand regulation for the common good, particularly where real property transactions are susceptible to manipulation by unqualified persons working under an ineffective regulatory system.
• Equal Protection: No violation exists; the equal protection clause permits classification based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of legislation. Real estate developers differ substantially from individual property owners in that they sell properties in the regular course of business, employ large numbers of practitioners, and operate under comprehensive State regulation to protect home and lot buyers from fraudulent acts, justifying their exclusion from the exemption under Section 28(a).

• One Title-One Subject Rule — The constitutional requirement that every bill embrace only one subject expressed in its title should receive a reasonable, not technical, construction. The title need not mirror or index all contents or express each end and means necessary for accomplishing the statutory object, but must be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect. All parts of the statute must be germane to the subject matter expressed in the title.
• Repeal by Implication — Repeals by implication are not favored in law. To effect an implied repeal, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot be reconciled and stand together. Inconsistency is never presumed; there must be a showing of repugnance clear and convincing in character, and the language used must render the later statute irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted.
• Police Power and Property Rights — No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business, or trade constitutes a valid exercise of police power, particularly when conduct affects public health, welfare, and morals. Where the liberty curtailed affects at most the rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider. Property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to the primacy of police power when conditions demand regulation for the general welfare.
• Equal Protection and Reasonable Classification — The equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality among residents, but merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. Classification is permissible provided it is based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions.
• Presumption of Constitutionality — Every law is presumed valid, and the presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the Constitution. All presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt, and if any reasonable basis may be conceived which supports the statute, it will be upheld.

• "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."
• "It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that repeals by implication are not favored. In order to effect a repeal by implication, the later statute must be so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the existing law that they cannot be made to reconcile and stand together."
• "No right is absolute, and the proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of the police power of the State particularly when their conduct affects the execution of legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, public health and welfare and public morals."
• "Property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare."
• "The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality... It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced."
• "Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation."

• Fariñas v. The Executive Secretary, 463 Phil. 179 (2003) — Cited for the interpretation of the one title-one subject rule, establishing that the title need not express each end and means necessary for accomplishing the statutory object.
• Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957) — Cited for the definition of equal protection and the standard for reasonable classification based on real and substantial differences.
• Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development, 553 Phil. 120 (2007) — Cited for the doctrine that police power is the least limitable of powers extending to all great public needs, and that property rights must yield to general welfare.
• Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 721 (1996) — Cited for the rule that repeals by implication are not favored and the requirement of irreconcilable inconsistency between statutes.

• Article VI, Section 26(1), 1987 Constitution — Mandates that every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject expressed in the title; construed liberally to avoid crippling legislation.
• Section 28(a), R.A. No. 9646 — Exempts natural or juridical persons performing real estate acts regarding their own property, specifically excluding real estate developers from the exemption.
• Section 29, R.A. No. 9646 — Prohibits unauthorized practice of real estate service without valid certificate of registration and professional identification card.
• Section 32, R.A. No. 9646 — Governs corporate practice of real estate service, requiring licensed brokers to head divisions or departments and maintain prescribed ratios of brokers to salespersons.
• P.D. No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree), Section 11 — Vests the National Housing Authority (now HLURB) with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business, including issuance of licenses to sell and registration of dealers, brokers, and salesmen.
• E.O. No. 648 — Transferred regulatory functions of NHA under P.D. No. 957 to the Human Settlements Commission (now HLURB).

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.