Philippines-Australia Land Administration and

Management Project

LAND LAWS AND REGULATIONS

POLICY STUDY

FINAL REPORT
Volume 1

July 2002

REPORT A2

Department of Justice
University of the Philippines

The support and assistance of the University of the Philippines Law Centre in the
preparation of this report is gratefully acknowledged. In particular the University
provided the background position papers, the inventory of laws and the workshop
notes.
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

A&D Alienable and Disposable (land)

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
CA Commonwealth Act
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title
CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
CLOA certificate of land ownership award
CREBA Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOJ Department of Justice
FMB Forest Management Bureau
FMS Forest Management Service
GEP Geodetic Engineers of the Philippines
GIS Geographic information system
ha hectare (10,000 square meters)
HLRB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
IPRA Indigenous Persons Rights Act
LAM Land Administration and Management
LAMP Land Administration and Management Project
LGU Local Government Unit
LMB Land Management Bureau
LRA Land Registration Authority
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NCIP National Commission for Indigenous Peoples
NGO Non-government organization
NHA National Housing Authority
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NRMDP Natural Resources Management and Development Project (AusAID funded
project completed in DENR in 1994)
PARC Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
PD Presidential Decree
PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
RA Republic Act
ROD Registry of Deeds
sq m square meter
UDHA Urban Development and Housing Act
UP University of the Philippines

i
This report is a result of technical assistance managed by Land Equity International
to the Government of Philippines. The TA was funded by AusAID and the views
expressed in this work do not necessarily represent the views of the
Commonwealth of Australia.

CONTENTS

VOLUME 1

Executive summary

1. Proposals
1.1. Recommendations on Key Principles
1.2. Supporting Recommendations

2. Introduction

2.1. Background
2.2. Terms of reference
2.3. Scope of Study
2.4. Study Methodology
3. Current Legal Infrastructure
3.1. Legal Infrastructure
3.1.1. Generally
3.1.2. Public Land Classification
3.1.3. Public Land Disposition
3.1.4. Confirmation of Imperfect Title
3.1.5. Other Tenures
3.1.6. Land Registration
3.1.7. Land Transactions
3.2. Informal or Extra-legal Infrastructure
4. Views on Current Legal Infrastructure
4.1. Experience from PA-LAMP Prototypes
4.2. Findings of Previous Studies
4.3. Stakeholder Views
5. Change Considerations
5.1. Legislative and Congressional Factors
5.2. Leadership Factors

ANNEXURES
1. Full Terms of Reference for Study
2. People Met/Processes for Consultation
3. Summary of Outcomes from Previous Studies

ii
4. Summary of Inventory of Laws Related to Land Administration
5. Summary Report on Workshop Outcomes
6. Questionnaire to Courts

VOLUME 2

Position Papers Prepared by University of the Philippines

1. Examining the 1987 Constitution Relative to Land Policies and Principles
2. Land Use
3. Land Registration
4. Land Use Regulation and Control
5. Land Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory
6. Public Land Laws of the Philippines

Inventory of Land Administration Laws prepared by University of the Philippines

Supreme Court Cases (2000-2002)

Position Paper Prepared by Atty. Hector Fabros

Former Assistant Director, DENR-LMB
A Revisitation of the Public Land Disposition in the Philippines

Report by Atty Berlin Berba

Report by Carlos Isles

iii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study is significant for the wide consultation that has taken place involving many
sectors of society - civil society, public sector, private sector, academia and land
administration experts. All these groups have been involved in both individual discussions
and workshops and seminars. The proposals contained in this report are based on this
interaction, the results of previous studies in the same area and on international
developments and best practice.
During the course of the study a number of significant issues relating to land administration
in the Philippines have been identified. Many of these issues relate to the existing legal
infrastructure in the country. Much of the law is outdated and supports processes and
procedures that are not in keeping with international best practice. In particular, the laws
and processes to provide secure title to persons in long term possession and occupation
of land have not served the community well.
Currently, there is an abundance of laws governing the administration of land, especially
relating to A & D land. The laws are administered by different agencies. Many of the laws
have been introduced over a long period of time without consideration of consequential
amendments that their introduction will have on existing legislation. Operating an efficient
and equitable land administration system under this framework has been difficult and has
resulted in long delays in adjudication and registration of land rights, and in considerable
jurisdictional overlap and duplication of functions. There has been a much greater
emphasis on the use of the overloaded Court system for land registration matters than in
many other countries.
There is an urgent need to simplify the laws and processes, not only to facilitate the issue
of titles to land and subsequent transactions with land, but also to reduce the opportunities
for “informal fees” currently associated with such processes. Experience has shown that
the development of a simple and transparent system has this effect.
This study has resulted in a wide ranging series of recommendations for improvement.
The key findings are that:
(a) the system should be greatly improved by the abolition of the judicial processes
associated with the issue and registration of title to land in favour of simple administrative
processes;
(b) the rights of persons in occupation of land to obtain a registered land title should be
clarified, particularly as to the period of possession required;
(c) the process of issue of titles to land should be simplified;
(d) these changes should be complemented by changes in the institutional structure to
reduce the number of agencies involved; and
(e) the laws on public land disposition and land registration should be rationalized,
updated and placed in modern codes.
Whilst strongly recommending changes in the legal infrastructure to support a system
which is simpler, cheaper and more certain, at this stage of the study the
recommendations are confined to the higher level principles to be incorporated in the
legislative changes, without the supporting detail. This has been done in the expectation
that approval to the basic principles should be gained in the first instance.
It should also be emphasized that not all problems lie with the law itself. One of the
problem areas in relation to providing landholders with secure titles lies with land
classification. In this regard a greater effort needs to be made classify as alienable and
disposable those lands which are capable of classification within the existing law.

1
 1 PROPOSALS

1.1 Recommendations on Key Principles

This Chapter contains brief supporting information for the various recommendations.
Further detail is contained in the following Chapters.

1.1.1 All land registration matters currently required to be dealt with by the Courts
should be dealt with by simple administrative processes in the first instance.

The Philippines is fairly unique in requiring the intervention of the Courts in even quite
simple and straightforward matters which, in other jurisdictions, would be handled more
quickly and at less cost to all concerned through administrative processes. Not only would
the delays in the Court process be avoided, but also the delays involved in the checking of
the Court process by LRA. Most importantly, this proposal would enable the acceleration
of the issue of titles for unregistered land as proposed under the LAM Program. However it
would also simplify other land registration processes. The proposal would cover:
Confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title
Reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title
Removal of reservations on reconstituted titles
Replacement of lost or destroyed duplicate certificates of title
Amendment and alteration of certificates of title

In so far as confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title is concerned, there is already

provision for administrative adjudication through the free patent process. This current
proposal would replace the present badly coordinated dual system with a single simple,
quick and low cost system.

This proposal would not altogether remove the Courts from the registration processes as
they would still hear any appeals resulting from administrative actions. There would, of
course, need to be transitional provisions to cover situations such as matters currently
before the Courts.

1.1.2 The current free patent process for confirmation of incomplete or imperfect
title should be replaced with a simple process based on the issue of a
certificate of title to landholders who can establish possession and
occupation for a fixed period.

The current free patent mechanism for administrative confirmation of title based on long
term possession is not appropriate. A patent, being a grant by the State, relies on the
presumption that the land the subject of the grant is public domain. There is ample case
law to suggest that the lands are already in the nature of private lands by virtue of the
rights acquired by possession.

In addition, there are various conditions attaching to patents, such as a prohibition against
sale or mortgage for 5 years after the date of issuance of the patent and a right of
repurchase for a period of 5 years after the land is sold. Neither of these conditions is
appropriate to a situation where the landholders and their predecessors have been in
possession of the land for many years, and both conditions operate against a free land
market.

Replacing the free patent with the direct issue of a certificate would simplify and speed up
the process and reduce the cost. There would, of course, still be provision for notice and a
period for objection to the proposed title issue.

2
1.1.3 The confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title should be based on
possession for the same period as provided in the Civil Code for
prescription in good faith i.e. 10 years.

The possession periods for both judicial and administrative titling have been continually
changing, but overall are becoming longer and more difficult to prove. From initial
requirements at the turn of the last century of around 10 years possession, the period
required has progressively increased to the point where currently possession since June
12, 1945 is required for judicial confirmation, and possession for 30 years prior to March
28, 1990 for free patents. These periods are therefore 57 years and 42 years respectively
and getting longer with every passing year. It is becoming unrealistic to expect landholders
to be able to prove possession for these periods.

1.1.4 The land classification system and definitions should be reviewed to better
reflect the reality of land use and occupation as well as to formally free up A
& D land that is already in sustainable use or has the potential to be so used.

Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that lands of the
public domain are to be classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. Alienable lands of the public domain are limited to agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further sub-classified by law according to
the uses to which they may be devoted There has been a tendency to presume that
unclassified lands are forest lands. In turn, forest lands are classified primarily according to
the 18% slope rule. This has had the effect of failing to recognize the reality that there are
established agricultural and urban settlements that have existed for some time. Examples
would be the IP rice-terrace lands that have existed for centuries and the situations in
Cebu and Benguet that necessitated Presidential Decree No 1998 of 1985 because there
were established agricultural and town settlements above the 18% slope. There is also the
matter of strengthening the meaning of section 8 of CA 141 known as the Public Land Act,
to clarify the instances when land has clearly become private land and is therefore beyond
the necessity for classification.

1.1.5 In assessing the period of possession of land for the purpose of

confirmation of title, possession and occupation prior to classification of the
land as A & D should be taken into account.

The date of release of the land from the forest zone is very material in titling of lands by
free patent under Chapter VII or by judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title to
public agricultural land under Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act, because the law requires
prior possession and occupation of the land since March 28, 1960, and June 12, 1945,
respectively. In Vallarta vs. IAC, 151 SCRA 679, a case for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incompetent title to public agricultural land, the Supreme Court held that:

“If the land was formerly within the forest zone, it is only from the date it
was released as agricultural land for disposition under the Public Land Act
that the period of occupancy for purposes of confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title may be counted. The possession of the land by the
applicant prior to such release or reclassification can not be credited as
part of the requisite period, and could not ripen into private ownership,
however long it was.”

For practical considerations, applicants for free patent and for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title should be credited for their possession prior to the release, upon a proper
showing that the land is truly agricultural by reason of its slope and actual use especially
where the release or classification of the land as alienable and disposable was delayed
because of lack of funds or because the land does not occupy high priority in the
government’s program of land classification.

3
1.1.6 Rights over titled land based on prescription should be recognised.

Many of the original Torrens Title statutes prohibited the acquisition of title to Torrens Title
land by adverse possession or prescription. However, many overseas jurisdictions have
changed their basic Torrens Title laws to permit the acquisition of title by this means. They
have done this because they have recognised that, over the years, many parcels of
Torrens Title land have fallen into the ownership of persons who acquired the land, either
by taking possession of abandoned land or by informal transfer. In either case the
ownership could not be recorded in the Registry records and the land would remain
outside the official system unless a change was made in the law. Given the public benefit
in bringing this land back into the system, changes were made in the law to accommodate
this. If the Torrens Title register in the Philippines is to accord with the reality of actual
landholdings on the ground, such a change will be necessary. Such a change would be
based on the prescriptive provisions of the Civil Code, which allows for a prescriptive
period of 10 years if possession was in good faith or 30 years if possession was in bad
faith.

It is recognised that while many countries allow prescription over land as a means of
stabilising property rights and quieting titles and there is a need in the Philippines to bring
the Register into line with reality, there is also a need to avoid the encouragement of
squatting. Accordingly it is suggested that prescription should only apply in cases where
possession has already commenced and that there should be a period of grace before the
law takes effect in order to enable registered owners of land under adverse possession to
recover the land if they so wish.

1.1.7 All registered rights of ownership should be evidenced by the one document
to be known as a Certificate of Title.

Currently there is confusion over the status and relative merits of various rights in land e.g.
CLOAs, Patents, Original Certificates of Title, Transfer Certificates of Title etc. Thus for
example a Patent is widely regarded as a lesser title than a Certificate of Title issued on a
judicial decree. Courts have not respected the indefeasibility of registered Patents to the
same degree as other titles, while some Banks will not lend as much money on them. The
problem is not so much in the law itself but in people’s minds and this has been brought
about by the different names given to the holdings and the different processes under which
the title is created. The elimination of the Free Patent as recommended in Rec.2 above will
overcome some of the problem. However, the opportunity should be taken to ensure that
the original registration of all rights is done by way of the issue of a simple Certificate of
Title. On adoption of this principle, rights created under CARP, for example, would be
registered by an instruction from DAR to the ROD to issue a Certificate of Title. The
conditions attaching to this form of title would be recorded on the Certificate of Title.

1.1.8 There should be a single agency to undertake all initial titling (except under
IPRA), subsequent registration of land transactions, the approval and
recording of plans of survey and the maintenance of cadastral records.

There is currently a duplication of activities carried out by DENR and LRA. This is clearly
apparent in the case of titling of land where administrative confirmation of title is carried
out by DENR, while judicial confirmation of title is carried out by the Courts with the
involvement of LRA. In this situation it has even been the case that these parallel activities
have been carried out in respect of the same parcel of land. In the case of approval of
surveys, both DENR and LRA have authority to approve plans of subdivision and both
agencies keep cadastral maps, although neither agency has a complete set of maps. If the
recommendation for a single administrative process for confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title by the issue of a certificate of title is adopted it follows that there should
only be a single agency to carry out this process, which includes elements of activities
presently carried out by both DENR and LRA. In carrying out its title registration functions
this agency should be vested with quasi-judicial powers, rather than mere Ministerial
powers.

4
1.1.9 The Assurance Fund established under the Property Registration Decree
should be strengthened to act as a proper system for insurance against
losses occurring through the operation of the title registration system.

While the Torrens Title system is acclaimed as a Government guaranteed system, there
is a lack of confidence in the title registration system in the Philippines based on
perceived lack of security. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Assurance Fund is not
working as it was originally intended. The fact that no person can recall the last time a
claim was made against the Fund is an indication not of a perfect system, but of an
ineffective Fund.

The Fund should be made more effective by:

• removing the current P500,000 limit on the amount of money that may be retained
in the Fund;
• increasing the contributions to the Fund and extending the responsibility for
contributions to all transactions with land lodged for registration;
• extending the liability of the Fund to cover loss caused by the subsequent
registration of any other person as owner of an interest in the land; and
• enabling claims to be settled without litigation in clear cut cases of liability.

1.1.10 The Torrens Title register should be a comprehensive record of all land in
the Philippines in which all rights relating to the land are recorded.

A comprehensive record of all land parcels, together with the interests attaching to those
parcels is a powerful record for the Government, the private sector and the community
generally, particularly when it is linked to the cadastral maps for the land parcels, and most
developed countries are moving towards this objective. It should be recognised as an
objective in the Philippines and the system progressively developed to meet that objective.

The concept would mean that lands of the public domain be included in the record
provided that there are plans of survey to define the land parcels and that any tenure
relating to such lands, such as forestry or fisheries leases be recorded. The concept does
not diminish the right of the individual agencies to mange the land and create the rights but
simply ensures that there is a central easily accessible record of such rights.

1.1.11 In order to expedite the conversion of all land to the Torrens registration
system, the concept of qualified or provisional titles should be introduced.

This concept has been used in many countries in the region (Malaysia, Singapore, Laos,
Australia) as a means of quickly bringing lands within the registration system in situations
where:
• the title may not have been fully investigated;
• the period for acquisition of a title may not have run, or
• the land may not be accurately defined by survey.

It means that a title can the issued, the land is included in the public record and it can be
dealt with and be the subject of transactions that can be recorded in the register. It simply
does not carry with it the same degree of indefeasibility as a normal registered title, a fact
which is made clear on the title. However, such a title can be capable of maturing into an
ordinary registered title. If the qualifications relate to title, such as incomplete or unclear
title, the title can become clear through lapse of time and the application of the laws on
possession and prescription under the Civil Code. If the qualification relates to imprecise
definition of boundaries, the title can be cleared by the lodgment of a plan of survey
defining the boundaries.

There are a number of possible situations in which the concept could be used in the
Philippines to bring land into the registration system. One example would be where
transactions with unregistered land are lodged for registration. The opportunity could be
taken at that time to create a qualified title for that land under what would be a virtual

5
compulsory registration process. Thus unregistered parcels would progressively be
brought within the registration system.

The advantage of the system is that the Government register can more quickly and at
minimum cost become a reflection of the situation on the ground. It also provides the
Government with better land ownership information for revenue purposes.

1.1.12 In carrying out the amendments to the law to give effect to the above
recommendations, the opportunity should be taken to rationalise and codify
the laws on public land disposition and land registration.

There is currently a lack of clarity in the law due to the fact that there are numerous laws
affecting the individual sectors of land administration and there has been a failure to
effectively repeal and replace earlier laws when new laws have been introduced.
Interpretation and understanding of the law is also made more difficult by the fact that the
Public Lands Act is now inconsistent with the Constitution 1987 and must be read in
conjunction with that legislation. Modern codes covering the areas of public land
disposition and land registration are needed and should be developed.

1.2 Supporting Recommendations

1.2.1 The Constitution should recognise the acquisition of lands of the public
domain by confirmation of incomplete or imperfect title based on
continuous, exclusive possession and occupation of agricultural lands.

The Constitution currently stipulates that citizens may acquire alienable lands of the public
domain by purchase, homestead or grant. It is recognised that the Constitution cannot be
quickly amended. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and completeness, recognition
should be given to the rights of citizens to obtain title by confirmation of imperfect title
based on possession and occupation in any Constitutional review.

1.2.2 The time limit on applications for confirmation of incomplete or imperfect

titles should be abolished.

In relation to applications for free patents and petitions for judicial confirmation, the first
Public Land Act (Act 926 of 1903) did not prescribe a deadline for filing applications . The
second Public Land Act (Act 2874 of 1919) prescribed a time limit up to December 31,
1938. The current Public Land Act (C.A. No. 141 of 1936) prescribed a period up to
December 31, 1938. Under C.A. No. 292, the period was extended to December 31, 1941.
Under R.A. No. 107, the period was extended up to December 31, 1957. Under R.A. No.
2061, the period was extended up to December 31, 1968. Congress failed to enact a law
extending the period before its expiration, thus, there was hiatus for 3 years. In 1971,
Congress enacted R.A. No. 6236 extending the period for another ten (10) years up to
December 31, 1976. On January 5, 1977, P.D. 1073 extended the period to December 31,
1987. Congress failed to extend the period before expiry date. It was only in 1990 that
Congress passed R.A. 6940 extending the period to December 31, 2000. Again, Congress
failed to passed a law extending the period before its expiration, hence, we have Senate
Bill No. 1695.

The period to file free patent application under Chapter VII and judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete title to public land under Chapter VIII of the Public Land Act used
to be co-terminus and this is so provided under C.A. 292, R.A. Nos. 107, 2061, 6236, P.D.
1073 and R.A. No. 6940. The fact that the period of availment has been repeatedly
extended indicates recognition by Congress that much of the lands of the public domain
have been occupied and cultivated for a long time and that there is need to give the
occupants the opportunity to legalize their claims and secure titles to the lands under the
Public Land Act, viz-a-viz, the Torrens System of land registration.

6
The opportunity should now be taken to abolish the deadline altogether. It does not serve
any useful purpose. Every time Congress fails to renew the period, and this has happened
many times, it creates a hiatus, causing unsettling effect on the owners of the land.

1.2.3 In addition to existing methods of determining possession for title issue

purposes, information available from the communities themselves should be
considered when determining possession as well as boundary definition.

A brief study has been made to determine whether there are sources of data about
occupation (apart from traditional sources such as tax declarations) that are available from
among the informal communities themselves or from other outside sources that could be
used to determine type of possession and length of possession with a view to supporting
the formalisation and titling of their rights.

Preliminary assessments indicate that there are alternative sources of information from
within and outside the community about possession, boundaries and ownership that could
be considered. These would probably vary from area to area:
• In urban areas: National Census – conducted every 4-5 years; Barangay Census
– conducted annually; Barangay membership card; Homeowners Association –
register of members with address and maps; Purok leaders – have list of names
and sketch map of members locations; utilities records; Deed of Sale; Affidavit of
Quick Claim; Community Mortgage Program.
• In rural areas: Barangay census; Barangay leaders/elders; Deed of Sale;
identification by other members of community.

1.2.4 The Guidelines on Surveys DENR EO 98-12 should be amended to provide

for simpler, speedier and lower cost survey methods appropriate to rural
and IP lands.

The Guidelines on Surveys do not provide for alternative, quicker and lower cost methods
of demarcating boundaries of rural and IP lands. In the case of rural lands the guidelines
should provide for some of the methods used in mass titling projects in other countries in
the region, such as the use of photomaps, GPS or survey taping. In the case of IP lands,
where much land has already been surveyed by GPS to mapping standards, those
methods should be given recognition.

