Australian Dictionary of Biography


Torrens, Sir Robert Richard (1814–1884) Source:
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/torrens-sir-robert-richard-4739
Date last viewed: 03262018 0731 PM
by Douglas J. Whalan

This article was published in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 6, (MUP), 1976

Sir Robert Richard Torrens (1814-1884), public servant, politician and land titles law reformer, was born in Cork, Ireland, son of Colonel Robert
Torrens and his first wife Charity Herbert, née Chute. Educated at Trinity College, Dublin (B.A., 1835), in 1836 he became a landing waiter in the Port
of London. In 1839 he married Barbara Ainslie, widow of George Augustus Anson and niece of Mungo Park. On 12 December 1840 in
the Brightman they arrived in South Australia; Torrens became collector of customs, probably through his father's influence as chairman of the
colonization commission for South Australia; his salary was £350 (later £500). He lived handsomely, yet within a few years had acquired substantial
assets.

Torrens soon established a pattern of unorthodoxy in his office. In his first year he was censured for reducing wharfage rates without authority, for
carelessness with pay lists, for unauthorized absence and for not supporting some of Governor (Sir) George Grey's policies. Grey reported that Torrens
had not shown that 'cheerful acquiescence in my views which I have received from the other Government officers'. In 1841 controversy surrounded
Torrens's arrest of the Ville de Bordeaux when he became involved in an extravagant chase to prevent her escape. But he probably acted correctly, for in
November the vessel was forfeited to the Crown though the Treasury later had to compensate the French owners.

Torrens was often censured for irregularities. In 1845 he was sued successfully by crew members of the Hanseat for false imprisonment, and in 1848
was involved indirectly in a pitched battle fought for control of the Emma Sherratt and directly in libel actions arising therefrom. He was reprimanded
the same year for discourtesy to the advocate-general for declining the advocate's help in a legal action; the advocate-general declared that it was a
pleasure to be relieved of the duty. His chief clerk Henry Watson complained about him to the English authorities but a board of inquiry neither
condemned nor cleared him. George Stevenson lampooned this result and Torrens assaulted him in the street; lengthy civil and criminal proceedings
ended with Torrens paying £250 damages, being convicted of common assault, but 'winning' a libel verdict of one farthing damages. He was appointed
colonial treasurer and registrar-general in 1852, and in these offices, too, he was often censured by the governor. In 1851-57 he was a nominated
member of the Legislative Council and he became a member of the Executive Council in 1855. Next year he joined in the land titles registration crusade.

The South Australian Register published an outline of a Torrens bill on 17 October 1856. Other bills were being publicized, indicating that the
development of registration of title to land was not Torrens's achievement alone but the culmination of an evolutionary process. Intense interest was
generated, for in South Australia titles were in an unsatisfactory state and, as he put it, land was no longer 'the luxury of the few', therefore 'thorough
land reform … [was] essentially “the people's question”'. He stood for Adelaide in the House of Assembly elections of 1857 and, almost entirely because
of his espousal of land titles reform, topped the poll. Treasurer from 24 October 1856 to 21 August 1857, he published a further draft of his bill on 14
and 15 April and introduced it as a private member's bill in yet a third form on 4 June. He was premier from 1 to 30 September, but no action was taken
on the bill until 11 November, when the second reading was carried. Despite very strong opposition, mainly from the legal profession, it passed through
both Houses and was assented to on 27 January 1858.

The basic principles of what was to become known outside South Australia as the Torrens system were: land titles no longer passed by the execution of
deeds but by the registration of dealings on a public register; once registered the title of a purchaser became indefeasible unless he was guilty of fraud;
and innocent dealers with interests in registered land were guaranteed either their interest in the land or monetary compensation therefor. Torrens
explained the system's operation in The South Australian System of Conveyancing by Registration of Title (1859); although he 'claimed authorship' of
the system, it is clear that many people and influences helped considerably, including Ulrich Hübbe, Richard Bullock Andrews, George Fife
Angas, Anthony Forster, William Burford, and, later, R. D. Hanson. Torrens conceded the significance of the opportune arrival 'on the eve of the day
appointed for the [bill's] second reading' of the report of the English royal commissioners, 1857, which recommended the adoption of registration of
title to land in England.

Torrens resigned his seat in 1858 on becoming registrar-general under the Real Property Act at a salary of £1000. From that year to 1862 he helped to
turn the Act into a workable and working system, manipulating public opinion and organizing meetings and petitions to parliament. He also travelled
to other colonies successfully advocating the adoption of the system. These endeavours in 'the Cause', as Torrens so often calls it in his writings,
undermined his health and amid enthusiastic farewells he sailed for England on leave without pay.

He lectured on the system in England, Scotland and Ireland in the next three years and vacillated about returning to South Australia. When nominated
as a candidate for the borough of Cambridge in 1865, Torrens resigned as registrar-general; failing to be elected that year and also the next, he
complained bitterly about 'intimidation practised by Heads of the Colleges' and bribery which turned voters against him. He won the seat in 1868. He
had entered politics in England largely to sponsor his titles system; but despite some slight success in Ireland, the South Australian methods could not
be applied because land holding was not 'the people's question' in England.

Torrens largely withdrew from public life when he was not re-elected in 1874 and, although he continued as a director of several companies, spent most
of his time at his country home, Hannaford, near Ashburton. He was created K.C.M.G. for his services 'especially in connection with the Registration of
Titles to Land Act' in 1872 and was made G.C.M.G. in 1884. Leaving personal estate sworn for probate at £17,292, he died of pneumonia at Falmouth on
31 August 1884, aged 70, and was buried in Leusdon churchyard on the edge of Dartmoor. His wife (d.1899) is buried with him.

Despite his tempestuous career in South Australia Torrens was not quite the charlatan that Governor Sir Dominick Daly called him. He had a
propensity for arousing animosity and sometimes undying hatred. When the attorney-general (Sir) William Bundey moved in the House of Assembly in
1880 that a pension of £500 should be granted to him chaos broke out in the House. After bitter personal attacks on Torrens the proposal was dropped.
He had been happy to use the full pressure of public opinion to achieve land titles reform, but he opposed an elected legislature and the secret ballot.
The mainspring of the last thirty years of his life was his espousal of land titles reform. He did not acknowledge publicly the assistance that he received,
but it was his dedication, bordering on zealotry, for 'the Cause' that initiated the Real Property Act in South Australia and the spread of the Torrens
system to other Australasian colonies. It has sufficient identifying features to be regarded as an important legal reform that is indigenous to Australia.
 There is a portrait in the National Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, and a fine drawing by C. Hill in the South Australian State Archives.

Select Bibliography
 D. J. Whalan, ‘The origins of the Torrens System and its establishment in S.A.’, Law Council of Aust, Souvenir … XIV Convention in Adelaide (Adel,
1967)
 D. J. Whalan, ‘The origins of the Torrens System and its introduction into New Zealand’, G. W. Hinde (ed), The New Zealand Torrens System
Centennial Essays(Wellington, 1971)
 R. Mitchell, ‘The Torrens System of land titles — its development in the land of its birth’, Commonwealth and Empire Law Conference Record, vol 1
(1955)
 D. Pike, ‘Introduction of the Real Property Act in South Australia’, Adelaide Law Review, 1 (1960)
 D. J. Whalan, ‘Immediate success of registration of title to land in Australasia and early failures in England’, New Zealand Universities Law Review,
2 (1967).

Citation details
Douglas J. Whalan, 'Torrens, Sir Robert Richard (1814–1884)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University,
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/torrens-sir-robert-richard-4739/text7869, published first in hardcopy 1976, accessed online 26 March 2018.
This article was first published in hardcopy in Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 6, (MUP), 1976

The Torrens System was introduced in the Philippines within the bounds of the LandRegistration Act
496, Cadastral Act 2259 , which took effect on February 1, 1903 , This law was amended and superseded
by P.D. No. 1529 , which took effect on June 11, 1978 ,otherwise known as the “Property Registration
Decree”.

Torrens Certificate of Title

A certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership; it is not the title to the land itself asthe concept of
title is conceived under our Civil Law; “the certificate of title shall be atrue copy of the decree of
registration” (Sec. 39, P.D. 1529)

Chapter 2: TORRENS SYSTEM – ORIGIN, NATURE & GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Advantages:
1. Abolishes endless fees
2. Eliminates repeated examination of titles
3. Reduces records enormously
4. Instantly reveals ownership
5. Protects against encumbrances not noted on the Torrens certificate
6. Makes fraud almost impossible
7. It assures
8. Keeps up the system without adding to burden of taxation; beneficiaries of the system pay the
fees
9. Eliminates tax titles
10. Gives eternal title as state ensures perpetuity
11. Furnishes state title insurance rather than private title insurance
12. Makes possible the transfer of titles or of loans within the compass of hours instead of a matter
of days
Purpose of Torrens Law: quiet title to land – once registered, owner might rest secure
Persons Bound When Title Not Registered:
1. Grantor
2. Heirs & devisees
3. Persons with actual notice
Procedure in Land Registration Case:
1. Survey of land by Bureau of lands or duly licensed private surveyor
2. Filing of application for registration by applicant
3. Setting of date of initial hearing of application by RTC
4. Clerk of court to transmit to Land Registration Authority the application, date of initial hearing
& other pertinent docs
5. Publication of notice of filing of application, date & place of hearing – in OG and in newspaper of
general circulation
6. Service of notice – contiguous owners, occupants & those who have interest in property
7. Filing of answer or opposition to application
8. Hearing of case by RTC
9. Promulgation of judgment by court
10. Issuance of decree by RTC – decision; Instruct land registration authority to issue decree of
confirmation & registration
11. Entry of decree of registration in Land Titles Administration
12. Send copy of decree to Register of Deeds
13. Transcription of decree of registration in registration book & issuance of the owner’s duplicate
original certificate of title of the applicant by the Land registration Authority – upon payment of
prescribed fees.