1.2.5 The provisions for administrative confirmation of incomplete or imperfect

title should be extended to apply to residential lands.

In 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg. 223 introduced provisions extending Free Patents to
residential lands of the public domain, although it was expressly provided that the
provisions did not apply to residential lands located in cities, in capitals of provinces, in first
class, second class, third class and fourth class municipalities, and in townsite
reservations. It was also provided that all applications for free patent should be filed on or
before December 31, 1987. This deadline has never been extended. There is a need to
extend these provisions to apply to all residential land.

1.2.6 Permanent long term settlers on unclassified (forest) lands that have been
used for settled agricultural and residential purposes should be given
recognition of tenure in the form of a Certificate of Land Use Rights that
formalizes their right to use the land but does not convey ownership of the
fee simple in the land.

In light of the issues with land classification that are yet to be resolved, there is a need for
an instrument that will give settlers on unclassified (forest) lands security of tenure and a
registrable, tradable right that is less than full ownership but greater than a standard lease.
There should be a simple administrative process to determine beneficiaries and the
boundaries of the parcel. The land use right would then be registered and the Certificate of
Land Use Right would issue to the holder of that right.

7
1.2.7 Government and private landowners should be encouraged to enter into
long-term leases of 10-15 years with informal settler communities. The
leases would be registered with the land registration agency and the right
would be transferable within the period of the lease. A formal lease would
also have the advantage of holding any periods of prescription in abatement.

It is of course understandable that private landowners would be reluctant to give up their

titles and their full ownership. This is the issue at the heart of landowners’ concerns about
prescription. Since it is also understood that what urban squatters desire most is security
of tenure in whatever form, then a suggested “win-win” situation would be for landowners
to enter into long-term leaseholds agreements with the informal settlers on their land.
There have already been successful long-term lease agreements on public lands. A
leasehold agreement would have the added advantage for the landowner of holding any
period of prescription in abatement. The informal settlers would have the advantage of
becoming legitimate tenants with the security of long-term leasehold tenure.

The leasehold rights would be transferable by fact of occupation and simple registration.
For ease of administration, the time for the lease would run in a cumulative manner with
each new tenant and thus the lease for an entire area would be due for renewal at the
same time.

1.2.8 Where land is defined by a plan on public record, the certificate of title for
that land should not be required to contain a technical description. The land
should simply be described by reference to the plan.

Certificates of title are required to contain a technical description of the land in the title that
is complicated, tedious and costly to produce, prone to error and not readily understood by
the public. The practice is more in keeping with an outdated deeds registration system
than a modern title registration, where the emphasis should be on simplicity and efficiency.

1.2.9 The practice of issuing a new transfer certificate of title on registration of

every transfer of the land should be dispensed with in favour of entry of a
memorial of transfer on the existing certificate of title.

PD 1529 currently requires a transfer certificate of title to be issued whenever a transfer of

the land is registered. This is a departure from the original Torrens Title practice of
registering a transfer by recording a memorial on the existing certificate of title. The
practice of issuing a transfer certificate of title requires much greater time and effort, is
more expensive and is more prone to error in carrying information forward on to a new
certificate of title. It also increases the volume of records necessary to be maintained.

In a manual paper based titles system it is more expedient to endorse memorials of

transfer on the existing certificate rather than issue a new certificate. However, it is
acknowledged that the system is being redeveloped to computerise the records. In this
situation it may be necessary or preferable to issue a new certificate of title each time a
transaction takes place with the land.

1.2.10 The identification number allocated to a certificate of title on original

registration should be a permanent certificate of title number for that parcel
of land.

Currently, every time a new certificate of title issues for a given parcel of land the subject
of an existing certificate of title it is allocated a new certificate of title number. This practice
makes records management, indexing and searching of records more difficult. A stable,
unchanging title reference number is a better approach. If a new certificate of title has to
issue for a parcel of land the subject of an existing certificate of title, it should be identified
as a subsequent edition of the existing title number. In some jurisdictions the system is
simplified even further by using the parcel number as the identifying number for the
certificate of title.

8
1.2.11 Original certificates of title should be signed by the Register of Deeds only
and not the Administrator of LRA.

PD 1529 currently requires all original certificates of title to be signed by the Administrator,
LRA at the time of registration. This requires the workflow for issue of titles to be highly
centralised and creates a bottleneck to the rapid decentralised issue of certificates of title,
particularly in the case of mass issue of titles as proposed under LAMP. An alternative
approach would be for the delegation of authority for the ROD to enter a facsimile of the
Administrator’s signature on the title. The Administrator, as chief executive officer of the
agency, should not be wasting his valuable time with mundane tasks like personally
signing titles and plans.

1.2.12 The provisions of Sec.70 of PD 1529 relating to adverse claims should be

strengthened to place a greater onus on the claimant to support the claim.

Currently it is relatively easy for a person to make an adverse claim on a title and difficult
for the registered owner to have the claim removed. Because of this the claims are often
frivolous and vexatious and used as a form of harassment. A greater onus should be
placed on the claimant to support the claim by:
a) requiring the claim to be supported by an affidavit stating that the claimant has a
proprietary interest in the land and stating the nature of the interest; and
b) providing that, after lapsing of the claim it may be removed from the title by the
ROD on application of the registered owner, unless the claimant has obtained a
Court order sustaining the claim.

1.2.13 There should be a single agency responsible for the preparation and
maintenance of cadastral index maps and that agency should have specific
statutory responsibility for the maintenance of such maps.

Currently both LRA and DENR keep cadastral index maps although neither agency has a
complete and up to date record. The recommendation in 1.1.7 that there be a single
agency with responsibility for cadastral functions should be supported by a statutory
responsibility for the keeping and maintaining of up to date cadastral maps by that agency.

9
 2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background
The LAM Program is a long term commitment by the government of the Philippines. The
overall goal of the program is to alleviate poverty and enhance economic growth by
improving the security of land tenure and fostering efficient land markets in rural and urban
areas, through the development of an efficient system of land titling and administration,
which is based on clear, transparent, coherent and consistent policies and laws, and is
supported by an appropriate institutional structure.
The long term program is intended to achieve:
• A clear, coherent and consistent set of land administration policies and laws;
• Accelerated programs that would formally recognize the rights of eligible
landholders and facilitate the recording of these rights in a strengthened land
administration system;
• An efficient land administration system operating throughout the Philippines in
accordance with Government policy, and responsive to the needs of the people,
supported by a sustainable financing mechanism;
• An effective and transparent land valuation system, in line with internationally
accepted standards, that serves the needs of all levels of Government and the
private sector; and
• A well functioning land market operating in both urban and rural areas.
The LAMP is the first step towards the implementation of the long term land administration
and management program. The development objectives of the project are to assess the
viability of the program through the testing of two prototypes and to formalize the legal and
institutional arrangements needed to support the further development of the program. In
particular, the Land Laws and Regulations Study is intended to review the legal framework
for land administration and develop proposals for changes in the law in preparation for the
next phase of the program.

2.2 Terms of Reference

The full terms of reference for the study are set out in Annexure 1. The following is a
summary of the task for this phase of the study.
1. The overall task is to work with the main implementing agencies and stakeholders
to analyse the land laws situation in the land administration sector to propose changes to
the basic tenets of the laws that will realize the government’s goal of an efficient and
effective land market that will provide improved services to business and the community as
well as government, and raise the confidence in the land administration system and its
records, and provide a sound foundation for the design and possible implementation of an
accelerated program of issuance of registered land titles and streamlined land registration
system.

10
2. In this first period new laws or regulations are not to be prepared as the
recommendations of all the studies will need to be harmonized first, and in principle
agreement reached by stakeholders on the thrust of the changes prior to legal drafting.
3. The advisers will:
• Conduct wide consultation including with community groups and special interest
groups.
• Use workshops to engage a core group of interested parties.
• Obtain lessons from the LAMP prototypes at Leyte and Quezon City and the
LAMP M&E system.
• Propose changes and obtain ideas and opinions from many sources.
• Refine the recommendations and link with allied policy studies of institutional and
finance and others for possible synergy and to minimize possible conflict of
recommendations.
4. The main output in this assignment is to prepare a preliminary report containing
recommendations for improvement in the legal framework as a basis for a future system of
land administration that is more efficient and delivers services to government, business
and the community more effectively.
Also included in this assignment was a review of “informal laws” relating to land ownership.
This was done in order to enable the consideration of the feasibility of incorporating into
the legal framework community-acknowledged processes for recognizing possession in
support of registration of title.

2.3 Scope of Study

The scope of the laws and regulations study was defined by reference to the purpose and
objectives of the Project.

In this regard, the stated purpose of PA LAMP is to assist the GOP to establish structures
and operating procedures which will improve the effectiveness, transparency and
efficiency of land administration, while the overall objective of the LAM Program is the
development of an efficient system of land titling and administration which is based on
clear, coherent and consistent policies and laws.

Consequently, the ambit of the laws and regulations study was regarded as relating to a
study of those laws and regulations which directly relate to land titling and land
administration and those laws and regulations which indirectly impact on land titling and
land administration. The laws which directly relate to land titling and administration are
those governing public land disposition, principally the Public Land Act and related Acts,
those governing title registration, principally the Title Registration Act, Property
Registration Decree and related Acts and those relating to agrarian reform, principally the
Agricultural Land Reform Code and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Laws which
indirectly impact on land titling and administration would include laws such as the
Constitution, Civil Code, Fisheries Code, the Forestry Reform Code and the Water Code.
However, the study would not encompass the broader issues relating to land
management.

In addition, the study was not be confined to overcoming the recognised problems of
fragmentation, overlaps and inconsistencies but, in accordance with Project objectives,
sought to identify other areas where changes in the substance of the laws could be made
to improve effectiveness, transparency and efficiency. The review of the law was basically
focussed on the broader principles, rather than minor detail which could be picked up
during the course of the Project. However, where secondary matters came to attention
they were noted along with recommendations for improvement.

11
Again, in accordance with LAM Program goals, the study was long term in its outlook ie.
the primary focus was on a long term vision of the ideal legal infrastructure.

In addition, as indicated in the terms of reference above, the study was subsequently
widened to include a study of the “informal laws” whereby communities recognize rights in
land.

Each of the PA LAMP policy studies was due for completion by 30 June 2002. In the
following six weeks their individual findings and recommendations are to be integrated in
order to produce a coordinated and consolidated set of recommendations to the
Government by mid-August.

Some of these studies (and two related studies to be funded by the World Bank) have
implications for future legal infrastructure. While every effort was made to liaise closely
with counterpart advisers during the conduct of the studies, the initial Laws and
Regulations policy study could not realistically be expected to fully anticipate, analyse and
incorporate in its own recommendations the final findings and recommendations of the
other studies. That will happen in the period July to mid-August.

2.4 Study Methodology

The key aspects of the methodology were:

1. A compilation and review of previous studies and other literature on this issue.
2. Preparation of an inventory of all relevant laws and regulations.
3. A review of the identified laws and regulations and an examination of their
effectiveness based on:
Position papers on key aspects prepared by local legal experts.
Discussions with individual public sector agencies, private sector stakeholders and
community groups.
Workshops held with the public sector agencies, private sector stakeholders,
community groups and experts in the field of land administration.
Workshops and discussions with the prototype implementation teams.

4. Identification of the issues and preparation of a record of deficiencies in the existing

legal infrastructure.
5. Review of international models and establishment of criteria for an ideal model for the
Philippines.
6. Preparation of a discussion paper containing options for improvement.
7. A broad cross-sectoral workshop to consider the discussion paper.
8. Preparation of key principles for incorporation in the future legal infrastructure.

12
 3 CURRENT LEGAL INFRASTRUCTURE

3.1 Legal Infrastructure

3.1.1 Generally

An inventory of the laws relevant to public land disposition and land registration has been
undertaken and is contained in Volume 2 of this report, with a summary of the inventory
attached as Annexure 4 in Volume 1. This inventory identifies more than 60 laws and
regulations touching on these particular aspects of land administration. Many of these laws
have been in existence for a long time and have not been adapted to meet modern needs.

One reason for the proliferation of laws is the practice of introducing new laws without
specifically repealing previous laws. Instead, a general statement has been included in the
new law that “ all laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, in conflict
or inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly”. Thus it becomes a matter of interpretation as to whether a provision in an
earlier law has been repealed or modified. In addition, to the extent that the provisions of
an earlier law are consistent with a later law, they remain in force with the result that there
can be several laws governing the same subject matter.

An example of this is in the land registration laws where PD 1529, the express intent of
which was to codify the laws relating to land registration, did not repeal or replace many of
the provisions of Act 496, Act 2259 or RA 26 even though it dealt with the same subject
matter. Similarly in relation to CARP, the latest law RA 6657 did not replace previous laws
such as RA 3844, PD 27 and PD 2766 and these laws continue to exist and have
“suppletory effect”. In so far as the CA 141 the Public Lands Act is concerned, there are
subsequent acts dealing with the same subject matter e.g. RA 730, which did not amend
the provisions of CA 141 but nevertheless established exceptions to these provisions.

Not only has this aspect of the legal infrastructure been the subject of comment by the
judiciary1but, in discussions with staff of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources
responsible for scrutinizing new land legislation, it was disclosed that the Committee has
difficulty in determining the current laws under consideration. Given the difficulties faced by
persons trained in understanding the law it is understandable that there is confusion and
lack of understanding on the part of the general public.

One further aspect of the laws which not only affects their clarity but inhibits their
implementation is the fact that the laws are very detailed and prescriptive. The laws are
very specific, very inflexible and so limit operations and the adoption of new and more
efficient procedures. They also include subsidiary matters such as scales of fees and the
design and content of forms, which means that these matters cannot be readily changed.
In this regard the Philippines suffers by comparison with many other countries which
embody the major land-related laws in a single code, generally confined to basic
principles, with the subsidiary laws contained in more easily amended regulations.

A comparison of the legal infrastructure of countries in the region is as follows:

COUNTRY LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Thailand Land Code
Malaysia Land Code
Indonesia Land Code
Cambodia Land Code
Laos Land Code
Philippines Numerous overlapping and inconsistent
Acts and Decrees
1
Judge Edilberto Noblejas, Problems in Land Registration, JUDGE’S JOURNAL (Vol. 4&5 1989-1990)

13
3.1.2 Public Land Classification

Various laws govern public land classification and disposition in the Philippines. Foremost
of these is the Constitution of 1987, which enunciates the principles, policies and tenets of
these functions.

Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that lands of the
public domain are to be classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and
national parks. Alienable lands of the public domain are limited to agricultural lands.
Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the
uses which they may be devoted. Taking into account the requirements of conservation,
ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be
acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

Public land classification is relevant to the land administration system because section 8 of
CA 141 (the Public Lands Bill) provides that land is alienable and disposable from the
public realm for acquisition by private hands provided it is classified as such and provided
it is not exempted from classification under that same section. As in Act 926 and Act 2874,
Sec. 6 of CA 141 classifies lands of the public domain into:
• alienable and disposable
• timber
• mineral

The President shall from time to time declare what lands are open to disposition or
concession, but only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession
which (Section 8, C.A. No. 141):
• Have been officially delimited and classified
• Have been surveyed
• Have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses
• Have not been appropriated by the government
• Have not in any manner become private property
• Have not been the subject of a private right authorized and recognized by this Act
or any other valid law

Sec 8 of CA 141 also states that the President may, for reasons of public interest, declare
lands of the public domain open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries
established or been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or
disposition until they are again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation
duly published or by Act of the National Assembly.

Alienable and disposable public lands shall be further classified according to the use or
purposes to which they are destined as follows (Section 9, CA No. 141):
• Agricultural
• Residential, commercial, industrial or for similar productive purposes, and
• Educational, charitable or other similar purposes; and
• Reservations for townsite and for public or quasi-public purposes.

The President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of DENR, shall from time to time
make the classifications provided in this section (Sec. 9) and may act at anytime and in a
similar manner, transfer lands from one class to another.

Thought should given to the definition of forest lands. Forest lands are defined primarily by
the 18% slope rule. Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, prohibits the classification
of lands of the public domain eighteen percent (18%) in slope or over as alienable and
disposable. Yet there have already been instances when there have been exceptions
declared and it is likely that there are more such areas. For example, Presidential Decree

14
No 1998 of 1985 declared that in the Provinces of Cebu and Benguet, lands with 18%
slope or more were still to be declared alienable and disposable if they met any or all of
the following criteria:
• developed area planted to agricultural crops using effective erosion control
practices or measures like terracing; and/or
• established and developed townsite within barangays or communities where basic
structures, e.g., roads, schools, church are already existing.

Also Presidential Letter of Instruction of 1982 No. 1262 provided that there should be a
Sub-Classification of Forest Land Committee tasked to establish a set of criteria for the
selection and definition of specific classification schemes for forest and other public lands.
Land classification is currently the responsibility of NAMRIA.

There is also the matter of strengthening the meaning of section 8 of CA 141 known as the
Public Land Act, to clarify the instances when land has clearly become private land and is
therefore beyond the necessity for classification.

The need to review the method of classification of forest lands is a serious issue as a large
number of people are living within what is regarded as forest in areas which have for many
years been established agricultural and residential areas. These people cannot currently
obtain a secure title. The issue will be further considered in the forthcoming study on forest
boundaries.

3.1.3 Public Land Disposition

There are a number of ways by which public land may be converted to privately owned
land. A graphical illustration of the various processes is shown in Figure 1. The principal
methods are those provided by CA 141, the Public Lands Act, but another means is
provided in the CARP law, RA 6657 where, in addition to private lands, certain public land
may be transferred to farmer beneficiaries. Other laws related to land disposition are Act
496, the Land Registration Act, Act 2259, the Cadastral Act and PD1529, the Property
Registration Decree which provide for the registration of lands claimed as private property
and which are dealt with under the heading “Confirmation of Imperfect Title”.

CA 141

C.A. No. 141, as amended, was enacted by Congress in 1936, on the basis of the 1935
Constitution. Its provisions are basically the same as the first Public Land Act of 1903 (Act
926) and the second Public Land Act of 1919 (Act No. 2874). It could be said that the
provisions of C.A. No. 141 are almost a century old. Two constitutions have already been
promulgated since 1935, but Congress has yet to pass a Public Land Act based on the
1987 Constitution. There have been various attempts to introduce a new Act but all have
failed to achieve the passage through Congress. There is currently a Bill before Congress
but this Bill does not introduce any major changes and only contains incremental
amendments.

By virtue of s.11 of CA 141 public lands can be disposed of only as follows:

• For homestead settlement;
• By sale;
• By lease; and
• By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By judicial legalisation
(b) By administrative legalisation (free patent).

15

Alienation of Lands of Public
Domain to Private
Ownership
(Administrative)
DENR CA 141
Processed through DENR
Disposition of A&D lands of
the Public Domain
Applications for grant for
Applications for purchase
land settlement
Survey by DENR (private
practice)
Survey verification and
records by DENR
Administrative
Administrative adjudication
adjudication. Grant to
following auction. Subject to
applicant subject to
conditions
conditions
Homestead Patent Sales Patent
Figure 1
ORIGINAL LAND TITLING SYSTEM
Confirmation of existing
Certification of Indigenous
rights to title based on Comprehensive Agrarian
People’s
evidence of ownership Reform Program
Rights
(Judicial) (Administrative)
(Administrative)
SC & LRA PD1529, Act DAR RA6657
NCIP RA8371
496, Act 2259
Processed thru SC & LRA Processed through DAR Processed through NCIP
Rights to Indigenous
Rights to those who claim to Distribution of Ownership to
Communities/People who
have established ownership landless farmers and
claim to have established
of land Settlement
ownership of land
Applications for title by
Voluntary Compulsory
possession in composition with
the State Petition by ICC/IP to NCIP
Application for
for Delineation of
Identification and
Application to SC by Application to SC by Applications to DENR by Ancestral Domain or
Delineation of Ancestral
claimant DENR landless farmers Delineation by NCIP with
Land
consent of ICC/IP
Survey by DENR (private Survey by DAR (private
Survey by private practice Survey by NCIP (DENR) Survey by NCIP (DENR)
practice) practice)
Survey verification and Survey verification and Survey verification and
records by LRA/DENR records by DENR records by DENR
Administrative adjudication
Judicial adjudication by Judicial adjudication by Administrative adjudication- Administrative Administrative
to ownership claimants by
RTC/MTC RTC/MTC DAR adjudication - NCIP adjudication - NCIP
possession
Certificate of Land Certificate of Ancestral Certificate of Ancestral
Free Patent Decree Decree
Ownership Award Domain Title Land Title
Records kept by LRA and ROD
CT prepared by ROD
Land is private land within the Title
Registration System
16
The Homestead Patent is a form of holding that was introduced in the first Public Lands
Act and has now become largely obsolete and inappropriate. The process for disposition is
tedious and the conditions attaching to the holding are overly restrictive2.