Source: https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/civil-law-land-titles-memory-aid/

Date last viewed: 03262018 0743 PM

On November 6, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act 496, known as Land
Registration Law, that created the Court of Land Registration (CLR) and the office of the
Registers of Deeds. The Law institutionalized the Torrens System of registration whereby
real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the archives of the
government. The system took effect on February 1, 1903.

Five judges were appointed by the Governor-General with the advice and consent of the
Philippine Commission. One Judge was designated Judge of Court; the rest were
assigned Associate Judges. Other members of the court were a clerk and assistant clerk,
both appointed by the Attorney General with the approval of the Secretary of Finance and
Justice. Along with the court were established the Registries of Deeds.

Upon the effectivity of Act No. 2374, the Court of Land Registration was replaced by the
General Land Registration Office (GRLO), and on June 17, 1954 upon the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 1151 was also replaced by the Land Registration Commissions (LRC).
The Commissioner of Land Registration took over the powers and functions of the GLRO
who was in direct control of the Registers of Deeds (RDs) as well as the Clerks of Court
of First Instance in land registration cases. It was then that registry of deeds was
established in every city and every province and branch registry was put up wherever
else possible at the time.

On February 9, 1981, the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 649
reorganizing the LRC into the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration
(NLTDRA). This agency operated under the administrative auspices of the then Ministry
of Justice, and extended effective assistance to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, the Land
Bank of the Philippines, and other agencies in line with the Land Reform Program.

In a Presidential Memorandum Circular of September 30, 1988, the NLTDRA was change
into the Land Registration Authority. This was in line Executive Order No. 292 dated July
25, 1987, instituting the Administrative Code of 1987, which took effect on November 23,
1989.

Thus, the Authority has grown through the years. It started as the Court of Land
Registration, later as General Land Registration Office, it became the Land Registration
Commission, reorganized as National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration,
and presently as the Land Registration Authority.

Presently, the LRA is headed by an administrator who, pursuant to Executive Order 649,
shall have a judicial rank of an Associate Justice of a Collegiate Appellate Court. He is
assisted by deputy administrators who, pursuant to said law and LRA Rationalization
Plan, shall have the same rank of a Department Assistant Secretary.

It now has more than 2500 employees nationwide. And it has consistently increased its
revenues through its registries of deeds for the past five years. Many new methods and
techniques have been developed by the administration in the defense of the landowner.
Time has not stymied the purpose of the agency, but has honored its sense of duty to
that of a fine new razor. In truth the authority is more active than ever, willing and able to
be defend the integrity of the country’s Torrens system.

Source: http://www.lra.gov.ph/history.html

Date last viewed 03262018 0744 PM

The importance of land titling

By: Sara Mae D. Mawis - @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:13 AM November 18, 2017

“A CERTIFICATE of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the

property in favor of the person whose names appears therein,” the Supreme Court held in the case
of Abobon v. Abobon. “[A]nyone who deals with property registered under the Torrens system may
rely on the title and need not go beyond the title.”
In a published article entitled “Land Titling for Inclusive Growth,” Philippine Daily Inquirer’s
Ronald U. Mendoza reported that land titling in the Philippines may create positive impact on: (a)
the households’ share of total area for long-term crops; (b) housing investment; (c) gender
equality and fertility; and (d) the education received by children from families with property
rights secured by land titling.

“The productivity of land in any of its uses (whether agricultural or urban/commercial) is

dependent on complementary investments in the form of drainage, structures, clearing of stones
and trees, and other improvements,” said Gershon Feder and Akihiko Nishio in their article, “The
Benefits of Land Registration and Titling: Economics and Social Perspectives.”

“By their nature, these investments yield benefits over time, while the expense of cost and effort
is borne up-front.”

“With ownership officially documented and verified, the risk of challenges to ownership is
reduced, and the likelihood of having to incur high costs in defending one’s possession of land is
lower, incentives to invest are enhanced, and land productivity is increased.”

Nevertheless, only about one-half of the estimated 22 million parcels of land in the country are
titled.

“Most of these untitled properties are located in urban and low income settings,” Mendoza wrote
in his article. “[A]pproximately 39 million Filipinos stand to benefit from the government’s land
titling program.”

“Lack of clear property rights could undermine inclusive growth in various ways. Unclear and
unenforceable rights could lead to underinvestment, as the returns from any improvements and
investments could be seized by others.”

Undeniably, a system of land registration is important in our country. It is thus well-settled

jurisprudence that:

Our country’s Torrens system of land registration has been instituted to combat the problems of
uncertainty, complexity and cost associated with old title systems that depended upon proof of an
unbroken chain of title back to a good root of title. The State issues an official certificate of title
to attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein,
subject to such liens and encumbrances as therein noted or what the law warrants or reserves.