The following lands may be the subject of sale or lease:

a) agricultural lands;
b) lands for residential, commercial or industrial purposes and other similar purposes; and
c) lands for educational, charitable and other similar purposes.

In the case of a sale a sales patent will be issued. In the case of both sales and leases CA
141 specifies various conditions attaching to the holding.

Futher details on the above holdings is contained in Public Land Laws of the Philippines,
Ramon N. Casanova, Volume 2 of this report.

Administrative and judicial legalisation of imperfect title to public agricultural land partake
of the nature of statutory grant of public lands. This form of acquisition of title grant is not
found in the Constitution which provides only for grants by homestead, sale or lease.

Both free patent and judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title are dealt with
under the following heading “Confirmation of Imperfect Title”.

RA 6657

Subject to certain exemptions, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers in its
operation all lands suitable for agriculture, both private and public. Suitable lands of the
public domain may be acquired and distributed under the program.

A more detailed review of the CARP program is contained under the heading “Other
Tenures”.

3.1.4 Confirmation of Incomplete or Imperfect Title

Most of the existing and potential A&D land is already occupied on the basis of long
uncontested possession. For many of these occupiers their rights are not recognized by
formal registration of title. In Leyte, for example, it has been observed that 80% of
taxpaying landholders are not recorded in the title registration system. Despite the fact that
these people have been paying taxes based on their landholding, the official attitude of the
DENR and the Solicitor General is that the land is still public land. This attitude is held
despite both jurisprudence and statute law to the contrary and the stark reality of the
situation on the ground. Section 8 of the Public Lands Act CA141 recognises that land
which has not been classified A&D may be the subject of private rights, while section 48
recognises that persons in long term possession of agricultural land of the public domain “
shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title”. In terms of jurisprudence,
there are a number of cases establishing the principle that the occupants have acquired
real rights, though imperfect, to their lands. In several celebrated cases the Supreme Court
has ruled that, after open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under a bona
fide claim of acquisition of ownership for the period specified in the Public Lands Act, the
land, ipso jure, ceases to be part of the public domain and thus becomes private land. The
Courts have further held that the application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of
which does not affect the legal sufficiency of title3.

Given these rulings it would have been expected that confirmation of title would have been
a simple process and most landholders would have obtained a certificate of title, but this is
not the case.

2
See papers, A Revisitation of the Public Land Disposition in the Philippines, Hector Fabros and The Public Land
Laws of the Philippines, Ramon N. Casanova, Vol. 2 of this Report.
3
See e.g. Herico v. Dar, G.R. No. L-23265, 28 January 1980, 95 SCRA 437, at 443-4.

17
One of the major reasons that there has not been a completion of the formalization of title
to many of these landholdings is the problems involved in formalization processes. There
are three processes by which a formal title may be obtained – voluntary judicial
proceedings, compulsory judicial proceedings and voluntary administrative proceedings.

Voluntary Judicial Proceedings (s.48 CA 141, s.14 PD 1529)

This is open to persons who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have

been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
agricultural land of the public domain under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership
since June 12, 1945. The process involves obtaining a decree from the Court for
confirmation of the claim to title and issuance of a certificate of title. However, the time and
cost of this process is a deterrent to many claims. A claimant must engage an attorney to
represent him in the Court proceedings which are extremely time-consuming, not only
because of the number of steps involved but also because of the delays due to an
overloaded Court system and the inability of the Courts to allocate sufficient time to land
titling matters. There are also further delays and duplication of activities involved in the
investigation carried out by LRA into the matter before issue of the decree.

THE JUDICIAL TITLING PROCESS

CA 141, Act 496, PD 1529
Fig. 2

The cost stated in the above example is very conservative. Discussions with attorneys
have revealed the following as typical charges:

18
 ORIGINAL REGISTRATION BY COURT PROCESS – LEGAL EXPENSES

• Acceptance fee – P20,000 for regular sized land

• Retainer fee – about 4-5x more than the acceptance fee i.e. P80-100,000 (more if
commercial or industrial land or high-value agricultural)
• Retainer fee includes filing of the application (P10,000); completion of presentation
of evidence (P10,000-20,000); appearance for every trial or conference attended
the amount would vary – depending on where and the time required for travel;
miscellaneous costs.
• Applicant also has to pay cost of publication: P5,000-10,000 (including in the
newspaper would need at least P6,000-7,000; Gazette P1000-2000).
• Sometimes the lawyer and client would agree on a success fee (% fixed).

The other difficulty involved in the process is the period for which the possession must be
proved. The original provisions on judicial confirmation required possession for a period of
10 years. This was later extended to a period of 30 years and finally to a period
commencing June 12, 1945. Thus with every passing year it becomes more difficult for an
applicant to prove occupation and possession for the requisite period.

Apart from these difficulties, claimants are not assisted by the attitude of the Government,
which considers the land as still part of the public domain and, through the Solicitor
General, regularly opposes the granting of the decrees by the Court.

One attorney with whom this issue was discussed had also experienced the frustration of
getting to the completion of Court proceedings only to find that the applicants, despite
having occupied the land for the statutory period, could not count all that period as some of
it was prior to the land being classified.

Voluntary Administrative Proceedings (ss. 44-46 CA 141, BP 223)

In addition to the provisions enabling judicial confirmation of title based on possession, the
successive Public Land Acts have provided for the issue of a patent, known as a Free
Patent, to persons who have continuously occupied and cultivated agricultural public lands
subject to disposition, who shall have paid the real estate tax thereon, while the same has
not been occupied by any other person. In this case also, the required period of
possession has gradually increased to the current point where possession commencing 30
years prior to 28 March, 1990 must be established. What particularly distinguishes a Free
Patent from a title obtained through judicial confirmation is the conditions attaching to a
Free Patent. There is a limitation on the area that can be obtained. The Public Lands Act
specifies 12 ha., but in practice, having regard to CARP provisions, a maximum of 5 ha. is
allowed. Moreover, a Free Patent cannot be sold or mortgaged for a period of 5 years after
issue and a right of repurchase within 5 years of a sale applies, inappropriate conditions
given the period of time that the landholder has already possessed the land and not
conducive to a freely operating land market.

In 1982 Batas Pambansa Blg. 223 introduced provisions extending Free Patents to
residential lands of the public domain, although it was expressly provided that the
provisions did not apply to residential lands located in cities, in capitals of provinces, in first
class, second class, third class and fourth class municipalities, and in townsite
reservations. It was also provided that all applications for free patent should be filed on or
before December 31, 1987. This deadline has never been extended.

As can be seen, the voluntary judicial proceedings and the voluntary administrative
proceedings can operate in parallel. A claimant may, in some circumstances have the
choice of which form of process to proceed by. The problem arising from this that each
process involves different agencies and the coordination between the agencies in relation

19
to these matters has been found to be lacking so that two competing claims can be
running at once in different proceedings as the following example shows.

Land at Cavite containing 14,253 sq.m.

1. Land bought by F on 27 April 1996 under Absolute Deed of Sale.

2. On 22July 1997 F lodged a petition for registration at the Tagaytay Regional Trial Court.
3. On 23 February 1999 C lodged an application for a Free Patent over the same land.
4. On 22.May 1999, while the Court case was still pending, the Free Patent was issued.
5. F must now seek to have the Free patent set aside by the Court.

While the Free Patent process is quicker and cheaper than the judicial process, it still has
its problems as the following example shows:

Emerenciana, Barangay Catariwan, Dagami, Leyte

1. Emerenciana is 66 years old. She has lived on the same land since her birth.
2. She was always interested in getting a title because she knows it is important for
security.
3. She had tried to get a Free Patent by filing an application in the 1970s. She went
to the then District Land Office and submitted an application along with her tax
declarations. When she submitted her application she received a list of
requirements and she complied with all of them. She even planted more trees on
her property because she understood that would help her to get the patent.
Nothing has happened since. She went to follow-up the progress of her
application every few years.
4. The last time she went was last year when she went to the CENRO. She was told
that they could no longer find her file. In the list of pending cases provided by
CENRO to the PIO1-LAMP team, she was not listed.
5. Emerenciana is now part of the PIO1-Lamp judicial titling pilot at Dagami.

Compulsory Judicial Proceedings (Act 2259, ss. 35-38 PD 1529)

For lack of initiative and enthusiasm on the part of landowners, registration of land titles
under Act No. 496 has moved at a very slow pace. For this reason an innovation was
conceived to hasten and accelerate registration of lands. Thus, Act No. 2259, otherwise
known as the Cadastral Act, was enacted on February 11, 1913 for the purpose of
expediting the settlement and adjudication of titles to properties.

Following the mandate in the Act that title to lands be settled and adjudicated, the then
Director of Lands was required to conduct surveys of municipalities and cities identifying
each lot or parcel therein and marking the boundaries thereof by monuments. When the
lands have been surveyed and maps and plans prepared, a petition is filed in court against
the claimants, praying that title to such lands be settled and adjudicated. The court sets
the date of initial hearing of the petition and any person claiming interest in the land must
file their answer within the time fixed in the notice. In the trial of the case, all conflicting
interests must be adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor of persons
entitled to the lands. Such decrees are be the basis for original certificate of title which
have the same effect as those issued under Act No. 496.

The Land Registration Act (496) and the Cadastral Act (2259) both fall under the Torrens
System of land registration, the latter law being merely an innovation designed to hasten
the process of bringing lands within the System. While the proceedings in both Acts are
judicial in character and the certificates of title issued thereunder are similarly indefeasible,
yet there are points of differences between the two laws. Under Act No. 496 the survey of
the land is conducted at the instance and expense of the landowner and confined to the
area claimed by him, while under Act No. 2259 the survey is undertaken by the

20
Government which advances the expenses and covers an entire municipality. Ordinary
land registration proceedings under Act No. 496 are voluntary in nature as the filing of the
application depends upon the initiative of the landowner, while cadastral proceedings are
compulsory in the sense that the landowner is compelled to file his answer to the petition
filed by the Government, otherwise he loses his rights over the land. In proceedings under
Act No. 496, if the applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to prove ownership, the application
is simply dismissed and the applicant may still have another chance to put up a successful
claim. On the other hand, in cadastral proceedings if the claimant fails, the property is
declared public land. PD 1529 now supersedes part of the Cadastral Act.

While the concept of systematic adjudication of title was good its implementation has left
something to be desired. The surveys have never been completed, some of them have
been lost and much of the work of judicial inquiry and decree has not been carried out due
to lack of funds. Although the cost to the landowner is less than with the voluntary judicial
proceedings, the process still suffers from the delays and complications inherent in Court
processes.

As part of this study, a questionnaire was prepared (see Annexure 6) and submitted to the
Supreme Court for circulation in mid-May 2002. It was agreed that the questionnaire would
be completed within 3 weeks by the Supreme Court itself as well as the courts in Quezon
City, Leyte, Negros Occidental, Nueva Ecija, Mindanao Occidental, Mindanao Oriental,
Baguio City, Cebu and Davao City. As at the date of this report, the surveys have not been
returned. There was also a brief study by the UP Law Centre on the types of land
registration cases decided by the Supreme Court for the period 2000-2002 (refer Volume
2).

3.1.5 Other Tenures

Figure 3 shows the various land tenures available in the Philippines.

21
Figure 2
22
Certificate of Land Ownership - Agrarian Reform (RA 6657)

The position papers “Land Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory”4 and
“Land Use5” outline the history of agrarian reform laws in the Philippines. The latest
agrarian reform law is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 (RA
6657) that facilitated distribution of all agricultural lands regardless of tenure and crop and
also included provision of support services for farmer-beneficiaries. The CARL goes
further than PD27, which only covered rice and corn lands and resulted in the issuance of
Emancipation Patents.

Under the CARL, farmer-beneficiaries receive titles to the redistributed lands and these
titles are called Certificates of Land Ownership, which are registered at the Registry of
Deeds. There is an initial ten year period in which the land cannot be disposed of except
through hereditary succession, or to the government or to the LBP or other qualified
beneficiaries (Section 27, CARL).

The Department of Agrarian Reform is charged with implementation of the CARL and thus
DAR may dispose of public or private agricultural lands. The CARL specifically covers
(Section 4, RA 6657; PP 131 and EO 229):
• All A&D lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture;
• All lands of the public domain in excess of specific limits as determined by
Congress;
• All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture;
• All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon.

A landowner may retain an area not exceeding five hectares (Section 6, RA 6657).

Section 16, RA 6657: Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of
acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery
or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal
building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice
shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with
the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall
inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days
after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and
surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the
just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
for decision.
e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land
and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall
thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.

4
Land Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory, Dante Gatmaytan, Vol. 2 of this report.
5
Land Use, Myrna Feliciano, Vol. 2 of this report.

23
 f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS BY DAR VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFERS UNDER THE CARP
Section 16, RA 6657 Sections 20 & 21, RA 6657

Private land identified by DAR

Private lands identified by DAR

DAR Notice of Offer to Owners

Notice of Voluntary Transfer made by Owner to
DAR within 1 year

Owner Rejects Offer Owner Accepts Offer

Direct negotiations between Owner and

Beneficiaries

DAR Summary Administrative

Deed of Transfer by Owner to DAR
Proceedings to determine just
and surrender of Certificate of Title etc
compensation for land.
Agree on purchase price within 1 year of No agreement on purchase price within
negotiations starting 1 year of negotiations starting

DAR Decision within 30 days Voluntary Agreement for Direct Transfer between
Owner and Beneficiaries Transfer of land from Owner to the RP
“shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those
of the government's standing offer to purchase from the
landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries”

Option to Payment to Owner by LBP

LBP pays Owner the purchase price for the
appeal to
land in cash or LBP Bonds. Agreement checked by DAR within 30
Court days (deemed acceptable if no response)

DAR distributes to beneficiaries

Payment direct to Owner
DAR - immediate possession of land Payment to Owner by LBP
by Beneficiaries

DAR Issues CLOA with CLOA number

DAR Issues CLOA with CLOA number

Registration of CLOA at ROD Registration of CLOA at ROD

ROD assigns TCT number ROD assigns TCT number

Figure 4 Figure 5

Section 20, RA 6657: Voluntary Land Transfer. — Landowners of agricultural lands

subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct
transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:
(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first
year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and
qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after
one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the
government and transferred pursuant to this Act.
(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the
transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner
and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are fully known to
both parties.
(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either
party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.

Section 21, RA 6657: Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land

Transfer. — Direct payments in cash or in kind may be by the farmer-beneficiary to the
landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding
upon them, upon registration with the approval by the DAR. Said approval shall be
considered given, unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmer-beneficiary within
thirty (30) days from the date of registration. In the event they cannot agree on the price of
land, the procedure for compulsory acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply. The
LBP shall extend financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land.

Section 14, EO 229 of 1987: Collective or Individual Ownership. — For lands with multiple
beneficiaries, ownership of whole parcels or estates may be transferred to the farmer-
beneficiaries collective or individually, at the option of the beneficiaries, provided, that in
collective ownership, each beneficiary shall have an undivided share of the land held in

24
common equivalent to not more than the applicable retention limit. The beneficiaries may
collectively decide on the continued operation of the parcel/estate as a whole or to
subdivide the same into individual lots and determine the manner in which such
subdivision is to be implemented.

Land awarded pursuant to the CARL are to be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in
thirty annual amortizations at 6% interest per annum (Section 26, CARL).

A preliminary study of the lending practices of a sample of banks has shown that judicial
titles, patents and CLOAs are accorded differential treatment even when the prescribed
periods for restrictions have run their course. The judicial titles are usually accorded the
maximum allowable percentage of the appraised value whilst patents (that are free of their
restriction) may be granted loans at 10-20% less and as far as the interviewees could
recall there had not been a loan to a CLOA title holder even after the ten-year prescription
period had passed. Refer reports in Volume 2 by Attorney Berlin Berba. Parliamentary bills
in existence as at the time of the writing of this report also highlight this issue:
• Senate Bill number 1597 entitled “An Act allowing the titling of lands covered by a
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) granted under the Agrarian Reform
Program and utilizing its use as collateral for purposes of securing agricultural
loans and similar other financial, amending the pertinent provisions of Republic
Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and for
other purposes”; and
• Senate Bill number 197 entitled An Act allowing the sale, transfer, conveyance,
lease, usufruct, or mortgage of the land awarded under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, amending for the purpose Section 27 of Republic Act 6657
and for other purposes”;
• House of Representatives Bill entitled “An Act providing measures to enhance the
acceptability of agricultural lands as security for loans obtained from banks and
other financial institutions thereby promoting access to rural credit and providing
mechanisms therefore and for other purposes”.

Joint Memorandum Circular No 14 of 1997 sought to clarify the jurisdiction of DAR and
DENR in the disposition of untitled privately claimed agricultural lands. There is still an
issue of interpretation of what is to be done in the event that land is subject to a Free
Patent application or Judicial Confirmation of Title as well as DAR coverage. There are
also jurisdictional issues as to which agency should carry out the surveys.6

For procedures on disposition of public lands for CARP, refer Diagram Figure 1 on
“Original Titling”.

Some of the issues in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform program that are relevant to
land administration are that:
• Some landowners persist in filing cases for cancellation of their titles;
• After farmer-beneficiaries have received their CLOA titles, some landowners
employ extra-legal methods to block access to the land;
• Some landowners seek to avoid program coverage by applying for conversion of
their lands from agricultural uses. This matter of reclassification by local
government units and conversion by some DAR officials is further discussed in
the section on ‘Land Transactions’;
• There have been accounts of Registries of Deed losing their copy of the
landowner’s Certificate of Title and the landowners refusing to apply to the courts
for reconstitution of title. The effect being that the program cannot proceed.
• In spite of section 24 of the CARL stating that a CLOA is a title, the Supreme
Court has not held CLOA titles in the same regard as other titles (refer position
paper “Land and Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory”).

6
“Breaking the Barriers: Distributing Untitled Privately-Claimed Agricultural Lands: A
National Forum”, UNAC, AR-Now and SALIGAN, 28 June 2002, ISO Conference Room,
Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.

25
 • Valuations of land by the Land Bank of the Philippines have often been the
subject of appeals to the courts by the landowners.
• CLOA holders have limited options to obtain credit. This is apparently related to
the restriction on disposition as well as the various restrictions as set out in RA
3844 as amended by RA 6389, PD 27 as amended by EO 228 and 229 and as
subsumed in RA 6657.

Indigenous People’s Tenures RA 8371 (IPRA)

IPRA provides for the recognition of indigenous people’s rights through the issue of titles
known as Certificates of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and Certificates of Ancestral
Lands Title (CALT). The IP titles would provide priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains (Section
57 IPRA). Areas within the ancestral domains shall be presumed to be communally held
(Section 55 IPRA). This provision leaves some flexibility for IPs to further define rights
within their ancestral domains in accordance with customary laws.

For the purpose of title issue IPRA requires the Ancestral Domains Office to undertake
surveys to delineate the perimeters of ancestral domain lands and those parcels of
ancestral lands which are not within ancestral domains. At this stage the only guidelines
for such surveys are those in DENR AO 98-12 which prescribe surveys to an order of
accuracy which is not appropriate for IP lands. Compliance with the existing guidelines
would make the time and cost of carrying out such surveys unrealistic. The main
requirement should be that the plans of the land surveyed should be capable of being
integrated into the national mapping system and copies of the plans should go to the
agencies such as DENR and LRA.

According to PAFID, which is a non-government organisation for indigenous peoples, they

have surveyed about 1 million hectares of indigenous people’s (IP) lands in the last 8-9
years. They surveyed these for the purposes of the CALC’s and CADC’s and at the time it
was sufficient to use GPS surveying methods. But now with the matter of issuing CADT’s
and CALT’s, there is the problem that the Survey Manual and guidelines administered by
the Land Management Bureau do not have the flexibility to accept these surveys that were
done with mapping-grade GPS. The considerable cost of re-surveying these 1 million
hectares (and other unsurveyed IP lands) by conventional surveying methods raises the
issue of whether the Survey Manual and guidelines need to be reviewed to address the
need to efficiently and effectively survey rural and IP lands that tend to be of lower value
than urban centres.

The Act also requires that the resulting CADT and CALT be registered with the Register of
Deeds. This is a necessary and appropriate step for the purposes of creating a single
record of all interests in land. However, it has been suggested that CADT and CALT
should be recorded in a separate register from the normal Torrens Title register. This
would be an unnecessary step and against the principle of having a single and
comprehensive register.