A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on its Torrens certificate of title, unless
the registration thereof is attended to with bad faith or fraud. This principle dispenses with the
need of proving ownership by long complicated documents kept by the registered owner which
may be necessary under a private conveyancing system, and assures that all the necessary
information regarding ownership is on the certificate of title.

Tax declarations and tax receipts as proof of ownership cannot prevail over a certificate of title.
Said documents do not conclusively prove title to the land, but are only positive and strong
indication that the taxpayer concerned has made a claim either to the title or to the possession of
the property for which taxes have been paid.

A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless it is nullified
by a court of competent jurisdiction in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title.

Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate of title becomes indefeasible after the
expiration of one year from the entry of decree of registration. Such decree is incontrovertible
and is binding on all persons, whether they were notified of or participated in the registration
proceedings.

Source: http://business.inquirer.net/240994/importance-land-titling
Date last viewed: 03262018 0746 PM

Agrarian Reform History

Pre-Spanish Period
RAFAEL
“This land is Ours God gave this land to us”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or

barangays ruled by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility. Then
came the maharlikas (freemen), followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs)
and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure,

practically everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown,
and rice served as the medium of exchange.
RAFAEL

Spanish Period
RAFAEL
“United we stand, divided we fall”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (Royal
Land Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must
defend his encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within,
and support the missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to
 collect tribute from the indios (native).

The system, however, degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos

The tribute soon became land rents to a few powerful landlords. And the
natives who once cultivated the lands in freedom were transformed into mere
share tenants.
RAFAEL

1st Philippine Republic

RAFAEL
“The yoke has finally broken”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large
estates, especially the so-called Friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never

implemented.
RAFAEL

American Period
RAFAEL
“Long live America”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

 Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals
and corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for
corporations.

 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive
registration of land titles under the Torrens system.

 Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.

 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships
between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.
 The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of
lands, did not solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the
law or if they did, they could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in
applying for a Torrens title.
Source: http://www.dar.gov.ph/about-us/agrarian-reform-history 03262018 0759 PM

GRARIAN REFORM HISTORY

Uncovering the Roots of Land Ownership Problems

Pre-Colonial Times (Before 16th Century)

The Philippines, even before being colonized by different countries, already have developed an
organization for their communities. The land owned by these communities is known as barangay which
consists of 30-100 families which is administered by different chiefs.

In these barangays, everyone regardless of status had access on the land and mutually shares resources
to the rest of the community. They believed in and practiced the concept of “stewardship” where
relationship between man and nature is important.

Land cultivation was done commonly by kaingin system or the slash and burn method wherein land was
cleared by burning the bushes before planting the crops or either land was plowed and harrowed before
planting. On the other hand, food production was intended for family consumption only at first but later on
neighboring communities where engaged in a barter trade, exchanging their goods with others. Some
even traded their agricultural products with luxury items of some foreign traders like the Chinese, Arabs
and Europeans.

The only recorded transaction of land sale during that time was the Maragtas Code. This is the selling of
the Panay Island to the ten Bornean datus in exchange for a golden salakot and a long gold necklace.
Although the Code of Luwaranwas one of the oldest written laws of the Muslim society which contains
provision on the lease of cultivated lands, there was no record how the lease arrangement was practiced.

Spanish Era (1521-1896)

When the Spanish came to the country in 1521, they introduced “pueblo” an agriculture system wherein
the native rural communities were organized into pueblo and each Christianized native family is given four
to five hectares of land to cultivate, thus there is no landless class.

Nonetheless, these native families are merely landholders and not legitimate landowners. By law, the
land assigned to them was the property of the Spanish King where they pay their colonial tributes to the
Spanish authorities in the form of agricultural products that they produce.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Philippines as a colony of Spain implemented policies that would
mainstream the country into the world of capitalism. The economy was opened to the world market as
exporter of raw materials and importer of finished goods. The agricultural exports were mandated and
hacienda system was developed as a new form of ownership. More people lost their lands and were
forced to become tillers.

Agricultural tenancy during that time originated when the Spanish crown implemented the Laws of the
Indies. The law awards vast tracts of land to the religious orders in the country. Some of them are
awarded to the Spanish military as reward for their service (also known as repartiamentos), and to the
other Spaniards known as encomienderos to manage and have the right to receive tributes from the
natives tilling the land also known as encomiendas. Because of this, the natives within these areas
became mere tillers working for a share of crops. They did not even have any rights to the land.

Ideally the purpose of the encomienda system is for the encomienderos to protect the natives and further
introduce them into Catholic faith in exchange for tribute from the natives. But abusive encomienderos
collected more tributes that became the land rentals from the natives living in the area.

A compras y vandalas system was practiced wherein tillers were made to compulsory sell at a very low
price or surrender their agricultural harvests to Spanish authorities where encomienderos can resell it for
a profit. People of the encomiendas were also required to render personal services on public and
religious work and as a household help to the encomienderos.