In addition to the CADT and CALT, RA 8371 gives to individual members of cultural
communities the option of securing title to their ancestral lands under CA 141 or Act 496.
For that purpose, the individually owned ancestral lands which are agricultural in character
and actually used for agricultural, residential, pasture and tree farming purposes, including
those with a slope of 18% or more, are classified as alienable and disposable agricultural
lands. This is an extension of the rights previously granted under CA 141.

Fisheries Tenures (PD 704)

If the Secretary of DENR decides that certain land is not suitable for forestry or agriculture
then it can be released for other uses such as fisheries. Land deemed suitable for fisheries

26
is placed in the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Bureau. If it originated from forest or public land
then it remains so and will revert back when it is no longer used for fisheries.

Fisheries leases are conditional and usually for a term of 25 years with option to renew for
further 25 years. There were instances prior to 1972 when fisheries tenants could apply for
a free patent. PD 43 and PD 704 prohibit disposition of public lands through sale of fish
farms i.e. only leases. A representative of the Fisheries Bureau explained that some
fisheries lessees have been able to obtain free patents by connivance at CENRO and
PENRO levels.

Pursuant to the Local Government Act, jurisdiction over shores and shorelines devolved
away from the Fisheries Bureau to LGUs. LGU jurisdiction stretches out 15 km from
shoreline – after that, it is Fisheries Bureau jurisdiction. Conditions of leases are for
preservation of forests and lands up to 20m from the shore but some tenants only leave a
1m buffer zone and there is seldom proper bank protection.

Once an application for a fisheries permit is received, there is a need for survey which in
turn has to be approved by DENR. There is also a requirement for Environment
Compliance Certificate from CENROs (these unofficially charge up to P20,000 or even
P50,000). Now, instead of ECC an exemption may be issued if there is an existing fish
farm and on condition it does not unduly harm the environment.

Mineral Tenures

Mineral lands are a classification of land referred to in the Constitution.

The Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942) states that (Section 4) Mineral resources are
owned by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and processing thereof
shall be under its full control and supervision. Section 4 also provides that the State shall
recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral
lands as provided for by the Constitution.

Section 5 of RA 7942 states that when the national interest so requires, such as when
there is a need to preserve strategic raw materials for industries critical to national
development, or certain minerals for scientific, cultural or ecological value, the President
may establish mineral reservations upon the recommendation of the Director of the Mines
and Geosciences Bureau through the Secretary of DENR. Mining operations in existing
mineral reservations and such other reservations as may thereafter be established, shall
be undertaken by the DENR or through a contractor.

Section 26 of RA 7942 provides for various modes of mining agreement. A mineral

agreement grants to the contractor the exclusive right to conduct mining operations and to
extract all mineral resources found in the contract area. In addition, the contractor may be
allowed to convert his agreement into any of the modes of mineral agreements or financial
or technical assistance agreement covering the remaining period of the original agreement
subject to the approval of the Secretary.

Mining leases previously created under EO 279 may be converted into mining
agreements.

RA 7942 also provides for various forms of permit, which are of lesser duration.

Forestry Tenures

There are numerous tenures created under the Forestry Code and subsequent
Administrative Orders. These are:

a) Plantation Integrated Management Agreement – given to plantation owners for a small

administrative cost. E.g. a lease for 25 years and extendable based on performance.

27
b) Timber Licence Agreement – natural forest, now in second cycle of cutting and some
have plantations within the TLA parameters. Most of the TLA’s can apply for an IFMA
subject to regulations, for 25 + 25 years.
c) Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreements – for grazing. Also 25 + 25 years or
sometimes less –
d) Community Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), which is “a production
sharing agreement designed to ensure that participating communities enjoy the
benefits of sustainable utilization, management and conservation of forestlands and
natural resources therein;
e) Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC), which are contracts awarded to individuals
or families actually occupying or tilling portions of forest lands; and
f) Certificate of Ancestral Domain/Land Claim-Community Based Forest Management
Agreement (CADC-CBFMA or CALT-CBFMA), which are holders of ancestral
domains/land claims who wish to participate in the program.

The history of the various social forestry programs is set out in the position paper “Land
Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory”, Volume 2 of this report.
Urban Land Reform and Informal Settlements (PD 1517; Urban Land Rules; PD 757;
PD 7279)

As set out in the position paper on “Land Use”7, there is a range of programs under the
Urban Land Rules to convey public and private lands to the urban poor that are
alternatives to land purchase and expropriation such as:

a) Land Assembly which refers to the acquisition of lots of varying ownership through,
among others, expropriation or negotiated purchase, for the purpose of planning and
development unrestricted by individual property boundaries.

b) Land Banking which refers to the acquisition of land in advance of actual need for the
purpose of acquiring lands at existing use value and disposing them in a manner
which would influence land price formation and promote planned development. The
Ministry may acquire land through land purchase, land exchange or expropriation.

c) Land Exchange which refers to the process of bartering land for another piece of land
and/or shares of stock of equal value in government or quasi-government corporation.
Upon initiative of either the private party or the Ministry, it may be effected subject to
the availability of government land for the purpose.

d) Joint Venture which refers to the commitment, for more than a limited duration, of
funds, land resources, facilities, and services by two or more legally separate interests,
to an enterprise for their mutual benefit. The arrangements may provide for a sharing
of management responsibilities according to equity contribution through the creation of
subsidiary development or management corporation.

e) Land consolidation or readjustment which refers to the pooling of individual lots for the
purpose of development and replotting, unrestricted by individual property boundaries,
and according to an approved development plan. The Ministry may undertake land
consolidation or readjustment for portions of an urban zone upon petition of at least 50
percent of the landowners holding an interest on the land area. It may, likewise,
encourage and assist private landowners in undertaking land consolidation or
readjustment on their own and to organize themselves for this purpose.

“Land Use” elaborates that there are other innovative land disposition techniques such as
neighborhood-ownership, residential freeholds, reservation of development rights, and
tenure in improvements. In case of disposition through the neighborhood ownership
technique, new or existing neighborhood associations may be organized for the purpose of
assuming collective responsibility for the management and administration of neighborhood
units and for the collection and amortization of land payments. Residential freehold is a
7
Land Use; Myrna Feliciano, Vol. 2 of this report.

28
grant of residential land within an urban zone made by the State upon compliance with
development use and related conditions. Tenure in improvements is a system whereby the
Ministry retains title to certain parcels of land while enabling occupants to own occupant-
introduced improvements on such as dwelling units.

Expropriation by the government is done by filing a petition before the Regional Trial Court
and deposit of the amount equivalent to ten percent of the declared assessment value of
the land in 1975 with the Philippine National Bank.

PD 1517 (Section 18) and the Urban Land Rules (Rule XII, Section 42) seek to ensure and
encourage private participation in land development and management activities, the
Government, with appropriate public and private agencies shall develop program which
will mobilize land development funds from private individual groups, government financial
institutions, joint public-private ventures, and private financial institutions.

The Urban Land Reform Law depends on the President to issue proclamations
designating specific parcels or urban and urbanizable lands for urban land reform. Within
these zones, right of first refusal is given to legitimate tenants who have resided there for
ten years or more.

Certificates of Title to the Poor

PD 757 (National Housing Authority) and RA 7279 (Socialized Housing) provide for the
issuance of Certificates of Title to the Urban Poor. As illustrated by the following diagram,
which was prepared by the Land Registration Authority, some are handled by the National
Housing Authority and others by the Housing and Urban Development and Coordinating
Council (HUDCC). The diagram sets out the steps in the processes. In the socialized
housing program, housing is purpose-built for the urban poor and funds are provided on
loan for the purchase of these units. To qualify for socialized housing, the applicant
(Section 16, RA 7279):
(a) Must be a Filipino citizen;
(b) Must be an underprivileged and homeless citizen, as defined in Section 3 of this
Act;
(c) Must not own any real property whether in the urban or rural areas; and
(d) Must not be a professional squatter or a member of squatting syndicates.

The Community Mortgage Program is a means for informal communities to establish

registered associations and apply for mortgage funds by which to purchase public or
private lands for the said association. Repayment may take place over 25 years. Titles to
individual parcels are transferred to the individual owners as and when they have paid up
their agreed mortgage repayment.

The proposed reforms to the land administration system could assist the urban poor and
landowners in so far as:
• Reviewing the classification system to enable the location of more A&D lands.
• Streamlining of the land registration system into an efficient and low-cost
administrative process.
• Encouraging landowners to enter into lease agreements with the informal settlers
rather than have the time for prescription begin to run against them.
• Raising the sensitivity of the system to the reality on the ground and therefore
building the integrity of the register.

29
 Figure 5

3.1.6 Land Registration

There are at present two basic systems of land registration prevailing in the Philippines —
the Torrens system and the system of registration for unregistered lands. The registration
system under the Spanish Mortgage Law was discontinued with the issuance of
Presidential Decree No. 892 in 1976 and all lands recorded under this system which were
not yet covered by Torrens titles were considered as unregistered lands. Less than half of
the available A&D lands are formally titled and recorded in the Torrens System. Of these
lands it is known that some subsequent transactions are not recorded in the ROD’s.
Similarly, many transactions with unregistered land are not formally recorded.

In addition to the individual voluntary applications for registration of land parcels, in many
countries the land registry has been proactive in trying to bring all land into the title
registration system. This has been due to the recognition of the public benefit in a secure
title and the Government benefit in having a complete record of all land holdings. An
example of this has been the practice, whenever a transaction with unregistered lands is
presented for recording, of using this opportunity to convert the land to the title registration
system. In the Philippines, possibly because of the difficulties imposed by the judicial
processes, the Land Registration Authority has not engaged in titling activities other than
to register whatever is lodged with it for that purpose. The only proactive titling activities
are those which can be undertaken under the Cadastral Act No. 2259, which are initiated
by the DENR through the Director of Lands. However, although many Municipalities have
been surveyed, little action has been undertaken to issue titles.

30
The Torrens System

Although the Torrens System was developed in Australia, the legislation for the Torrens
System in the Philippines came via the U.S.A., as it was a copy of the legislation adopted
in Massachusets. The American version of the legislation was similar in many respects to
the version that was developed in Australia and adopted in many other countries, but with
one major difference. The American version required the intervention of the Courts in the
title registration process, whereas the system adopted in other countries did not. This
requirement for time-consuming and expensive processes has ultimately led to the demise
of the Torrens system in most of America and has contributed to the informality and lack of
coverage of the system in the Philippines. The cost of these proceedings places
registration beyond the reach of many landholding Filipinos, while the delays contribute to
the lack of credibility of the system. An example of the process was shown in Fig.1.

The requirement for judicial determination is not confined to original registration. It includes
matters such as reconstitution of lost original titles, replacement of lost duplicate titles,
removal of notifications on administratively reconstituted titles and correction of errors
(including even minor clerical errors) on titles. In enacting these requirements the
Philippines made a major departure from the original aim of the Torrens System, which
was to provide a simple, inexpensive administrative process. A comparison of systems in
countries in the region shows the following:

COUNTRY REGISTRATION PROCESS

Thailand Administrative
Malaysia Administrative
Indonesia Administrative
Cambodia Administrative
Laos Administrative
Philippines Judicial and Administrative

The situation in relation to the reconstitution of titles is compounded by the fact that the
Supreme Court has ruled that the register of deeds is not the proper party to file a petition
for reconstitution because under R.A. 26, petitions for reconstitution may be filed only by
the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property8. As a
result of this ruling, landowners whose titles were lost or destroyed in the office of the
registers of deeds are forced to file the petition for reconstitution. Since the loss or
destruction of the certificates of title occurred in the office of the register of deed without
the fault of the titleholder it does not seem reasonable that reconstitution proceedings must
be initiated by the owner.

A key feature of the Torrens System is the insurance principle, whereby any person who
suffers a loss through the operation of the system can be compensated out of a fund
established under the system and known as the Assurance Fund. In many Torrens Title
jurisdictions, the law has been changed to provide more flexible arrangements and allow
the Fund to operate more freely on an insurance basis, thereby increasing public
acceptance and confidence in the system. However, in the Philippines the Assurance
Fund is clearly not working and there are moves afoot to try and introduce private title
insurance. This is a very costly alternative to an Assurance Fund and should not be
necessary in a properly functioning Torrens System. The problems with the existing
fund essentially relate to:
(i) The outdated and unrealistic cap on the amount to be retained in the Fund (P
500,000) and the fact that any amount beyond this must be paid out of funds
available in the Treasury and not otherwise appropriated, which would require
Congressional approval;
(ii) The limitations on the liability of the Fund under PD 1529, compared with that
obtaining previously under Act 496;

8
Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. Regional Trial Court of Malabon (181 SCRA 788)

31
(iii) The limitations on the amount and source of funds to maintain the Assurance
Fund; and
(iii) The necessity for a Court determination even in clear cut cases of liability.

One other feature of the Torrens system in the Philippines which distinguishes it from
Torrens Title systems elswhere, particularly modern Torrens systems, is the inclusion of a
technical description (otherwise known as a metes and bounds description) in the
certificate of title. Under the Torrens system the land in a certificate of title is normally
defined by a plan on public record and no technical description is necessary as the land is
described by reference to the plan and the title may sometimes show a diagram based on
the plan. Experience has shown that technical descriptions are not readily understood by
lay people and that they are tedious to produce and prone to error.

The Land Registration Authority is currently undertaking a Land Titling Computerisation

Project to automate its title registration and records management systems. In order to
facilitate and support the new systems the LRA is currently considering various changes to
the land registration laws.

The Torrens System and Prescription

Many of the original Torrens Title statutes adopted in countries throughout the world
prohibited the acquisition of title to Torrens Title land by adverse possession or
prescription. Other countries with title registration e.g. England have always permitted
prescription. However, many of the countries that originally prohibited prescription have
since changed their basic Torrens Title laws to permit the acquisition of title by this means.
They have done this because they have recognised that, over the years, many parcels of
Torrens Title land have fallen into the ownership of persons who acquired the land, either
by taking possession of abandoned land or by informal transfer. In either case the
ownership could not be recorded in the Registry records and the land would remain
outside the official system unless a change was made in the law. Given the public benefit
in bringing this land back into the system, changes were made in the law to accommodate
this. It seems clear that in this country registered land is changing hands by informal
transactions, largely due to the disincentives to registration such as fees and taxes. If the
Torrens Title register in the Philippines is to accord with the reality of actual landholdings
on the ground, such a change will be necessary.

It is recognised that while many countries allow prescription over land as a means of
stabilising property rights and quieting titles and there is a need in the Philippines to bring
the Register into line with reality, there is also a need to avoid the encouragement of
squatting. Accordingly it is suggested that prescription should only apply in cases where
possession has already commenced and that there should be a period of grace before the
law takes effect in order to enable registered owners of land under adverse possession to
recover the land if they so .

Leases and Prescription

The common concern about the concept of prescription expressed in consultations has
been that this may encourage squatters and challenge private titleholders. The arguments
about the merits of choosing reality and the importance of prescription for maintaining the
integrity of the register have been set out in the section on “The Torrens System and
Prescription” above.

According to Urban Poor Associates, urban informal settlers desire access to security of
tenure for shelter and that this need not translate only into full ownership and title. UPA
related instances when informal settlers on public lands were able to come to agreement
with the government for long-term (15 year) leases.

It is of course understandable that private landowners would be reluctant to give up their

32
titles and their full ownership. This is the issue at the heart of landowners’ concerns about
prescription. Since it is also understood that what urban squatters desire most is security
of tenure in whatever form, then a suggested “win-win” situation would be for landowners
to enter into long-term leaseholds agreements with the informal settlers on their land. This
would overcome concerns about transfer of ownership due to prescription because the
landowner can rest secure that the period for prescription would not run for the duration of
the leasehold agreement, whilst the informal settlers would become legitimate tenants with
the security of long-term leasehold tenure.

The Torrens System and Qualified or Provisional Titles

The concept of the qualified or provisional certificate of title has been used in many
countries in the region (Malaysia, Singapore, Laos, Australia) as a means of quickly
bringing lands within the registration system in situations where:
• the title may not have been fully investigated;
• the period for acquisition of a title may not have run, or
• the land may not be accurately defined by survey.

It means that a title can the issued, the land is included in the public record and it can be
dealt with and be the subject of transactions that can be recorded in the register. It simply
does not carry with it the same degree of indefeasibility as a normal registered title, a fact
which is made clear on the title. However, such a title can be capable of maturing into an
ordinary registered title. If the qualifications relate to title, such as incomplete or unclear
title, the title can become clear through lapse of time and the application of the laws on
possession and prescription under the Civil Code. If the qualification relates to imprecise
definition of boundaries, the title can be cleared by the lodgment of a plan of survey
defining the boundaries. In the meantime, the title carries a clear warning about its nature
so that persons wanting to deal with that land by way of purchase, mortgage etc. have to
make additional searches and inquiries and cannot rely on the face of the register.

There are a number of possible situations in which the concept could be used in the
Philippines to bring land into the registration system. One example would be where
transactions with unregistered land are lodged for registration. The opportunity could be
taken at that time to create a qualified title for that land under what would be a virtual
compulsory registration process. Thus unregistered parcels would progressively be
brought within the registration system.

The System for Recording of Transactions with Unregistered Land

Transactions involving lands originally registered under the Torrens system may be
registered only under that system while transactions affecting lands originally registered
under the Spanish Mortgage Law at the time it was still in operation could only be recorded
under that law. Under this situation, no provision was made with respect to transactions
involving lands which had neither been registered under the Torrens system nor the
Spanish Mortgage Law. To fill this gap in the law, a system of registration for unregistered
lands was provided. This system applies to land, the ownership of which is not yet settled
in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Holders of such lands base their claims on tax
declarations or deeds of conveyance from individuals who themselves did not have title
thereto from the government. Hence, what may be registered are the instruments affecting
unregistered lands.

The provision on the system of registration for unregistered lands was originally found in
Section 216 of the first Administrative Code and later carried over as Section 194 of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Subsequently, amendments were introduced by Act
Nos. 2837 and 3344. At present, the law on the matter is found in Section 113 of P.D.
1529.

33
As originally conceived only instruments or deeds establishing, transmitting,
acknowledging, modifying or extinguishing rights with respect to unregistered lands
wherein the parties have agreed to have the same registered under Act 3344 could be
admitted for record. In other words, this system of registration was applicable exclusively
to voluntary instruments resulting from the agreement of the parties. The law found no
application to involuntary transactions. Thus, it was held that a sheriff’s deed conveying
unregistered land that had been sold under execution was not registerable under this
system9. However, under Section 113 of P.D. 1529, by express provision thereof, “tax
sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other instruments in
the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form
sufficient in law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this section.”

As the law now stands, both voluntary and involuntary instruments involving unregistered
lands may be recorded under this system of registration. Registration is designed to bind
third parties through constructive notice. However, the law itself declares that “any
recording made under this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better
right.” Under this situation an earlier unregistered instrument prevails over a later
instrument notwithstanding registration of the latter. The rule of preference to the one of
two deeds which is first recorded, contained in Article 1544 of the Civil Code, does not
apply to unregistered land.10 The constructive notice resulting from registration is effective
and binding only to future and subsequent dealings on the land. In short, registration does
not afford full protection and the inducement to registration is less.

Issues in Land Registration

Facilitation Fees

A preliminary study was conducted as part of the general PA-LAMP project to describe the
experiences of six randomly selected people who had followed through the steps in the
legal procedures in the transfer of title. Refer report “Transfer of Titles: Realities on the
Ground”11 Vol.2 of this report.

All six experienced the necessity to pay facilitation fees for different steps in the procedure,
which spans the Assessor’s Office (LGU), the Treasurer’s Office (LGU), the Bureau of
Internal Revenue and the Registry of Deeds. Of this sample, one received the transfer in
two weeks while another interviewee took two years (after refusing to pay a facilitation fee)
and finally succeeded only because of a letter of plea to the President’s Office. All
experienced the need to do “follow-up” and all in the sample experienced the need to pay
facilitation fees at some stage of the process. The report concludes: “While none of the
four principal offices is free of corruption, respondents cite the Registry of Deeds as
meriting special attention in terms of the facilitation fee system”.

3.1.7. Land Transactions

Reclassification and Conversion

Land transactions are affected by the land classifications that have been applied to
different areas.

At this point it is useful to point out that there is a distinction between reclassification and
conversion. Dante Gatmaytan explores these in more detail in his position paper Land and
Tenure Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory, Vol. 2 of this report.

9
Williams vs. Suñer, 49 Phil. 534
10
Cruz, et al. V. Espino, 56 O.G. 47, Nov. 21, 1960, CA.
11
Isles, Carlos “Transfer of Titles: Realities on the Ground”, Report for PA-LAMP, June 2002

34
According to AO20 of 1992, all irrigated lands for rice and other crop production or within
areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture (DA)
and National Irrigation Administration (NIA) shall not be available for conversion from
agricultural land classification.

As set out in the position papers by Ernesto Mendiola12, Dante Gatmaytan13 and Myrna
Feliciano14, there are a variety of ways in which reclassification and conversion can take
place. On top of all these would be the reclassification and zoning ordinances of Local
Governments, which the Constitution authorizes through the Local Government Code to
have local autonomy and mandates Congress to enact a local government code, the task
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to delineate forest
boundaries from the alienable and disposable lands, and the role of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) to convert agricultural lands to other uses (Sec 65 of RA 6657,
Executive Order 129-A, Series of 1987, Administrative Order No.12. Series of 1994). R.A.
No. 7160, the Local Government Code (1991) empowers cities and municipalities to
reclassify agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses where 1) the land has ceased to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the
department of agriculture or 2) the land shall have substantially greater economic value for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes as determined by the Sanggunian
concerned, provided that such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage
of total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance: 1) for highly
urbanized and independent component cities fifteen percent (15%); 2) for component cities
and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and for fourth to six class
municipalities, five percent (5%). R.A. 7160, also provides that the local government units
(LGUs) shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective
comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) enacted thru zoning ordinances which shall be the
primary and dominant bases for future use of land resources. Although there are maximum
percentages in the Local Government Code, there is ambiguity as to how often these
reclassifications may take place. As Gatmaytan highlighted, there have been instances
when local government officials and DAR officials have benefited from their power to
authorize reclassifications and conversions respectively.

Executive Order No. 648, Series of 1981, as amended by Executive Order No. 90, series
of 1986, empowered the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to review,
evaluate and approve or disapprove land use plans of cities and municipalities. They also
authorize HLURB to prescribe the standards and guidelines governing the preparation of
land use plans, to monitor the implementation of such plans and to adjudicate and settle
the dispute among local government units, over their land use plans and zoning
ordinances, as well as over subdivisions, condominiums and other estate development
projects. R.A. 7279, the Urban Development and Housing Act, reaffirms the above powers
and functions of the HLURB. As pointed out by Ernesto Mendiola and Myrna Feliciano’s
papers, there is a range of agencies engaged in land use planning activities. For instance,
DENR on forest and alienable lands of the public domain, the DAR on all public and
private agricultural lands, the LGUs in all kinds of lands within their territorial boundaries,
and the HLURB. A resulting problem is lack of coordination of the data created by the
various government agencies and therefore a lack of accurate base maps to inform
decision-making by these and other agencies that affect tenures and the contents of land
ownership rights.

3.2 Informal or Extra-legal Infrastructure

A preliminary study was made of:

1. The way in which informal settlement communities were established and the way
they recorded occupation; and
2. Possible alternative methods to identify these possessors.

12
Land Use Regulation and Control
13
Land Tenure and Rights in the Philippines: Terrain and Trajectory
14
Land Use

35
The overall aim of this preliminary study was to determine whether there are sources of
data about occupation (apart from traditional sources such as tax declarations) that are
available from among the informal communities themselves or from other outside sources
that could be used to determine type of possession and length of possession with a view
to supporting the formalisation and titling of their rights.

Background

(a) Urban Areas

In the Metro Manila area alone, figures as at 1995 indicate an estimated 2.4-2.5 million
squatters (UPA, 1995) and that 55% of those living in urban areas are living below the
poverty line (NHA, 1994).

The Barangays in the urban areas studies are part of the Prototype 1 of the LAMP. One is
the Barangay Holy Spirit and the other the Barangay Payatas.

Meetings were conducted with local leaders in urban and rural barangays to explore the
history of their informal settlement and the existence of records (if any) of the possessors
and subsequent possessors in their settlement. The following are accounts of the history
of these settlements as related by the local leaders and senior residents who attended the
consultation meetings.

Barangay Holy Spirit

The area now known as Barangay Holy Spirit was previously Friar Lands and known as
Lot 805. The community first moved to the area in 1977/1978. These were mostly
veterans who had been granted these plots of land to plant crops and to build a house
pursuant to a residential use permit, so these were not titles as such. This was part of the
Green Revolution proclaimed by Imelda Marcos through the Bureau of Forest Land of that
time. Although this area was meant to be exclusively for veterans and came to be called
Veterans Village. There was an organisation called the Veteran’s Association (hereinafter
the ‘VA’). Commander Bunggay was the leader of the VA and had the discretion to
apportion the lands in the area. He had a map of the area and a register of members of the
VA.

Some veterans sold their rights to use the land to non-veterans. They sold their land with
an instrument known as a Deed of Rights. Only the buyer and the seller would have a
copy of the Deed of Rights.

Villa Mololes is one area in the Veteran’s Village where there is a developer who claims to
have titled the area for subdivision and some residents of the area have photocopies of a
title on the subdivision but there is no technical description. There are records of the
mother-title at LRA and BIR but none at DENR and DENR would have had to release the
land from the forestlands classification in order for it to be titled in private hands. Babes
Aquino had a case in court for 6 years to argue for the cancellation of the title but the
Regional Trial Court ruled against her.

Barangay Payatas
The first settlers to this area arrived from an informal settlement in Fort Bonifacio that they
had to vacate. The first settler was Mr Bardoguillo who found this site and encouraged his
neighbours in Fort Bonifacio to join him in the move. At the time it was classified forest
land and the government had intended to use it to construct government buildings. In fact
there was already a House of Representatives on site and very few other settlers. The
Payatas Estate was only a part of the Commonwealth Barangay that was to form the
National Government Capital Region (NGCR). The NGCR area covers parts of four
barangays: Commonwelath, Payatas, Batasan Hills and Holy Spirit.

The settlers decided where to settle by pointing out plots. There was no map at the time. In
order to work towards some security of tenure, Mr Bardoguillo organized the new settlers
into a cooperative called the Commonwealth Credit Cooperative as a step towards

36
formalizing their petition to claim the land. Eventually they were successful in being
informally declared a Barangay and appointed a Barangay committee. From that point they
were able to apply for government funds for wells, road construction and electricity but not
a school. They were able to pool their own funds to build a school. They were able to
hold the first Barangay election in 1982.

In 1983 a group of people from the Bureau of Lands under Director Argalos approached
the Barangay and stated that it is still forest land and encouraged the settlers to apply for
residential use permits. At the same time government was concerned because the area
was designated for the NGCR. Also around that time there were claimants who were not
known to the current settlers, surfaced with titles issued by the Registry of Deeds that had
been obtained based on tax declarations. Through a census process carried out under
President Aquino’s administration 18,000 families were identified on site and medium-
density housing was prepared for them at a different site but they were not prepared to
move there. Under President Estrada’s administration the east side of the NGCR was
declared alienable and disposable land. As a result of hearing about these initiatives,
many other families invaded the area. The disposition of lands was to take place through
the National Government Centre Housing Project. Under that scheme, Certificates of Lot
Assignments were to be issued by HUDCC as long as they had been surveyed and the
community had developed its mapping and development plan.

(b) Rural Areas

The rural barangays included in this study were Barangay Cabariwan, Barangay Kagawad
and Barangay Hinulogan, Dagami, Leyte. The elders interviewed could not recall the early
history of their settlements except that these settlements had existed for as long as they
could remember.

Reality

The reality is that in urban and rural areas there are methods of recognizing possession
that are community-based rather than government-based although the Barangay records
can become a bridge between the two. The rural studies indicated less of a tendency to
have written records and maps than the community groups in the urban areas.

The rural and urban studies also indicated that it is common for transfers of land to take
place in the absence of titles by informal methods or by legal methods that are not
followed through with registration.

Instruments to Assist in Proving Possession and Period of Possession

Preliminary assessment is that there are alternative sources of information from within and
outside the community about possession that could be considered:

(a) In urban areas:

• National Census – conducted every 4-5 years
• Barangay Census – conducted annually
• Barangay membership card – details such as name and nature of possession are
often required upon application for a Barangay membership card, which is
required in order to access facilities such as schools,
• Homeowners Association – list of members and their address. HA policy that all
residents of the neighbourhood becomes members and agree to inform the HA in
the event of a sale. There is a membership fee and monthly dues.
• Purok leaders are part of the Barangay structure. They are the liaison person for
up to several hundred people in their area. They would have a list of names and
sketch map of where these people live. These records are provided to the
Barangay committees.
• Utilities: About 3 – 4 years ago due to opening up of competition in utilities,
members all got access to utilities and are billed directly.

37
 • Deed of Sale – some buyers and sellers use a Deed of Sale but some may
instead use an Affidavit of Quick Claim.
• Affidavit of Quick Claim – used to describe rights over properties that are not
clearly established. It means relinquishing whatever right or claim the seller might
have.
• Community Mortgage Program – this is a method by which members of a
community who are able to organise themselves into a registered association may
enter into negotiations with government or a private owner to purchase a property
through a mortgage program. The property is then held in the name of the
registered association and transferred to the names of the individual owners as
and when they pay up their share of the mortgage. There are different
requirements depending on whether they are an on-site community or not (see
Attachments). These requirements are sufficiently exacting to be a fairly reliable
source of proof of possession qualifications to apply for ownership.

(b) In rural areas:

• Barangay census
• Barangay leaders
• Deed of Sale
• Community identification – the established nature of these rural settlements and
the relatively smaller populations means that residents in the area are usually able
to identify one another and have some knowledge of one another’s settlement
history.

38
 4. VIEWS ON CURRENT LEGAL INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1 Experience From PA-LAMP Prototypes

The prototype most affected by the legal infrastructure is PIO 1. Although it has not yet
been possible to test all titling procedures, the following issues have arisen from the
experience to date.

• The Homestead Patent has been found to have many limitations and disadvantages
as a means of systematic registration of title under LAMP.
• The Free Patent is more appropriate than the Homestead Patent but it still has
restrictions, maximum area limitations and is not applicable to most residential land. In
any event, the provisions for Free Patents have expired and cannot be used until such
time as an extension is enacted.
• Free Patent should be extended in time and it should also cover residential areas.
• Currently the only acceptable approach to systematic registration appears to be
judicial titling, which is now to be trialed, but it is still a tedious process and one which
is hard to simplify.
• The evidence of possession required in cadastral proceedings must go back to 1945.
This is an onerous requirement for most landholders.
• There are many inconsistencies between the various forms of land disposition. For
example the maximum area requirements (some of which are also inconsistent with
the Constitution) and the rights of natural born v naturalised citizens.
• There is a need to be able to implement new surveying procedures for adjudication
and subdivision. The Cadastral Act No. 2259, DENR AO 98/12 and the Manual and
Guidelines require full surveys to a high order of accuracy, which is both time
consuming and expensive. There should be scope for lower order surveys in rural
areas.
• The ROD and BIR require all documents supporting an application for a judicial decree
to be registered prior to the issue of the decree. This can be an onerous requirement
in so far as payment of taxes is concerned. It could be overcome by placing a note on
the title requiring payment prior to transfer of the land.
• The Property Registration Decree 1529 requires certificates to contain technical
descriptions, which makes title preparation tedious and prone to error. This
requirement should be withdrawn.
• The laws are too specific, too inflexible and limit operations. They include matters such
as scales of fees and the design and content of forms, which means that these matters
cannot be readily changed.
• The law does not currently provide a quick and inexpensive means of mass titling.
There should be provision for administrative confirmation of title.
• The current laws should be replaced by a Land Code. This should simple easy to read
statements of basic principles, with the detail contained in extensive Administrative
Guidelines.

4.2. Findings of Previous Studies

There have been a number of previous studies into the problems relating to land
administration. The major study bearing on the issues was the Natural Resources
Management and Development Project, which reported in 1991. Another study which
considered the issues was the study associated with the LAMP Project Preparation Report
(PPR) in 2000. Full summaries of the findings of these studies are set out in Annex. 3,
however a brief synthesis of the key findings is as follows:

NRMDP was concerned that judicial registration proceedings were overly cumbersome,
time consuming and expensive and should not be used for judicial confirmation of title.
Rather, it should be carried out by DENR. Other judicial proceedings such as amendment
of errors on title, reconstitution of lost titles etc. should also be carried out administratively.
In addition it was considered that prescription should apply to registered land and that the

39
land laws should be brought together in a code. NRMDP also made many
recommendations for improvements to the land registration system.

The LAMP PPR also recommended that consideration be given to the adoption of an
administrative process for the systematic adjudication and registration process and also for
minor corrections on certificates of title and the issuance of replacement duplicate
certificates of title. This study was concerned that the state guarantee was not working
properly in the title registration system and recommended that the Assurance Fund be
strengthened. This study also made many recommendations for improvements to the land
registration system.

4.3. Stakeholder Views

This study is significant for the wide consultation that has taken place involving many
sectors of society - civil society, public sector, private sector, academia and land
administration experts. All these groups have been involved in both individual discussions
and workshops and seminars. The proposals contained in this report are largely based on
this interaction. Details of the persons and groups with whom individual discussions were
held are contained in Annex.2. In addition, workshops were held with:
• public sector representatives;
• private sector representatives;
• civil society representatives (NGO’s);
• land administration experts;
• LAMP prototype teams,
and details of these workshops are set out in Annex. 5.

Easily discernible from the workshops was the discussants’ awareness that various
problems currently confront the system of land administration and management.
Commonly identified as problems were that there are so many antiquated laws,
procedures for getting a title being long, cumbersome, and expensive, that there are
jurisdictional conflicts as there are many agencies involved in the issuance of a title.
Moreover, the discussants point out the irony that while titles serve as instruments of land
ownership, there is a problem on the reliability and security of titles. It has been noted that
there has been a proliferation of fake and double titles and that CLOAs and patents have
been unilaterally cancelled. This latest problem more likely emanated from another
identified problem of no reliable and complete source of information.

40
 5. CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Legislative and Congressional Factors

In discussions with persons experienced in land administration and law reform a number of
people have cautioned against attempting to implement major law reform in a single
initiative. It was suggested that a piecemeal approach would have a better chance of
implementation because of the reluctance of politicians to consider and pass major
legislative items such as a new code. Certainly the history of reform of land laws does not
engender confidence in a quick passage of the laws. It is generally accepted that the
existing Public Land Act is archaic and outdated and there have been a number of
attempts to introduce new legislation. Attempts to update the Act started in the 1970’s and
continued into the 80’s and 90’s. The farthest that the revised Act reached in congress was
the third reading in the Lower House. During that session of Congress (10th) the proposed
bill was not even touched by the Senate. A similar bill has currently been in Congress for
some time without any prospect of an early finalization. Similarly, a proposed new National
Land Use Act has been before Congress for some time. Given that the present study leads
to the conclusion that greater reforms of public lands legislation are needed than those
proposed in the Public Lands Bill presently before Congress, the delays in the passage of
new legislation is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the introduction of new legislation on
a piecemeal basis is not the answer to the problem of fragmented and inconsistent laws.

5.2 Leadership Factors

Although the problems in the present system have been recognized for many years, no
change has been able to be achieved despite various attempts. Apart from the attempts to
reform the law referred to above, there was an attempt in 1991 to merge the functions of
the land administration agencies, the LRA and the LMB into one agency known as the
“Land Authority”, an attempt which failed It is clear that changes, particularly those
involving institutional change, require a champion i.e. someone who can drive the
proposed change forward to fruition. This is particularly so when the change involves the
integration of several agencies and it is difficult to get joint concurrence on the way
forward.

Fortunately there is now an agent of change in the Presidential Task Force established by
EO 82 of 2002 and this offers the best opportunity yet to achieve reform in this area of land
administration. This Task Force should be able to initiate the change process, although
other arrangements may need to be made to manage the ongoing change process.

41
 Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Fragmented Laws and Regulations Study

There is a proliferation of land laws and regulations administered by different agencies in the
Philippines that govern the administration of land. Their introduction and subsequent amendment
has occurred over a significant period of time without consideration of the resultant impacts on
existing legislation. Many of these laws and regulations are in conflict and it has been difficult to
operate an efficient and equitable land administration system under this framework. This has led to
long delays in the land registration process, jurisdictional overlap, a duplication of functions, a lack of
transparency, and confusion in the community concerning legal interpretations of the law, agency
responsibilities and mandates. The problem has a long history and the fragmented nature of the laws
and regulations has been well documented by previous projects and reports (see Section 2.1.1 and
2.1.6 and Part B: Working Papers 3 and 4). There is, however, general agreement by all the
agencies involved that rationalisation and/or consolidation of the laws and regulations is needed.
The aim of this study is to:

1. examine the land laws and regulations at a high level, evaluate their effectiveness and
appropriateness and to identify areas and options for improvements;

2. work with the senior executives of the stakeholder agencies to build consensus to a series of
recommendations for improvement and change, and to develop plans for the implementation of
that change; and

3. work with the senior executives of each stakeholder agency to start the implementation of the
changes that can be achieved within the authority level of the individual agency.
The prime objective of this study is to gain interagency agreement to the implementation of
improvements and change. The simple preparation of another report identifying recommendations
will not achieve this objective.
It has been agreed by all agencies that the lead agency for this study will be the DOJ. The results of
this study will be reported to and examined by the IACC. The Law Centre of the University of the
Philippines has a mandate concerning changes in the law and this organisation should be consulted.
This study will review and build upon the previous work undertaken on land laws and regulations,
examine and update the relevance of this work, identify options for change, determine the
implications for implementation, and specify what actions are required to ensure that the supporting
policy and legal regime meets the generally accepted criteria of good governance, equity, clarity, and
purpose. Legal and regulatory aspects which could be considered include: the broad policy
framework; land tenure instruments; mechanisms for granting, recording, trading and transferring the
rights and interests in land; avenues for speedy dispute resolution and appeals, potential areas of
legal and regulatory overlap with other land-related sectors and the principles of good governance,
equity, access, protection of the right of minority groups, and indigenous peoples.
The needs of the various stakeholder groups identified in Section 2.1.4 also need to be considered,
as do the views of de Soto (see Section 2.1.5) concerning the ‘extra-legals’ in the Philippines. The
following also need to be taken into account:

• how well does the legal and regulatory regime assist or impede the social and economic
flow of benefits resulting from land titling and land administration to the various target
groups; and
• the feasibility and cost of complying with and administering the regulatory regime.
The experience from Components 2 and 3 should provide useful input.
A possible approach to the study would be to identify and propose recommendations for change at
the broad macro-level in the first instance followed by an examination of the implications at the
micro-level. The proposals should ensure that the most critical aspects requiring legislative change
are addressed, clarity and simplicity of language is achieved, and the recommendations are
supportive of non-discriminatory policies in the land sector and structured in a flexible way so that
change is permissible at different levels.
An action plan would be developed which outlines the mechanisms, responsibilities, timeframes and
performance benchmarks for the implementation of the proposed changes in order to assess the
commitment and will of the GOP to legal and regulatory reform.

42
 Annex 1

Throughout this study, wide consultation and involvement of the stakeholder agencies and other
stakeholders such as the legal profession and the surveying profession will be necessary. It is vital
that the stakeholder agencies are involved in every step of the study so that ownership and
consensus can be developed and agreement to the areas for improvement can be reached.