In 1865, there was a law made by the Spanish crown ordering landholders to register their landholdings
but only a few were aware of this decree so they were the only ones who were able to register their lands.
Ancestral lands were claimed and registered in other people’s names (Spanish officials, inquilinos and
caciques or local chieftains). As a result, many peasant families were driven out from the lands they have
been cultivating for centuries or were forced to become tillers.

In 1893, the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law was introduced that provides the systematic
registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership claims. This law was mainly a law on registration of
properties rather than a mortgage law.

In 1894, the last Spanish Land Law promulgated in the Philippines was The Maura Law or Royal Decree
of 1894. This law states that farmers and landholders were given one year to register their agricultural
lands to avoid declaration of it as a state property.

With the encomienda system still being used despite the different laws passed by the Spanish crown
more and more tillers were abused, exploited and deprived of their rights. The revolution of peasants and
farmers in 1896 articulated their aspirations for agrarian reform and for a just society. Women also fought
for freedom and played an important role in the planning and implementing the activities of the
revolutionary movements.

The result of this revolution has made the government confiscate the large landed estates, especially the
friar lands and declared these lands as properties of the government.(Malolos Constitution, 1896, Article
XVII)

American Era (1898-1935)

Realizing that being landless was the main cause ofsocial unrest and revolt at that time, the Americans
sought to put an end to the miserable conditions of the tenant tillers and small farmers by passing several
land policies to widen the base of small landholdings and distribute land ownership among the greater
number of Filipino tenants and farmers.

In connection to this, the Philippine Bill of 1902 was passed which provided regulations on the disposal of
public lands wherein a private individual can own 16 hectares of land while the corporate land holdings
can avail of 1, 024 hectares. This also gave the rights to the Americans to own agricultural lands.

The Torrens system of land registration was also introduced during the American colonial period. This
was made to replace the registration system that was implemented by the Spaniards. The reason why
they made a different system of registration was that some 400,000 native farmers were without titles at
the start of the American era and this situation was also aggravated by the absence of records of issued
titles and accurate land surveys.

The Land Registration Act of 1902 or Act No. 496 placed all private and public lands under Torrens
system. While the Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259 speeds up the issuance of Torrens titles. This was done
by surveying a municipality and presented the result to the land registration court.

A program called the Homestead Program was introduced in 1903 that allowed an enterprising tenant to
acquire a farm of at least 16 hectares to cultivate. However, the program was not implemented
nationwide and was introduced only in some parts of Mindanao and Northern Luzon, where there were
available public alienable and disposable lands.

There are also other agrarian laws that were introduced during the American era like the First Public Land
Act or Act No. 926 which provided rules and regulations for selling and leasing portions of the public
domain, completing defective Spanish land titles, canceling, and confirming Spanish concessions.
Another is the Second Public Land Act of 1919 or Act 2874 which limits the use of agricultural lands to
Filipinos, Americans, and citizens of other countries. On the other hand, the Act No. 141 amended the
Second Public Act of 1919 or Act No. 2874. The revision consists of a temporary provision of equality on
the rights of American and Filipino citizens and corporations. It also compiled all pre-existing laws relative
to public lands into a single instrument.

There is also the Friar Land Act or Act No. 1120 which provided the administrative and temporary leasing
and selling of friar lands to its tillers. The first legislation regulating the relationships of landlord and
tenants and the first law to legalize a 50-50 crop sharing arrangement was also introduced in the
American era and is known as the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 or Act No. 4054. There is also the
Sugarcane Tenancy Contracts Act of 1933 or Act No. 4113 which regulated the relationship of landlord
and tenants in the sugarcane fields and required tenancy contracts on land planted to sugarcane.

However, despite the different land policies passed during that time, the farmers’ situation did not improve
at all. In fact, it further worsened the land ownership situation, where there was no limit on the size of
landholdings one could possess. Landholdings were once again concentrated in the hands of fewer
individuals who can afford to buy, register, and acquire fixed titles of their properties. Therefore, more
lands were placed under tenancy.

As a result, there were widespread peasant uprisings, headed by the armed peasants’ groups known as
Colorum and Sakdalistaof Luzon and Northeastern Mindanao respectively. These uprisings resulted to
social disorder in 1920’s and 1930’s. Hence, more militant peasants and workers’ organizations bonded
together for a more collective action against the abuses of landlords and unjust landownership situation.
This gave birth to the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Commonwealth Years (1935-1942)

During these years the situation of land ownership and tenancy were characterized by the contrasting
economic and political lifestyle between tenant and the landlord. Landlords became richer and powerful
while the tenants were deprived of their rights, became poorer and absentee landowners increased. They
preferred to go after new opportunities in the cities and left their farms idle to the management of
“katiwalas”. As a result, haciendas were poorly and unjustly managed.

A small plot of land cultivated by an average peasant farmer could not sustain a decent living for his
family. Tenants and farmers shouldered excessive fines, unfair taxation and usury. Systems for credit and
marketing of rice were lacking thus, farmers received a very low selling price.

Consequently, peasant uprising became widespread all over the country.

As a response to these situations, the government under the stewardship of President Quezon realized
that land reform programs should be implemented immediately. They saw the purchase of friar lands as a
possible way to solve the problem of inequitable land ownership. They also saw that the Homestead
program could be transformed into a massive resettlement program, if properly implemented.

Japanese Era
During the Japanese occupation, peasants and workers organized the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbong Bayan
Laban sa mga Hapon) on March 29, 1942 as an anti-Japanese group. They took over vast tracts of land
and gave the land to the people.

For them, the war was a golden opportunity for people’s initiative to push pro-poor programs. Landlords
were overpowered by the peasants but unfortunately at the end of the war, through the help of the military
police and civilian guards, landlords were able to retrieve their lands from the HUKBALAHAP.

Evolution of Initiatives on Land Reform

Manuel L. Quezon (1935-1944)

Some of the Agrarian Reform laws were passed during the administration of Manuel L. Quezon:

RA 4054 or the Rice Tenancy Law was the first law on crop sharing which legalized the 50-50 share
between landlord and tenant with corresponding support to tenants protecting them against abuses of
landlords. However, this law was hardly implemented because most of the municipal councils were
composed of powerful hacienderos and big landlords. In fact, only one municipality passed a resolution
for its enforcement and majorities have petitioned its application to the Governor General.
The 1935 Constitution provided specific provisions on social justice and expropriation of landed estates
for distribution to tenants as a solution to the land ownership and tenancy problems.

Commonwealth Act No. 461 specified that dismissal of a tenant should first have the approval of Tenancy
Division of the Department of Justice.
Commonwealth Act No. 608 was enacted to establish security of tenure between landlord and tenant. It
prohibited the common practice among landowners of ejecting tenants without clear legal grounds.
President Quezon’s program on land reform includes making a laid down social justice program that
focused on the purchased of large haciendas which were divided and sold to tenants. This administration
was also responsible in establishing the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARICC) and assigning
public defenders to assist peasants in court battles for their rights to till the land.

During this period, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) was set up to exercise jurisdiction over
disagreements arising from agri-workers and landowner relationship. It was also during this time that the
Rice Tenancy Act (Act No. 4054) was amended.
The Homestead Program continued through the creation of the National Land Settlement Administration
(CA No. 441) and tenancy problems were covered through CA Nos. 461 and 608.

But the implementation of land reform during Quezon’s administration was hindered because of the
budget allocation for the settlement program made it impossible for the program to succeed. Also most
landlords did not comply with the Rice Share Tenancy Act. Widespread peasant uprising against abusive
landlords also continued. In addition, the outbreak of the World War II put a stopped to the landownership
and tenancy interventions during this period.

Manuel Roxas (1946-1948)

The Republic Act No. 34 was passed during the administration of Manuel Roxas and it enacted to
establish a 70-30 sharing arrangement between tenant and landlord. The 70% of the harvest will go to the
person who shouldered the expenses for planting, harvesting and for the work animals. With this, it
reduced the interest of landowners’ loans to tenants at not more than 6%.

President Roxas also negotiated for the purchase of 8,000 hectares of lands in Batangas owned by the
Ayala-Zobel family. These were sold to landless farmers.

However, due to lack of support facilities, the farmers were forced to resell their lands to the landowning
class. This failure gave basis to doubt the real meaning of land reform program.
 Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953)

In Elpidio Quirino’s administrations, the Executive Order No. 355, the Land Settlement Development
Corporation (LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and expand the peasant resettlement program
of the government. However, due to limited post-war resources, the program was not successful.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957)

When President Magsaysay was elected as the president of the country he realized the importance of
pursuing a more honest-to-goodness land reform program. So he convinced the elite controlled congress
to pass several legislation to improve the land reform situation in the county. Some of these are:

R.A. No. 1199 (1954): Agricultural Tenancy Act basically governed the relationship between landholders
and tenant-farmers. This law helped protect the tenure rights of tenant tillers and enforced fair tenancy
practices.

R.A. No. 1160 (1954): Free distribution of Resettlement and Rehabilitation and Agricultural land and an
Act establishing the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA).
R.A. No. 1400 (1955): Land Reform Act or known as “Land to the Landless” Program which sought
improvement in land tenure and guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted landed estates.

R.A. No. 1266 (1955) Expropriation of Hacienda del Rosario, situated at Valdefuente, Cabanatuan City

He implemented the Agricultural Tenancy Act by establishing the Court of Agricultural Relations in 1955
to improve tenancy security, fix the land rentals on tenanted farms and to resolve the many land disputes
filed by the landowners and peasant organizations.

He also created the Agricultural Tenancy Commission to administer problems arising from tenancy.
Through this Commission 28,000 hectares were issued to settlers.