43
 Annex 2

SCHEDULE OF ORGANISATIONS CONTACTED

Organisation Registry of Deeds, Leyte Date 16 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Emeterio Villanosa Deputy Register of Deeds

Organisation Department of Agrarian Reform Date 23 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Gloria Fabia Director, Bureau of Land 926 8963
Acquisition
2 Narciso Villapando Consultant 371 8872

Organisation Land Management Bureau Date 24 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Alberto Ricaldi Deputy Director, Legal Division

Organisation Cuervo Appraisers Date 26 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Federico Cuervo Chief Information Officer 631 1645

Organisation National Housing Authority (NHA) Date 29 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Josephine Angsico Director, Corporate Planning 9284961/9263523
Office

Organisation Housing Land and Urban Redevelopment Date 29 April 2002

Bureau (HLURB)
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Donna Ladao Legal Services Group 9243367/70
2 Gracia Ang Rules and Standards 9272724
Development Group

Organisation Land Registration Authority Date 29 April 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Edilberto Feliciano Deputy Administrator

Organisation Department of Fisheries Date 2 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Alfonso Alfonso Attorney, Legal Section 372 5053

Organisation National Commission for Indigenous People Date 6 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Evelyn Dunuan Chairwoman 0919 697 496

Organisation Development Bank of the Philippines Date 7 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Orlando Pineda Vice President Retail 818 9511- 3215

Organisation Forestry Management Bureau Date 8 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Neria Andin Assistant Director

Organisation LARES Date 9 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Ernesto Camarillo Business Development 0919 209 6636
Manager

44
 Annex 2

2 Nick Gibe Business Process Manager

3 Conradio Legsapi Project Director 0918 921 9949
4 Butch Bernabe Data Conversion
5 Jess Espina Data Conversion
6 Lyraliza Malern Data Conversion-LARES
(Mapping)
7 Karlo Marbella Technical Team
8 Kathy Laynoen Systems Rollout
9 Sarah Espinosa Business Process
10 Katherine Santiago Business Process
11 Rico Ersando Business Process

Organisation Taskforce Mapalad Date 9 May 2002

18C Manurong Street, Barangay Central, Q.C.
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Mabel Arias Legal Counsel 09193645246
2 Rori Fajardo Media Relations

Organisation Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre Date 14 May 2002
7, Marunong St, Central East Village, Quezon
City
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Japs Hatta Para-legal 436 1101; 9281372

Organisation Kaisahan Date 14 May 2002

3 Mahabagin Street, Teachers Village, Quezon
City
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Magistrado Mendoza Executive Director 433 0760; Fx: 926
6042; 0917 502 9803
2 Lourdes Pacuribot Attorney 0919 533 4869
3 Vincent Dancel Attorney 0917 810 6430

Organisation Green Circle Properties Date 15 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Daniel Tenefrancia Secretary 0917 838 3134

Organisation HUDCC; School of Urban Planning, UP Date 16 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Prof Asteya Santiago 9206853/4; Fx: 929
1637

Organisation Land Use Planning Consultant Date 16 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Ernesto Mendiola Land use planning consultant 0917 434 9842

Organisation LAMP TA Date 17 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Jan Van Der Kevie Surveying TA 638 8208

Organisation LARES Date 20 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Prudeno Natividad Project Manager
2 Nicanor Gibe Manager
3 Alexander Calderon Technology Manager

Organisation Supreme Court Date 20 & 21 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details

45
 Annex 2

1 Thelma Bahia Court Administrator 523 6479, 525 7196

2 Justice Presbitero Court Administrator 525 1238; Fx 523
Velasco 7385

Organisation Habitat Date 20 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Jose Mendosa Managing Director 638 8010

Organisation Land Registration Authority Date 21 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Alexander Acosta Reconstitution of Titles 9211174; 0917 536
Section 8007

Organisation Green Circle Properties Date 21 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Daniel Tenefrancia Secretary 0917 838 3134
2 Romeo Roxas Executive Director 886 0226/9
Fx: 886 0229

Organisation Register of Deeds, Paranacque Date 23 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Ramon Ramos Deputy Register 820 2587

Organisation Meeting of Experts (Sulo Hotel) Date 25 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name
1 Prof Ramon Casanova
2 Narciso Villapanda
3 Felino Cortez
4 Ernesto Mendiola
5 Ricardo Arandilla
6 Evangeline C Cruzado
Position Contact details
UP Law Centre Professor; 921 5807
former Director, Bureau of
Lands
Consultant to DAR; formerly
Bureau of Land
Development; Bureau of
Land Acquisition and
Disposition (DAR); Former
Assistant Director, Bureau of
Lands
Consultant to LAMP: Land
Titles Adviser; previously
Director of Registration, LRA
Former Commissioner and
Chief Executive Officer of
Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board.; UP Law
Centre member, Professor of
Philippine Land Laws
Former Deputy
Administrator, LRA
Deputy-Administrator, Coast
and Geodetic Surveys
Department, NAMRIA

Organisation Office of Senator Jaworski Date 31 May 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Atty Aurelio Angeles Chief, Legislative & Technical 552 6771; Fx: 552
(Joey) Grp 6776
0917 830 2287

Organisation Registry of Deeds, Leyte Date 3 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Emeferio D Villanoza Deputy-Register of Deeds

46
 Annex 2

2 Edward Pedrero Records Officer

Organisation CENRO, DENR, Palo, Leyte Date 3 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Gilbert L Mabansag LMO-III 323-3837; 323 8602

Organisation Interviews with ordinary people Date 3 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Anacorita Onglico Land claimant in Narangay Barangay Libas,
Himulogan and Bayabas, Burawen, Leyte
Dagami, Leyte
2 Teresa Ong Barangay Cabariwan, Poblacion, Town
Dagami,, Leyte proper of Dagami
3 Emerenciana Cortez Barangay Cabariwan, Barangay Cabariwan,
Dagami,, Leyte Dagami,, Leyte

Organisation DAR Date 3 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Engineer Villas Assistant Regional Director (053) 325 5139

Organisation Tacloban City Hall, Leyte Date 4 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Ralph Iriarte Chief Assessor (053) 325 7078
Fx: 321 2036

Organisation Land Bank of the Philippines, Leyte Date 4 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name
1 Norberta Paloma
2 Fiel M Pedrosa
Position Contact details
Acting Division Chief/Claims
Processing and Payment
Division
Acting Division Chief/ Field
Investigation Division

Organisation Palo Municipal Trial Court, Leyte Date 4 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Edgar Tutaan Clerk of Court

Organisation PIO1 – PA-LAMP, Leyte Date 4 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Pedro Mendiola TA counterpart to PA-LAMP on
Surveys and Mapping

Organisation Municipal Trial Court of Santa Fe Date 5 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Cristiana Hunamayor Judge 321 2938 (home)

Organisation SALIGAN Date 10 June 2002

Grd floor, Hoffner Building, Social Development
Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola
Heights, QC
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Rudy Gabasan Attorney

Organisation Community leaders, Barangay Holy Spirit Date 15 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Babes Aquino Field Enurmerator
2 Engineer Lyn Encolas President, Home Owners Asscn
3 Frank Romero President, Home Owners Asscn
4 Leisa Manangan Secretary, Manapavet

47
 Annex 2

5 Arturo Murielo (Treasurer/Spokesman,

Manapavet-6)

Organisation Community leaders, Barangay Payatas Date 15 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Montano Florida President, Sama-Sama
2 Nemita Castillo-Digura President, Roseville Home
Owners Association and
Secretary, Payatas Community
Based Association-PACOMBA
3 Lolita C Perez Purok Leader

Organisation HUDCC Date 18 June 2002

6th floor, HUDCC, Makati Avenue, Makati
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Alvin Navarro 811 4117

Organisation PAFID Date 18 June 2002

71 Malakas Street, Quezon City
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Bruce Young Mapping Section Coordinator 9274580; 9286267
0918 521 9466

Organisation Institute on Church and Social Issues Date 18 June 2002

2nd floor, ISO Bldg, Social Development
Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola
Heights, QC
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Jing Karaos 4266134-37
2 Ana Marie O. Dizon 0916 462 1586

Organisation Foundation for Development Alternatives Date 18 June 2002

Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Gil Giolagon 931 4335

Organisation PAKISAMA Date 25 June 2002

59C Salvador Street, Loyola Heights, QC
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Yvette Lopez Legal and Advocacy
Program Officer
2 Ananias Loza National President

Organisation Urban Poor Associates Date 25 June 2002

28 B.Matino Street (cnr Malumaray) Bngy
Pinyahan, Diliman, QC
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Denis Murphy Director 922 0988

Organisation Bank of Philippine Islands Date 25 June 2002

BPI Family Bank, Makati
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Ramon Felipe Lawyer 845 6925; Fx:845
6896

Organisation United Coconut Planters Bank Date 27 June 2002

UCPB Building, Makati Avenue
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Oscar Gumabay Assistant Vice-President 400 0044 & 46
Credit Appraisal & Fx: 400 0047

48
 Annex 2

Investigation Dept, Loans 0917 811 9346

Support and Services
Division

Organisation Land Management Bureau Date 28 June 2002

Plaza Cervantes, Binondo, Manila
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Engineer Concordio Director Telfx: 242 9577
Zuniga 242 0579; 243 6651

Organisation Mangyan Mission Date 28 June 2002

Bishop Finnemann Center, Calero, Calapan
City 5200 Oriental Mindoro
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 John Ong Mapping Unit (043) 288 3048;
0917 839 3558

Organisation Equitable PCI Bank Date 28 June 2002

12th floor, Tower 1, H P de la Costa Street,
Makati
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Attorney Apilado Legal Section

Organisation Land Registration Authority Date 1 July 2002

LRA Bldg, East Avenue (cnr NIA Road),
Diliman, QC
Interviewee/s Name Position Contact details
1 Edilberto Feliciano Deputy-Administrator 921 2320

49
 Annex 3

LAND ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Laws and Regulations Study

PREVIOUS LAND ADMINISTRATION STUDIES REVIEWED AND UPDATED

1. Natural Resources Management and Development Project 1991 (NRMDP)

• Legislative Framework for Reform (Natural Resources Management and

Environmental Protection Laws Sub-component) Vol. 1

• Legislative Proposal to Support Reforms in the Land Tenure System of the

Philippines (Cadastral Laws Sub-component) Vol. 1

• Legal Framework for Reform (Main Report)

• Report on Land Tenure and Titling Laws in the Philippines

2. Land Records Management and Information Systems, Feasibility Study and

Conceptual Design. TSARRD Project FAO, UN 21.8.1992

3. Guidelines for Land Allocation and Conversion – AIDAB Program of Technical

Assistance to Physical Planning in NEDA, January 1993.

4. Land Resource Planning Master Plan, April 1995

5. Agrarian Reform Communities Project

6. Land Officials Study Tour to Thailand

7. LAMP Project Preparation Report – Laws and Regulations Study, Land

Registration Study, 1999

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FINDINGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES

1. NRMDP

2. General

• Land registration statutes have not been effectively codified. The process of law
making exhibits a strong tendency to solve problems piece meal. Often laws are
passed without referring to previous legislation on related subjects.
All land registration statutes should be put together in a code. Thereafter that code
should be the only law on land registration

• Judicial registration proceedings, if at the instance of the land owner, are overly
cumbersome, time consuming and expensive.

Voluntary judicial registration proceedings, if resorted to, should be confined to lands

that are strictly under claim of private ownership acquitted through any of the following
modes:

50
 Annex 3

(a) Adverse possession or acquisitive prescription, including those held under

Spanish Titles.
(b) Accretion along the banks of the river under Article 457 of the Civil Code.
(c) Avulsion under Article 458 of the Civil Code.
(d) Change of river bed under Article 461 of the Civil Code.
(e) Formation of islands in non-navigable rivers under Article 465 of the Civil Code.
(f) Reclamation if expressly authorised by the State.
(g) Ancestral lands.

All lands not within the above enumeration should be presumed to be part of the public
domain by virtue of the Regalian Doctrine. If these lands have been in open
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession for 30 years under a bona fide claim
of acquisition of ownership, the legalisation and confirmation of imperfect title to such
lands should be removed from the Courts and transferred to the DENR which shall
exercise its quasi-judicial power in adjudicating these lands to the actual possessors.

Registered land suitable for food production is sometimes left idle and abandoned.
A subsequent occupant cannot get title as the land is protected by the provisions of the
Land Registration legislation against prescription.

Prescription should be permitted against abandoned land.

3. Specific Aspects

• Section 2, Chapter 1 of PD 1529, which conferred upon the courts of First Instance (
now RTC) exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to
lands and over all petitions filed after original registration, did not clarify that such
exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the RTC is not in its capacity as Regional Trial
Court but as a Land Registration Court. Unless this matter is clarified, there will always
be confusion on jurisdiction especially over actions and petitions subsequent to
original registration.

• Being an added burden to the Regional Trial Courts, land registration cases occupy
low priority in the Court’s calendar.
The hearing of many cases has been delegated to the Municipal Courts but problems
of low priority still occur.

• The regulations prescribing standards of accuracy for surveys of land prescribe the
same standard of accuracy for agricultural lands as they do for urban lands rendering
such surveys unnecessarily expensive and time consuming.

• PD 892 abolished the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage law and
gave holders of Spanish titles 6 months within which to file judicial petitions for the
registration of such lands under the Torrens system after which the decree prohibited
the use of Spanish titles as proof of ownership of land in land registration proceedings.
However, Section 3, Chapter 1 of PD 1529 which reproduced PD 892 is silent about
the prohibition on use of Spanish land titles in land registration proceedings, giving rise
to the interpretation that the prohibition has been repealed.
There does not seem to be any good reason why Spanish titles should not be used as
proof of ownership in land registration proceedings.

• The provisions of Section 23 of PD 1529 regarding notice of hearing is overly

circuitous. It requires publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation,
only to subsequently provide that this is unnecessary for jurisdictional purposes. Also,
actual service or service by registered mail is required to so many government officials
who do not even bother to answer or appear at the hearing.

51
 Annex 3

The preparation and dissemination of the notice of hearing could be done by the local
clerk of court instead of the LRA which could be very far away from the scene of the
action.

The publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette which does not
serve any useful purpose should be discarded and for jurisdictional purposes once in a
newspaper of general circulation should be enough.

More emphasis should be placed on service by actual delivery by registered mail to

persons whose interests are most likely to be affected by the petition, such as the
actual possessors or occupants in whatever capacity, the adjoining owners and other
persons claiming ownership or other real rights over the land applied for. Notice to
certain government officials could stand reduction.

• The requirement of Section 30 of PD 1529 regarding the issuance of a final decree of

registration by the LRA aggravates the delay in the registration process, being highly
centralised in that office.

The issuance of the final decree of registration, if it could not be eliminated, should be
transferred from the LRA to the ROD and the latter should issue it immediately after
the decision becomes final and executory.

• There is a general lack of understanding, even among some courts as to what

constitutes a registrable interest in land, or what constitutes a title that it is fit for
registration.
This is reportedly now being overcome by Continuing Legal Education for judges.

• In cadastral registration proceedings under Act No. 2259, when no person files a
cadastral answer claiming any particular lot, the courts tend to simply enter an order of
default without immediately declaring the land as public land – thus delaying the
determination of the case. Often the courts forget to subsequently declare the land as
public lands.
The new procedures for judicial titling being tested in Prototype 1 will overcome this
problem.

• The description of the land on the decree and in the original certificate of title is in
terms of numerical values of the bearings and distances of each corner, which is not
only unnecessary but also cumbersome to the clerical staff. Besides, land owners and
persons who deal with the land are mostly laymen who do not understand such
numeric values.

The description of the land in the certificate of title should be abbreviated by doing
away with the numerical technical description. A reference to the lot number, block
number and the CAD, PLS, PSC, ASS, PSU, PSD, CSD, CCN, etc. and the boundings
should be enough, provided there is adequate survey data support from the DENR or
LRA.

• Conveyances submitted to the ROD for registration come in various forms, style and
length – part of freedom of contract. But such a system can be very costly in terms of
time and facility of examination.

• The law requiring judicial proceedings for the amendment or alteration of even minor
clerical errors, the issuance of a replacement owner’s copy or a lost or stolen
certificate of title and the reconstitution of lost originals of certificates of title is overly
cumbersome and expensive to the owner of the land.

The power to issue a replacement of a lost owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of
title under Section 109, PD1529, to amend, alter or correct the certificate of title under
Section 108, PD 1529, where there is unanimity of interested parties and where no

52
 Annex 3

substantive controversy is involved, and to reconstitute the original certificate of title

under RA 26, should be removed from the overburdened judiciary and transferred to
an administrative or quasi-judicial body.

• The ROD, who is the legal custodian of all certificates of title is not given the power to
file petitions for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed originals of certificates of title.
Worse, this burden is left to the owner of the land or other person who claims an
interest therein.

Reconstitution of the lost or destroyed originals of certificates of title should be

considered as a primary responsibility of the ROD who is the legal custodian. The law
should therefore be amended by expressly making it his duty and conferring on him
the authority to institute reconstitution proceedings and the registered land owners
should be relieved of this burden.

• The control of swamp lands and lands inundated by water has been separated from
the bulk of A&D lands and placed under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources, resulting in dispersal of land tenure administration and conflict of
rights.

PD 704, otherwise known as the Fisheries Code, should be amended by removing

from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture the
jurisdiction and authority to administer and grant tenure on swamp lands and other
lands under water and returning the same to the DENR which has the necessary
organisation, experience, competence and expertise in land tenure administration.

• The legislation affecting agricultural land reform overlap in their objectives and thus
create confusion and duplication in the disposal of lands for this purpose.

RA 3844, PD 27 and RA 6657, and all other agricultural land reform laws must be
overhauled, and thereafter codified to remedy their weaknesses.

• Legislation covering land tenures in the Forest Zone are multifarious, do not recognise
the practical realities of settlement patterns resulting from increasing population
pressures and do not encourage responsible development.

PD 705 otherwise known as the Forestry Reform Code, along with other statutes and
administrative issuances bearing on forest lands should be put together in one law,
after the same shall have been completely overhauled by doing away with provisions
seeking to achieve which though ideal, are non realisable. Tenure on forest lands, now
granted through Forestry Administrative Orders, are not stable enough and should be
authorised through legislative fiat to provide greater security of tenure and motivation
on the part of the grantee to invest more of his time, money and effort to develop the
land.

2. LAMP Project Preparation Report

• The land registration legislation indicates that the State will guarantee the interests
stated on the new certificate of title and will compensate from an assurance fund any
person deprived of an interest in land under the system specified by the Property
Registration Decree. Whilst the Title may be considered indefeasible, absolute,
imprescriptible and irrevertible; and therefore subject to the Government Guarantee
when evidenced by Registration, it is subject to correction or repeal by Judicial
Intervention which places some uncertainty over the security of the title. A patent that
is prepared to allocate public land via an administrative process and is then registered
in the ROD can subsequently be overturned by the courts. It appears that in the
Philippines a title issued as a result of the judicial process has a stronger claim than a
title issued as a result of an administrative process. There have also been no
successful claims for compensation made against the assurance fund and therefore

53
 Annex 3

one of the basic principles of the Torrens system, the insurance principle, appears to
lacking in the physical implementation of the system. These factors significantly affect
the overall credibility of the system.

Consideration should be given to the provision of a more appropriate guarantee.

• The issuance of judicial decrees by the courts may create new certificates of titles,
without the courts having all of the necessarily evidence presented or not considering
the evidence to be of sufficient weight to influence their decision.

• Production of owner’s duplicate certificate of title under CARP process of DAR is not
compulsory, thus creating a situation where two duplicates certificates of title cover the
same area.

• Every time a property transfers to a new owner, a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) is
created thus increasing the chances of error, particularly as the technical description
must be retyped each time.

Consideration should be given to endorsing change of ownership on the same

certificate of title, thus eliminating the need for producing a Transfer Certificate of Title.

• The use of a technical description on the titles introduces a significant opportunity for
error, especially as the long technical description must be retyped onto a new
certificate of title. An error in any of the bearings or distances completely alters the
extent of land covered by the certificate of title and is considered to be a significant
issue for the overall system.

Consideration should be given to replacing the technical description with a

dimensioned survey plan or graphic on the title.

• When a certificate of title is reconstituted after being lost or destroyed, the

reconstituted C/T may not prevail if the previous title is found. As the same title
number is used rather than cancelling and issuing a new number, it is also possible for
duplicate titles to be created in this way.

Section 18 of RA 26 should be amended to read “on reconstitution the lost or

destroyed certificate of title is cancelled and if the said certificate of title is found at a
later time the reconstituted certificate of title prevails”.

• A major area of any inaccuracy in the registration system of the Philippines can be
attributed to the ability of both DENR and LRA to approve subdivisional or
consolidation surveys and that the results of the surveys are not charted on both
agencies projection map series. It is therefore possible that DENR can issue a patent
over already titled land and visa versa and this can ultimately lead to duplicated titles.

The survey approval process should be rationalised.

• The ROD currently requires evidence of payment of a wide variety of taxes before
registration will be undertaken. These include the BIR capital gains tax, documentary
stamp duty, a donor’s tax and an estate tax on transfer. When these costs are coupled
with the registration fee, which is a progressive scale based upon value, it would
appear that the community does not consider the costs of registration to be reasonable
value for money, particularly when their confidence in the system is declining. This is
one of the factors influencing the high level of informal transactions occurring in the
Philippines. When a person is involved in land speculation they are likely to simply
enter into a contract of sale with the current land owner, obtain the duplicate certificate
of title and then forward this duplicate to the new purchaser once they have sold the
property. Vary rarely will these transactions be recorded in the ROD as they are
required to pay up to 11% of the market value to transfer the property.

54
 Annex 3

• The registration system is based upon judicial process that means that any action on a
title involves the engagement of legal assistance and the involvement of the courts.
This judicial approach inevitably leads to lengthy delays in the system, sometimes up
to 12 to 18 months. This process introduces greater costs and complexity into the
system for the common man, requiring even a small correction to an already
registered title to be decreed by the Courts.

The onus is also placed on the owner and not on the ROD if any action is required on
the certificate of title. For instance, if an original certificate of title is lost or destroyed
and the owner wishes to have the title reconstituted then the costs for the
reconstitution of the original C/T must be borne by the owner and not the ROD. Given
that the ROD has the responsibility of maintenance and storage of the original C/T, the
current approach of requiring the owner to pay for reconstitution is worthy of review as
it is considered a negative influence on the overall registration system.