Under President Magsaysay the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA)
was created. This is a government agency formed to provide warehouse facilities and assist farmers
market their products and established the organization of the Farmers Cooperatives and Marketing
Associations (FACOMAs).

With the passing of RA 1160 of 1954, President Magsaysay pursued the resettlement program through
the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA). This law established the
government’s resettlement program and accelerated the free distribution of agricultural lands to landless
tenants and farmers. It particularly aimed to convince members of the HUKBALAHAP movement to return
to a peaceful life by giving them home lots and farmlands.

This administration also spearheaded the establishment of the Agricultural and Industrial Bank to provide
easier terms in applying for homestead and other farmland.

With all the programs and bills passed under his administration, out of the targeted 300 haciendas for
distribution, only 41 were distributed after its 7 years of implementation. This was due to lack of funds and
inadequate support services provided for these programs.

As a result, landlords continued to be uncooperative and critical to the program and landownership and
tenancy problems continued.

Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

There was no legislation passed in Carlos Garcia’s term but he continued to implement the land reform
programs of President Magsaysay.
 Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965)

It was during Diosdado Macapagal that the Agricultural Land Reform Code or RA No. 3844 was enacted,
more specifically on August 8, 1963. This was considered to be the most comprehensive piece of
agrarian reform legislation ever enacted in the country that time. Because of this, President Diosdado
Macapagal was considered as the “Father of Agrarian Reform.”

diosdado macapagalThe RA No. 3844 was considered as such because this Act abolished share tenancy
in the Philippines. It prescribed a program converting the tenant farmers to lessees and eventually into
owner-cultivators. Moreover, it aimed to free tenants from the bondage of tenancy and gave hope to poor
Filipino farmers to own the land they are tilling. Finally, it emphasized owner-cultivator relationship and
farmer independence, equity, productivity improvement and the public distribution of land.

However, the landed Congress did not provide effort to come up with a separate bill to provide funding for
its implementation. The act was piloted in the provinces of Pangasinan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija,
Pampanga, Tarlac, Occidental Mindoro, Camarines Sur and Misamis Oriental. It acquired a total of
18,247.06 hectares or 99.29% out of the total scope of 18,377.05 hectares. The program benefited 7,466
farmer beneficiaries. (BLAD-DAR Official Records)
 Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

When President Marcos assumed office, he immediately directed the massive implementation of the
leasehold phase of the land reform program by signing into law the Code of Agrarian Reforms in the
Philippines or RA No. 6389 and its companion bill RA No. 6390. The Code of Agrarian Reforms or RA No.
6389 governed the implementation of the agrarian reform in the Philippines. This law instituted the Code
of Agrarian Reforms and significantly amended several provisions of Agricultural Land Reform Code or
RA 3844 of President Macapagal. It created the Department of Agrarian Reform, a separate
administrative agency for agrarian reform, replacing the Land Authority.

RA 6390 was enacted to accelerate the implementation of the of the agrarian reform program in the fields
of land acquisition and agricultural credit. Through the Code, an AR Special Account in the General Fund
was created that exclusively finance the agrarian reform program.

The core of the Agrarian Reform Program of President Marcos was Presidential Decree No. 2,
proclaiming the entire country as a land reform area and Presidential Decree No. 27, decreeing the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till
and providing the needed instruments and mechanisms. This law provided for tenanted lands devoted to
rice and corn to pass ownership to the tenants. It also lowered the ceilings for landholdings to 7 hectares.
The law stipulated that share tenants who worked from a landholding of over 7 hectares could purchase
the land they tilled, while share tenants on land less than 7 hectares would become leaseholders.

This agrarian reform program was designed to uplift the farmers from poverty and ignorance and to make
them useful, dignified, responsible and progressive partners in nation-building. This AR program was a
package of services extended to farmers in the form of credit support, infrastructure, farm extension, legal
assistance, electrification and development of rural institutions.

President Marcos’ Agrarian Reform Program is characterized by five major components and these are
Land Tenure Program, Institutional Development, Physical Development, Agricultural Development, and
Human Resources.

The Agrarian Reform Programs was also labeled as “revolutionary” by some sectors because it was
pursued under Martial Law and intended to make quick changes without going through legislative or
technical processes and another reason is that it was the only law in the Philippines ever done in
handwriting.

Nevertheless, the program also posed some limitations which includes limited scope of the program since
it was only directed for the tenanted, privately-owned rice and corn lands; there was monopoly of
businessmen in both coconut and sugar industries; foreign and local firms were allowed to use large
tracks of land for their business; and because of the declaration of Martial Law several farmer leaders
were arrested without due process of law.

Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The 1987 Philippine Constitution set the direction of agrarian reform in the Aquino administration. The
1987 Constitution affirmed that “The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian
reform.’ (Article 2, Section 21)

When President Cory Aquino seated as the President of the country, several legislations and issuances
on Agrarian Reform were passed. Some of them are:

Proclamation 131instituted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as a major program of
the government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) in the amount
of 50 billion pesos to cover the estimated cost of the program for the period 1987-1997.