Consideration should be given to the adoption of an administrative process for the

systematic adjudication and registration process and also for minor corrections on
certificates of title and the issuance of replacement duplicate certificates of title.

• The RODs currently accept documents relating to unregistered land in the system.
This continues to perpetuate the existing system where there is a high percentage of
land that is untitled.

Consideration should be given to the adoption of a system where the RODs would not
accept transactions on unregistered land unless the owner agreed to register the land
first. As it may take time for the land to be surveyed and eventually titled, the
possibility of issuing a “qualified” title with the transaction recorded would also need to
be considered.

• The registration system of the Philippines only includes A & D land that has already
been allocated to a person or corporation. The residual land, comprising Forests,
National Parks, Mineral Lands and unallocated Public land, is not currently included in
the system. This allows people to occupy this land and to then claim ownership of the
land through the existing processes. The absence of a complete inventory of all land
also makes the overall management and administration of the land resource much
more difficult.

Consideration should be given to the introduction of a single registration system for the
Philippines where a “State Title” will be prepared for all public domain land that has not
been alienated – not just the Patrimonial and Friar lands that are currently registered
by DENR in the RODs. The “State Title” will always be in the name of the “Republic of
the Philippines”, however management bodies will be able to lease the land and obtain
a mortgage over their interest, which will be endorsed on the title.

55
 Annex 4

SUMMARY OF LAWS AFFECTING LAND ADMINISTRATION

LAW DESCRIPTION

Laws Directly Related to Public Land Disposition

1. The Public Land Act CA 141 (1936) Public land classification, disposition
2. CA 691(1945) Distribution of Agricultural Land
3. RA 274 (1948) State land in military reservations
4. RA 293
5. RA 730
6. RA 782 (1952) Grant of Free Patents
7. RA 2348 (1959) Disposition of National Govt. lands
8. PD 239 (1973) Revoke LRA approval of certain surveys
9. EO 407 (1973) Delegating authority to sign patents
10. EO 420 (1973) Delegating Authority to sign patents
11. EO 430 (1974) Delegating authority to sign patents
12. PD 619 (1974) Development of grazing reserves
13. PD 861
14. BP 223 (1982) Free patent for certain residential land
15. DENR AO 66-90 (1990) Guidelines on inventory of A&D lands
16. DENR AO 58-91 (1991) Guidelines on DENR-CARP activities

Laws Related to Forest Lands

Revised Forestry Code PD 705 (1975) Rights in Forest Land

DENR AO 38-89 (1989) Development of ISF projects
DENR AO 54-90 (1990) Guidelines on ISF model sites
DENR AO 3-91 Mangrove Stewardship Agreements
DENR AO 4-91 (1991) Regulations re Land Stewardship
DENR MC 23-93 (1993) Procedures on Stewardship
EO 263 (1995) CBFMS strategy
DENR AO 15-95 (1995) Guidelines on sub-classification
DENR AO 24-96 (1996) Regulation of SIFMP
DENR AO 29-96 (1996) Regulation of CBFMS
DENR AO 30-96 (1996) Integration of projects and programs
DENR AO 45-98 (1998) Certificates of Stewardship
DENR AO 36-99 (1999) Regulation of FLGMA

Laws Related to Friar Lands

1. The Friar Lands Act No. 1120 (1904) Regulating Friar Lands
2. CA No. 32 (1936) Sale of Friar Lands

Laws Related to Ancestral Lands

1. DENR AO 61-91 (1991) Rules on IP claims in Palawan

2. DENR AO 08-92 (1992) Rules on IP claims in Bukidnon
3. NIPAS RA 7586 (1992) Rights over ancestral lands
4. DENR AO 25-92 (1992) Implementation of NIPAS
5. RA 8371 (1997) Indigenous Peoples Rights
6. NCIP AO 01-98 (1998) Implementation of RA 8371

Laws Related to Mineral Lands

1. Mineral Resources Decree PD 463 (1974) Admin. & Dispos. Of Mineral Lands
2. PD 512 Acquisition & use of surface rights

56
 Annex 4

3. Philippine Mining Act RA 7942 (1995) New system for mineral resources
4. DENR AO 40-96 (1996) Implementation of RA 7942

Laws Related to Agrarian Reform

1. Ag. Land Reform Code RA 3844 (1963) Original AR law

2. Tenants Emancipation Decree PD 27
(1972)
3. EO 228 Implementation of PD 27
4. EO 229 (1987) Implementation of AR program
5. Comp. Agrarian Reform Law RA 6657
(1988)
6. DENR AO 98-88 (1988) Guidelines on AR in public lands
7. RA 7905 Strengthen AR program
8. DENR AO 12-93 (1993) Guidelines on DENR- CARP activities
9. DAR AO 06-98 (1998) Guidelines on deferred commercial
farms
10. DAR AO 05-00 (2000) Rules governing retention rights
11. DAR AO 06-00 (2000) Adjudication of cases on AR

G. Laws Related to Reclaimed Lands

1. RA 1899 (1957) Basic law on reclamation

H. Laws Directly Related to Land Registration

1. Land Registration Act No. 496 (1902) Original Title Registration Act
2. The Cadastral Act No. 2259 (1913) Mass confirmation of title
3. Revised Administrative Code Act No. 2711 Recording of unregistered land
4. RA 26 (1946) Reconstitution of titles lost or destroyed
5. RA 113 (1947) Register of Deeds may use seal of Office
6. RA 456 (1950) Prohibiting registration unless tax paid
7. PD 266 (1973) Registration of title under PD 27
8. PD 239 (1973) Withdrawal of authority to approve surveys
9. Property Registration Decree PD 1529 (1978) Updated title registration law
10. PD 892 (1976) Discontinue Spanish Mortgage System
11. RA 6732 (1989) Permitting administrative reconstitution
.
J. Laws Indirectly Related to Land Disposition and Land Administration

1. Civil Code (1949) Regulates ownership, contracts etc.

2. RA 4726 (1966) Condominium Act
3. PD 1067 Water Code (1976) Prescribes setbacks from riverbanks
4. PD 957 Regulation of subdivisions
5. Judiciary Reorganisation Act BP 129 Jurisdiction in land matters
(1981)
6. The Philippine Constitution (1987) Framework for land tenure
7. EO 292 Administrative Code (1987) Powers of eminent domain, escheat etc.
8. RA 7610 Local Government Code (1991)
9. Ag. and Fisheries Modernisation Act RA
8435 (1997)

Bills Related to Land Administration

Senate Bills
1. SB 167 Amending RA 6657 CARP land may be sold, mortgaged etc.
2. SB 168 Amending RA 6657 Exemption from retention limits
3. SB 169 Amending RA 6657 Facilitates voluntary transfers
4. SB 549 ROD may initiate reconstitution of titles

57
 Annex 4

5. SB 715 Amending RA 6657 Coconut farms last priority for acquisition

6. SB 920 ROD may institute reconstitution of titles
7. SB 1568 To create land title insurance
8. SB 1597 Amending RA 6657 Use of CLOA as collateral
9. SB 1657 To create land title insurance
10. SB1691 Public Lands Act Replacing CA 141
11. National Land Use Planning Act
12. SB 1695 Extension of Free Patents Extends period for admin. and judicial
confirmation of title
13. SB 1785 ROD may institute reconstitution of titles
14. SB 1931 Amending RA 6657 Broadens definition of agricultural land

House Bills
1. HB 190 National Land Use Code
2. HB 341 CARP land may be mortgaged
3. HB 400 ROD may institute reconstitution of titles
4. HB 652 Fees for exclusion of lands from CARP
5. HB 1110 National Land Use Act
6. HB 1367 Prohibitions on reclassification of ag.land
7. HB 1779 National Land Use Policy Act
8. HB 1921 Exemption of certain lands from CARP
9. HB 2138 Use of idle lands for social housing
10. HB 2653 CARP land may be mortgaged
11. HB 2786 Owner not liable for reconstitution expenses
12. HB 3256 National Land Use Act
13. HB 3373 Declare certain occupied forest land as A&D
14. HB 3946 CARP land may be mortgaged
15. HB 4035 Revised Public Land Act
16. HB 4628 Extends period for admin. and judicial
confirmation of title

58
 Annex 5

3.1.1 PHILIPPINES-AUSTRALIA LAND ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

PROJECT (LAMP)
3.1.2 Workshop Notes

Preliminaries: The Discussants

Lamp Workshop 1 (May 17)

The first LAMP workshop on the fragmentation of laws study dealt with the private
sector as represented by banks, practicing lawyers, and real estate developers, among
others. The workshop drew participants from the Allied Bank — foreclosing department;
SM Holdings; Chamber of Real Estates and Brokers Association (CREBA); a realtor; the
president of the NGOs For Protected Reservations; a law firm; and some government
agencies including the Pag-ibig Fund, PAREB, the DBM, and a professor from the School
of Urban and Regional Planning (SURP-UP Diliman).

Lamp Workshop 2 (May 22)

The second LAMP workshop also targeted participants from the private sector but
this time addressed the issues and concerns from the Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs). NGOs represented include those of Tanggol Kalikasan; Upland NGO Assistance
Committee; Institute on Church and Social Issues; Saligan; Institute of Governance – De
La Salle University; Center for Agrarian Reform; Pakisama; Sama-sama Organization
Maralita – Kapasan; Freedom to Build; and Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Reform Services. An Ateneo De Manila University research associate also participated in
the workshop.

Lamp Workshop 3 (May 24)

The third LAMP workshop was for the government sector. The Department of
Agrarian Reform, the Lands Management Bureau – its Director and an Asst. Chief of a
Division, Land Registration Authority, Bureau of Soils and Management, Housing and
Urban Housing Coordinating Council – its Officer from the National Government Center
and the Planning Officer, the League of Cities, the National Housing Authority – from its
National Planning Office and a Legal Officer, Technical Working Group from the Office of
Sen. Robert Jaworski, Forest Management Bureau – Executive Liaison Officer, Bureau of
Mines, National Mapping and Resource Center, NAMRIA, the National Commission for
Indigenous Peoples, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue – Tax Division, and Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board – its
Commissioner for Legal Affairs.

Realizing the Problem

Easily discernible from the workshops is the discussants’ awareness that various
problems currently confront our system of land administration and management.
Commonly identified as problems are that there are so many antiquated laws, procedures
for getting a title being long, cumbersome, and expensive, that there are jurisdictional
conflicts as there are many agencies involved in the issuance of a title. Moreover, the
discussants point out the irony that while titles serve as instruments of land ownership,
there is a problem on the reliability and security of titles. It has been noted that there has
been a proliferation of fake and double titles and the CLOAs have been unilaterally
cancelled. This latest problem more likely emanated from the other problem of no reliable
and complete source of information.

While land classification is entrusted to Congress and reclassification is delegated

to Local Government Units (LGUs) following the mandate of a provision in the Local
 Annex 5

Government Code, land conversion on the other hand is a power reposed in the
administrative agencies, i.e., DAR. This classification and conversion entanglement is
another source of confusion. Then there is a question as to the relevance of homesteading
and free patenting. Finally, it has been pointed out that there has been arbitrariness in land
valuation.

Institutional problems

Interestingly, most of the discussants have taken strong positions that the current
problems on land administration are rooted in institutional, rather than legal causes. By this
is meant that the laws, while old and fragmented, are hardly to blame for the current mess
when compared to the people running the system. Graft and corruption/ bureucratic red
tape is the most cited root of all evil in Philippine society (including land administration).
The Government’s prioritization and policies have also been questioned, aside from the
proliferation of land titling syndicates.

As to problems relating to jurisdiction of various agencies involved in land

classification and registration, turf wars among the agencies concerned is also cited as a
reason why it would be so hard to harmonize and delineate functions.

Legal Problems

Of course, citing the institutional problems does not rid of the fact that legal
problems contributed to the cause the problems in land administration. After all, there are
so many laws, rules and regulations complicating the matter of land registration. Not to
mention the fact that the laws also created the jurisdictions of the various agencies
involved in land registration.

Specifically, it was mentioned that as to the problems in land classification, it is the

Constitution which provides that Congress may subclassify agricultural lands and defined
national parks too technically. Then, the Local Government Code provided the LGUs with
the power to reclassify the alienable and disposable lands. Yet, EO 72 collides with the
Code as to vertical integration. Moreover, the current classification failed to address
overlaps of land where an agricultural land may sit on mineral land and forest lands cut
across mineral, ancestral and protected areas.

Free patenting and homesteading as provided in the old Public Land Act (this Act
was enacted during the Commonwealth years) have to be reexamined as recent
developments, i.e., no more frontiers, challenge their need.

Then, there is the conflict of allowing the NCIP to issue titles (CALTs and CADT)
and make their own surveys following the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Act. This poses a challenge to the policy where only A & D lands could be disposed of, yet
inalienable lands could be titled under IPRA as ancestral lands cover both alienable and
inalienable lands.

The criteria for land classification have to be examined. The law providing the 18%
slope – forest land rule is challenged as failing to account cultural factors specially those
concerning ancestral lands.

60

LAMP Workshop 1 Public Sector (May 17) integration notes
(N.B.: items on the same row do not necessarily correspond)
PROBLEMS/ DEFICIENCIES
1. too many agencies to consult resulting in
conflict among government agencies on
jurisdiction
2. reliability and security of titles
3. reliable and complete sources of information
4. problematic access to the assurance fund
5. processes are too long, expensive and slow;
“either-or” agencies breed forum shopping
6. unilateral cancellation of land titles
(applicable in CARP cases)
7. proliferation of fake/ spurious titles
8. difficulty in getting certified true copies/
records not accessible
9. too many forms of titles
10. too many laws that confuse the system
11. lack of forms/ titles
12. implementing laws merely repeat the main
law or even exceed the law itself
13. lack of proper preparation of agency
people who will implement the law
SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP ISSUES AND OUTCOMES
REASONS
1. overlapping of jurisdictions
2. people don’t trust the Torrens system
3. lack of basic information and maps (each
agency has its own databank)
4. too many requirements to access the
assurance fund
5. improper implementation of the laws
6. control problem/ graft and corruption
7. no efficient, systematic database
8. each administrative agency issues its own
title
9. Congress legislates without reference to old
laws/ even if some laws have repealing
clauses, it is only a general clause and no
specific laws is identified to be repealed
10. American influence
11. laws are too descriptive
Annex 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. simplify and streamline administrative
process
2. remove the courts in the Torrens system
3. different studies for urban and rural areas
4. equity of access to system (subsidies/ taxes/
fees)
5. there should only be one agency to issue
titles
6. data banking
7. computerize/ modernize information
systems
8. ensure proper implementation; due process;
just compensation should be observed
9. adopt effective control
10. review and consolidate existing land laws
by: codifying – include public land disposition
and land registration; combining identical laws
to reduce number of existing laws; and using a
framework law, i.e., the Urban Land Use Act
11. one-title system
12. make the LRA a public corporation

LAMP Workshop 2 Private Sector (May 22) integration notes
(N.B.: items on the same row do not necessarily correspond)
PROBLEMS/ DEFICIENCIES
1. Old, outdated public land laws not
reflective of need (too many laws) and
lack coherence
2. disposition is not discussed apart from use
3. too many maps (overlapping territorial
boundaries) NMRIA, DENR and IPRA have
separate maps
4. concentration of land – communal; historical
influence; and economic system imposed
5. existing land tenure instruments – too many
wrong ones
6. agencies have not integrated IPRA
7. delineation of areas for titling – several
agencies authorize surveyors (IPRA – 1:5,000
& 1:10,000; DENR – 1:50,000)
8. Government macro policies (trade, industry,
privatization)
9. land conversion from agricultural to
VISIONS
1. fewer, simpler, and effective laws via a
Consolidated Land Administration Law –
includes Titles and Land Management
2. equitable access to all resources, e.g.
agrarian and indigenous peoples based on
primary objective
3. integrated agency policies
4. common concept of title
5. general law recognizing all existing tenures
6. choice of tenure and harmonize beyond the
Constitution
7. autonomy of Indigenous Peoples (IPs)
8. community choice on survey methodology
within standards
9. use deed of partition, not deed of sale for
62
Annex 5
STRATEGIES
1. update, codify and consolidate all laws
pertaining to land classification and registration
– separate, e.g., forest lands and AR lands;
settle debate between public and private lands;
consider areas of multiple use as public lands
– regulated disposition
2. adjudication – specialized, quasi-judicial –
arbitration
3. up-to-date Geodetic Code – one coherent
map showing land use and ownership
4. intensive information dissemination – about
titling and content of titles
5. Major codification to address land
classification, land use management, and
tenure
6. delete 18% slope rule

residential lots – time-consuming, expensive
10. lack of financing for reblocking of
regularized communities
11. no time standard in the processing of titles
12. quieting of title cases clog the courts
13. overlapping of titles
14. land titling syndicates
15. lack of comprehensive National Land and
Water Use Policy Framework
16. inconsistency of Local Government Code
and EO 72 – unclear vertical integration
17. unclear land classification system
18. reclassification (LGUs) vs. conversion
(DAR)
19. free patents and judicial confirmation as
modes for securing/ acquiring ownership is not
stated in the Constitution
20. proliferation of fake and illegally issued
titles/missing titles
21. unclear delineation between DENR and
DAR authority over the disposition of untitled
privately-claimed agricultural lands.
22. insecurity of titles – cancellation of
Emancipation Patents and CLOAs
Annex 5
group acquisition of land
10. remove discretion from bureaucrats – land
use code; mapping of land uses
11. issuance of use rights certificates
12. one-stop shop
13. establish new and permanent points for
reference by surveyors
14. inter-agency to address city/ town land use
classification
15. simplify process/ cut down requirements/
red tape/ reduce fees
16. funds to help poor families in reblocking to
hasten land titling
7. passage of NLWUA (Rosales/ Acosta
version)
8. repeal EO 72 and implement Sec. 20
10. repeal DOJ Opinion 44 – S 1990
11. constitutional changes to ensure
recognition and strengthen claim of IPs to
Ancestral Domain
12. expedite computerization of titles
17. Security of titles and tenure for all 13. Abolition of deadlines for filing of
marginalized sectors application for judicial and administrative
confirmation of titles
18. Clear, rational, comprehensive land use 14. DENR Sec to repeal AO 99-22 of Sec.
policies Cerilles
19. Consistent and better-crafted land laws 15. Reiterate indefeasibility of titles issued
and rules under AR laws
20. Long-range policies on land classification 16. SC to issue guidelines on land valuation
management and disposition
63
 Annex 5

Arbitrary land valuation
24. Reconstitution laws requirement too land-
owner oriented – poses problem for CARP
implementation; DAR has AO to initiate
reconstitution
21. Government with political will to implement
reform
17. Impose and implement higher penalties for
higher penalties for offenses committed by
RODS and private persons
18. Recognition of equal rights of women and
men to own land – laws must be gender-
responsive.

64

LAMP Workshop 3 Civil Society (May 24) integration notes
(N.B.: items on the same row do not necessarily correspond)
PROBLEMS/ DEFICIENCIES
1. Multiplicity of agencies that verify and
approve surveys and issue titles resulting in
overlapping and duplication of functions and
claims – different agencies implement various
laws and there is an overlap between the LRA
and LGUs in the approval of the subdivision of
titled lands
2. Problems arising from passage of IPRA
allowing the NCIP to issue titles (CALT’s and
CADT’s) and verify and approve surveys
3. Definition of terms or usage thereof –
confusing
4. Problems in the issuance of TCTs
5. Problems in conversion and classification of
lands
6. No unified land valuation system – valuation
conducted by various agencies
7. Need/ relevance of issuing free patents
Cumbersome and costly proof of
VISIONS
1. Have one (1) Omnibus Land Code
2. Computerization/ modernization of records/
database that can be shared by various
government agencies and extending this to
other processes, i.e., publication, notices, etc.
3. Use only one standardized definition in
Philippines
4. Efficient recording of land transactions in
one title
5. Have unified valuation system
6. Adopt ideals of Torrens system
65
Annex 5
STRATEGIES
1. Concentrate authority to verify and approve
surveys in only one agency; review and
simplification of procedures
2. Titles then may be issued by the various
agencies with the option to have one agency
authorized to administratively issue titles
(N.B.: A strong objection was raised by the
NCIP as this is a special case recognized by
law)
3. Simplify and minimize clerical work by
having one title and merely annotating and
annexing documents for subsequent
transactions
4. have one national agency to undertake
valuation
5. Review of appropriateness of issuing free
patents - if appropriate, then extend free
patents
6. Simple administrative processes –
 Annex 5

ownership requirements decentralize/community based style of

resolution, i.e., Bangkok
9. Passage of new lands without regard to 7. Harmonize Laws – New Code
other existing laws
10. Limited coverage of the assurance fund 8. Strengthen assurance fund in its: coverage,
mechanism and funding
11. Lack of up-to-date land classification 9. More political will and funding land
classification activities
12. Lack of master plan for land classification 10. Integrate and synchronize administrative
and disposition and management programs with the
comprehensive government plans at the LGU,
regional and national levels.
13. Land classification in Constitution – sub-
classification of agricultural lands and national
parks defined too technically
14. Overlaps of lands -- agricultural land sitting
on mining land and forest lands cut across
mineral, ancestral and protected areas (title to
cover surface excludes mineral resource)
15. Relevance of Homesteading when there 11. eliminate homestead mode
are no more frontiers
16. Free patent recognition of land 12. Constitutionalize free patent and reduce
occupancy/ cultivation by settlers occupancy requirements to 10 years
17. Costly, long, and cumbersome judicial 13. Eliminate judicial system and strengthen
system of titling administrative system by decentralization with
safeguards
18. Ancestral land covers alienable and
inalienable lands where inalienable lands could
be titled and there are no metes and bounds
(self-delineation)
19. Mineral Lands -- temporary nature of
classification

66
 Annex 5

PHILIPPINES-AUSTRALIA LAND ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT

(LAMP)

Workshop Notes

Leyte Cross-sectoral Workshop

Preliminaries: The Discussants

The PA-LAMP Leyte Cross-Sectoral Workshop on Land Laws for Land

Administration drew participants from the government sector, represented by: the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) with its Asst. Director from Palo, Leyte, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – from CENRO and GEP, the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with the Regional Director and the Chief Assessor, the
Local Government Units with the Provincial Assessor and the Municipal Assessor of
Alang-alang, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Department of
Justice (DOJ), the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the UP Law Center, Landbank,
TDIP, LAMP PIO 1, and the private sector, coming from: CREBA, and NGOs – Runggiyan
and Visayas Cooperative Development Center.

Problems Identified

To elaborate on the problems identified as listed in the Appendix, the CLOAs are
not dependable because they are easily cancelled and are awarded to unqualified
beneficiaries. For instance, confusion was created when there was a cancellation of 4
CLOAs covering 3,000 hectares in 4 municipality. Moreover, the procedure for the
issuance of a title is so long and cumbersome, evident of red tape. As explained, there
should initially be surveying done, then this has to be approved by the DENR, then
approval in the Local Government Unit (LGU). In a city, the City Planning Office, the City
Engineer, and the City Assessor all have to approve the survey. After the LGU, it has to go
through the Housing and land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), then finally to the Register
of Deeds. Thus, when asked for the average time spent for the processing of a title, the
discussants from Group 2 said that a whole lifetime is not infrequent. This long process
breeds unnecessary expenditure (a surveyor usually charges P10,000.00 per lot; a lawyer
asks for P20,000.00 as case acceptance fee; then charges P2,000.00 as appearance fee),
and may result in the issuance instead of an Untitled Tax Declaration only in lieu of the
land title. Further, a long process is susceptible to applicants want to go through a
shortcut, breeding corruption. A woman who went to the LAMP PIO 1 office narrated that
she already spent P80,000.00 but still has no title in her name.

Then there is the problem of a diffused information system and too many agencies
tasked in land registration. The NAMRIA, PCGS, Bureau of Mines, Department of
Agriculture, and the NCIP all do surveying and mapping resulting in no technology
application and overlapping boundaries. Records management is not given importance as
seen in the national budget. No centralized information can be gathered in one agency
only as information on taxes would have to be asked from the assessors while surveys
would have to be looked for in the DENR/ DAR/ Bureau of Mines/ Bureau of Fisheries/
Department of Agriculture making decision-making slow and not rational. To highlight the
importance of an integrated records management, an actual experience was shared.
During the time of the Aquino administration, a group of foreign investors were looking for
10,000 ha of land for palm oil production. Fortunately for them, the Office of the President
referred the matter to the Bureau of Lands. After preliminary studies, it was found that the
suitable location was either in Bukidnon or Agusan. But because there was no easy
access to information, there had to be a team of 20 people sent to Bukidnon and Agusan
to conduct further studies. Nevertheless, the team had to spend 4 months for the studies.
(Now imagine if an investor would only have to go to one agency and using a computer,
 Annex 5

would be able to access any information, i.e., soil condition, rainfall, classification, about a
parcel of land anywhere in the Philippines)

Plenary Discussions

The plenary discussions centered on five major issues: the authority in the classification of
public lands, the various classifications of land, the need for titling, the current state of land
laws, and the debate between judicial or administrative process in land registration.

Authority in land classification

While it is recognized that there is a need to classify all lands in the Philippines,
the question is whether it would be more effective to leave the classification to Congress.
Under the 1987 Constitution, it is Congress that is empowered to classify lands. Yet the
discussants believe that land classification should be through the executive branch. To
achieve this requires Constitutional amendment and then amending specific statute, e.g.
Public Land Act – granting land classification power to Congress.

Furthermore, aside from placing land classification under the executive, the power
should also be localized. Localized in the sense of the regional offices of the executive
branch because some Local Government Units may not be ready as the people hardly
elects the politicians based on capability.

The various classifications of land

The Constitution provides that the lands of the public domain are classified as
agricultural, forest, mineral, and national parks. But the Local Government Code (RA
7610) made further classifications of residential, industrial, commercial, special, etc. How
do we harmonize these sets of classifications? The Constitution has also provided that
Congress can further classify disposable lands according to use. The classifications in RA
7610 are based on actual use. Only those classified as alienable and disposable lands can
be sub-classified by RA 7610. (PEENRA is also classifying lands from the environmental
perspective). Moreover, the classification as “agricultural” in the Constitution should have
been alienable and disposable, thus RA 7610. But Section 217 of RA 7610 providing for
“actual use” is applied for taxation purposes only. Thus should this “actual use” also apply
to classification?

There have been misclassifications in the past. To address this, a multidisciplinary

approach was suggested. Then there is also a need for an effective program to delineate
forest lands away from the A & D lands. But the criteria for the classifying public lands as
forest lands should be examined. Using the current criteria, much of the Province of Leyte
would be forest lands.

The Need for Titling

Do people really need titling? As pointed out, a title is just evidence of ownership.
It is the instrument by which formal and legally enforceable rights in land are recognized.
Before titling, there was no issue about land ownership, it was only when the titling system
began that landgrabbers became a problem. Further, what do we do with the title after we
receive it? For instance, CLOA’s cannot be disposed of in 10 years and the beneficiary
can only borrow from the Land Bank of Philippines. On the other hand, free patents cannot
be disposed of in 5 years. So some people ignore the restrictions and transfer the lands
anyway. This led to a suggestion that perhaps should minimize the restrictions attached to
the different kinds of titles. An actual experience was related wherein sometime 1983,
people living in the Rimas colon area (Behind DYVL) were relocated at the Northern Brgy.
under the BLISS program. In just about 5 years, the relocated residents sold their lots and
went back to squatting.

68
 Annex 5

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned problems in titling, the discussants agreed

that titling is still relevant. Titling is for security and progress. A land title gives a sense of
security to its holder. Thus, the generation of land titles which is believable and gives
security of tenure is relevant for capital generation. It is up to each community to determine
what security and development means and what the content of their titles should be and
should mean.

But the issue of what people can do with their titles is another matter. Land reform
programs are broader than just titling. There are other related infrastructures such as
financing and human resource development. For example, in launching the agrarian
reform program, the Government simply wanted to impress on aid organizations (e.g.
World Bank) that something was being done for the people. Thus, the Government went to
give out lands without providing for the necessary support services in turn making the
results of the Philippine agrarian reform program unclear even after 15 years. Agrarian
reform should not be a permanent fiction/fixture. If there is sincerity in terms of the
implementation of the program, the “clean hands and hearts doctrine” should be applied.
After giving out land, the government should provide the necessary support services and
have regulatory mechanisms for the purpose to be achieved.

The Current State of Land Laws

The discussants pointed out the perennially identified problem of the complicated
manner of titling only lawyers can understand. The saving grace was that at least the
PENRO in Leyte has processed patents within 30 days. But the patentees still need to be
advised that their patents are already available at the ROD. So, while the processing may
be fast, the patents issued are still held up at the ROD due to requirements for back-taxes
to be paid. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) usually determines the tax based on Tax
Code. If there is an increase in the amount of tax to be paid, it is usually due to late filing
and late payment resulting in interest levied on the principal amount assessed. Under Tax
Code there is abatement of penalties and compromise settlement of amount owing. If the
amount payable is more than P500,000.00, the matter goes to national level. Since it
would not be helpful that the patents are held up just for failure to pay taxes, there was a
suggestion that a lien be annotated on the back of the title, the amount payable on further
transactions on the title. As to the state of land laws, the discussants preferred to have
laws that reflect reality rather than reality forced to fit into the law.

Administrative or Judicial Process of land Registration

The most contentious issue that left the discussants with no clear consensus was
on the debate between having administrative or judicial or both administrative and judicial
process of titling. It has been explained that development situation requires speedy and
reliable titling. Most countries in the region have already adopted an administrative system
only.

The Philippines acquired the Torrens system from Massachusetts that laid
heavy emphasis on judicial titling. Yet this system has already largely failed in the US due
to expense and delay of judicial system and “patched-up” with private titling insurance.
Moreover, if the Philippines stick to just one process, e.g., judicial, the process is slow and
expensive.

Despite this explanation for the position advocating an administrative

system of land registration, the other discussants felt uneasy doing away with the judicial
process and posited instead that other people may want to access the old system. Thus, if
an effective administrative system is placed, just let it be the method by which the judicial
method be eased out. In other words, the position calling for both administrative and
judicial methods is to let the method compete amongst them and let the fittest (translating
to efficient and inexpensive) survive.

69
 Annex 5

Strategy

There was also a suggestion as to directions in coming up with a legal framework for the
changes to be made in the current state of land laws. The direction calls for (1) looking into
the whole cadastral package – studying what methods and requirements are available for
land registration, and (2) looking into institutional agencies – analyzing where the various
agencies involved in land titling have developed overlapping functions and studying the
allocated budget in the General Appropriations Act to see how prioritized the area of land
registration is by the government.

70

(N.B.: items on the same row do not necessarily correspond)
PROBLEMS/ DEFICIENCIES IN LAND ADMIN
LAWS
1. proliferation of fake/ double titles; CLOAs
undependable
2. Bureaucratic Red Tape:
Surveying – DENR – LGU – HLURB – ROD
3. Antiquated system not in consonance with
world standards
4. Political influence/ graft and corruption
tarnish sustainability as people have lost
confidence and trust in government
5. People are ignorant/ uninformed of the
system
6. expensive system – P10,000.00/lot for
surveyors; P20,000.00/case acceptance fee
for lawyers
7. absence of an integrated land related
records administration
LAMP Workshop 4 – Leyte (June 5) integration notes
VISION FOR THE FUTURE LAND
ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM
1. only one office in titling with an efficient and
effective system free of graft and corruption/
political influence and true to the ideals of a
great society
2. rational management of land answering the
needs of the average Filipino (economic, social
and environmental) and sustaining the
development process in the country
3. Should minimize/ decrease costs
71
Annex 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES
1. amend PD 1529 (Property Registration
Decree) and CA 141 (Public Land Act)
2. cadastral surveying in all areas
3. there should only be one kind of title (no
more patents, no more CLOAs) coming from
one office only
4. lessen steps in land registration to only 2 –
surveying, then to the RD for the issuance of
titles
5. Creation of an inter-agency information
committee at the local government level
6. Subsidize cost, annotation of encumbrances
or condonation of some fees and taxes
affecting the land
7. stop the politicians from meddling
8. implement a good community relations
service and transparency
9. on an integrated land records
administration:
9 Develop a single land identifier system
9 Go into land data-banking using a unified

8. diffused administration and authority in land
surveys and mapping, resulting in overlapping
boundaries
9. diffused authority mechanism on land
administration
10. irrational land revenue collection
11. expiration of Free Patent Law resulting in
deprivation of administrative titling
12. Classification of Lands – inconsistency of
actual use with the present classification
13. Conflicting/ overlapping laws pertaining to
land titling
14. Many agencies are involved in land titling
3. Synchronized or harmonized provision of
existing laws and regulations on land titling
4. Only one agency will cater to the survey,
processing, registration and issuance of title
72
Annex 5
National Land Data Base
9 Provide an inter-agency systems and
procedure for capturing new information
and transactions on land matters with
different agencies
9 Establish mini-systems of records mng’t
from national to provincial and municipal
levels
10. on an integrated land survey authority
Develop a single land surveys and
mapping authority
Provide the legal authority framework
for developing technical, administrative and
policy reforms on surveys
11. on an integrated authority mechanism on
land administration
Develop a unified land mng’t system
charged with functions on surveys, mapping,
disposition, titling and registration
Formulate an authority framework to
regulate land transactions for both private and
public lands
12. integrate land related taxes and fees
13. Extend free patenting until all disposable
lands are certified by the concerned agency
14. There should be a general updating
of land classification
15. Codify all existing laws relating to land
titling and registration
16. Legislation of laws pertaining to the
integration of all offices (DENR, HLURB,
LGUs, ROD) to create one agency to cater
survey, processing, issuance and registration
of title

15. Several documentary requirements in each
agency
16. Defective land surveys
17. No proper delineation of boundaries
between alienable and disposable land and
timber land
18. The tedious system of registration of
inherited properties involving several
successors-in-interest
19. Strategic location of different agencies
involved in land titling and registration
20. Issuance by some assessors on land
classified as timber land
21. Negative or passive attitude of land
claimants relative to registration and titling of
lands
22. Classification of Lands as provided in the
Constitution belongs to Congress and the
classification involves political issues
23. Non-appreciation of the value of Torrens
system
24. Procedures too long and tedious
5. Simplified documentary requirements in
each agency
6. Centralized record keeping by one agency
of all survey records
7. Visible land marks or monuments on the
ground
8. Heirs are motivated or encouraged to
register their inherited properties and
subsequent transfer thereof
9. One stop shop
10. No issued tax declaration within lands
classified as timber lands
11. Positive attitude of land claimants relative
to land registration and titling
12. Classification should be with the Executive
and be localized
13. Owners appreciate/ enjoy value of the
Torrens system
14. Provide uniform and simple procedures
throughout the country
73
Annex 5
17. Policy formulation on the existing
procedures on documentary requirements
pertaining to land titling
18. Only one agency should keep records of
surveys
19. Actual survey of land specifying
boundaries between alienable and disposable
land and timber land on the ground by putting
land marks or visible monuments
20. Proper information campaign to the heirs
on the advantages and benefits derived in
having lands titled
21. All different agencies involved in land titling
should be strategically located
22. There must be a law regulating issuance of
tax declaration
23. Proper information campaign to land
claimants
24. Enact law where land classification goes
through the Executive only and localize to
LGUs and amend Constitution considering the
Regalian doctrine
25. Massive information drive and land
mapping
26. Creation of One-Stop Shop type of
rendering service
 Annex 5

Minutes of the Consultative Mini Workshop With NGO’s

Date : June 6, 2002

Time : 11:15 A.M.
Venue : Conference Room, OSS Building
Candahug, Palo, Leyte

Presiding Officer : Lisa Ting, International Consultant

Present :

Florentino G. Saludo - COS – Rural Development Institute (RDI), Leyte

Godofredo B. Maray - Project Director – Leyte Rural Assistance Program (LRAP)
Clarita P. Napoles - Regional Executive Director – VICTO
Andresito A. Deligero - President – CREBA
Jocelyn Y. Dorado - Administrative Officer – RUNGGIYAN
Antonio C. Gobenciong - President and Executive Consultant – Training & Dev’t.
Institute, Phils
Angeles R. Borja - Planning Office, LAMP-PIO 1, Leyte

Agenda :

Policy Study on Fragmented Land Laws and Regulations of Properties affecting Land
Administration.

Major Issues Raised:

1. Different land titling processes its advantages and disadvantages.

Titling (now) Advantages Time Disadvantages

4 Restriction

A. Judicial - strong legal basis - costly & time

& evidence of ownership consuming
- long process
- it took years

B. Homestead - minimal cost 25 years - unfairness(gender)

- prone to abuse
- even tenants/
anyone can apply

C. Free Patent - minimal cost 5 years - 30 yrs. possession

(Agricultural lands) too long

D. Misc. Sales - sell right away 0 years - buy from the gov’t.
1. Residential - faster than judicial - costly
2. Foreshore titling - can not determine
the valuation - its
up to the gov’t.

E. Revocable 1 year

F. CLOA/EP - free, but cost of the 10 years - can be unilaterally

land is being cancelled by DAR
amortized

74
 Annex 5

G. Presidential - squatters, schools - Time of occupation

Proclamation on public lands

H. Special Free 5 years

Patent
(Residential lands)

I. IP (NCIP) - For Indigenous Peoples only

2. Titling processes under DAR, DENR & LRA.

In the present practice in land titling process, several agencies are involved. Since these
agencies are governed by their own policies, the duplication in the issuance of titles is inevitable.
Some of these policies are in conflict with that of the other agencies.

3. Overlapping of functions of the different agencies involved in the titling process.

Jurisdiction of certain key land areas specifically on agricultural land must be clarified. An
efficient system would be established if all the agencies involved in the land titling process would be
integrated under one (1) department to avoid overlapping of functions.

4. Conflicting land laws in the land titling process of the different agencies.
Certain laws govern every agency; some of these are in conflict with the policies of the different
agencies. To avoid conflict of laws, amendments of certain laws are essential and must be consistent.
e.g. R.A. 6657, the Agrarian Reform Law wherein it covers all public as well as private agricultural
lands, regardless of tenurial arrangements and kind of commodity produced, its retention limit is only 5
hectares. But under the Homestead Patent Law the area limit is 24 hectares then it was reduced to
only 12 hectares.
The law is still certain that the area limit is 12 hectares, which is consistent with the provision in
the Constitution. But during the deliberation of the proposed extension of Free Patent Law in the lower
house and the Senate, it reduces the area limit to 5 hectares to conform with the provision under the
CARP Law.

Suggestions/Recommendations:

1. Simplify or streamline the land titling process and amend some laws in order not to create
conflicts between agencies involved.

2. Formulation of policies framework by which we can shift direction in the analysis of existing legal
framework operating in the country at present.

3. Come up with certain reforms in the administrative system, it should be guided by set of
fundamental principles by which later on we will be able to come up with the right proposal on
how to go about it.

4. Come up with unified policies in order to arrive at the right direction in the implementation of land
titling activities.

Prepared by:

ANGELES R. BORJA
Planning Officer

75
QUESTIONNAIRE TO COURTS: LAND REGISTRATION CASES Annex 6

Level of Court Location of Court

Total # of cases 1998-2001 Total # of land registration cases 1998-2001
4.1 Please note that the date a case entered the court system means the date that a case was first filed in any court.
1) Cases that first entered the court system less than 2 years ago

5 Type of Case No. of cases Type of Case No. of cases

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens titles

Replacement of lost duplicate certificate Adverse claims

Conflicting claims for the same type of tenure Amendment of certificate of title: substantive and minor alterations

Petition for surrender of duplicate certificate Conversion of land use

Others – please describe: Others – please describe:

2) Cases that first entered the court system 3 - 5 years ago

6 Type of Case No. of cases Type of Case No. of cases

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens titles

Replacement of lost duplicate certificate Adverse claims

Conflicting claims for the same type of tenure Amendment of certificate of title: substantive and minor alterations

Petition for surrender of duplicate certificate Conversion of land use

Others – please describe: Others – please describe:

3) Cases that first entered the court system 6 - 9 years ago

7 Type of Case No. of cases Type of Case No. of cases

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens titles

Replacement of lost duplicate certificate Adverse claims

Conflicting claims for the same type of tenure Amendment of certificate of title: substantive and minor alterations

Petition for surrender of duplicate certificate Conversion of land use

Others – please describe: Others – please describe:

76
QUESTIONNAIRE TO COURTS: LAND REGISTRATION CASES Annex 6

4) Cases that first entered the court system 10 or more years ago

8 Type of Case No. of cases Type of Case No. of cases

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens titles

Replacement of lost duplicate certificate Adverse claims

Conflicting claims for the same type of tenure Amendment of certificate of title: substantive and minor alterations

Petition for surrender of duplicate certificate Conversion of land use

Others – please describe: Others – please describe:

Types of Cases Common reasons for delays

Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles

Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens titles

Replacement of lost duplicate certificate

Adverse claims

Conflicting claims for the same type of tenure

Amendment of certificate of title: substantive and minor

alterations

Petition for surrender of duplicate certificate

Conversion of land use

Others

77