EO 129-Areorganized the Department of Agrarian Reform and expanded in power and operations. It is
known that the record and legacy of the Aquino Administration in Agrarian Reform is the Executive
Summary, Planning Service, and DAR.

EO 228 declared full ownership of the land to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also
regulated the value of remaining rice and corn lands for coverage provided for the manner of payment by
the farmer-beneficiaries and the mode of compensation to the landowners.

EO 229 provided the administrative processes for land registration or LISTASAKA program, acquisition of
private land and compensation procedures for landowners. It specified the structure and functions of units
that will coordinate and supervise the implementation of the program.

RA 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is an act instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform
program to promote social justice and Industrialization, providing the mechanism for its implementation
and for other purposes.

To strengthen CARP and fast track its implementation, President Aquino issued the following Executive
Orders (EO):

E.O. No. 405 gave the Land Bank of the Philippines the primary responsibility for the land valuation
function in order for DAR to concentrate its efforts on the identification of landholdings and beneficiaries,
the distribution of acquired lands, and the other sub-components of the program.

E.O. No. 406 emphasized that CARP is central to the government’s efforts to hasten countryside agro-
industrial development and directed the implementing agencies to align their respective programs and
projects with CARP.

This created CARP implementing teams from the national to the municipal levels and gave priority to 24
strategic operating provinces where the bulk of CARP workload lies.

E.O. No. 407 directed all government financing institutions (GFIs) and government owned and controlled
corporations (GOCCs) to immediately transfer to DAR all their landholdings suitable for agriculture.

E.O. No. 448pursued the policy that government should lead the efforts in placing lands for coverage
under CARP. It directed the immediate turn-over of government reservations, no longer needed, and that
are suitable for agriculture.

Some of the accomplishments achieved during the Aquino administration with regards to the
implementation of the Agrarian Reform Programs are the grants and budgetary support from official
development assistance (ODA) circles poured in during this administration. Various sectors likewise
recognized agrarian reform as a worthwhile social investment. In terms of the tenant-tiller status, it
improved particularly those within landowners’ retained areas or on landholdings subject for coverage.

It is also during this administration that the present adjudication system was introduced. This gave DAR
the original and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes as quasi-judicial powers.

Also, the livelihood and agro-industrial projects promoted and the program of support services were
intensified to help farmer beneficiaries become productive and transform them into entrepreneurs.

The administration received much support and active involvement in program implementation from key
stakeholders such as people’s organization, farmer’s association, NGO’s and from prominent landowners
themselves.

On the other hand, the administration also face challenges in the implementation of CARP for example on
land evaluation, one very specific case is the Garchitorena land scam. There were also issues on the
absence of a clear cut guideline that would answer problems on land use conversion. Minimal efforts
were exerted to discouraged and/or prevent conversion of lands into other use.

Despite the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), the administration experienced a major budgetary shortfall due
to low remittances from the Asset Privatization Trust and the Presidential Commission on Good
Government.

The administration also experienced constant changes in DAR leadership. This led to lack of continuity of
priority, programs and projects.

Allegation on lack of political wills leadership and genuine commitment to implement the program. Critics
say that the President could have implemented a genuine agrarian reform program because of her
revolutionary powers after People Power I.
 Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)

The Ramos administration is recognized for bringing back support of key stakeholders of CARP by
bridging certain policy gaps on land acquisition and distribution, land evaluation, and case resolution. It is
also credited for enhancing internal operating systems and strengtheningthe capabilities of the DAR
bureaucracy and for tapping more resources to help implement the program.

During this time guidelines and procedures were formulated to facilitate acquisition and distribution of
lands:

DAR AO No. 2 (1992) consists of rules and procedures governing the distribution of cancelled or expired
pasture lease agreements and Timber License Agreements under EO 407.

DAR AO No. 1 (1993) is the amendment to certain provisions of the Administrative Order No. 9 Series of
1990, entitled “Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of
Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657.”

Joint DAR-LBP AO No. 3 (1994) is the policy guidelines and procedures governing the acquisition and
distribution of agricultural lands affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

DAR AO No. 1 (1995) consists of the rules and procedures governing the Acquisition and Distribution of
all Agricultural Lands Subject of Sequestration/Acquisition by the PCGG and APT whose ownership in
Under Court Litigation.

DAR AO No. 2 (1995) is the revised rules and procedures governing the Acquisition of Private Agricultural
Lands Subject of Voluntary Land Transfer or a Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS) Pursuant to RA 6657.

DAR AO No. 2 (1996) is the rules and regulations governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject
of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657.

DAR AO No. 2 (1997) is the rules and regulations for the Acquisition of Private Agricultural Lands Subject
of Mortgage or Foreclosure of Mortgage.

DAR AO No. 8 (1997) is the revised guidelines on the Acquisition and Distribution of Compensable
Agricultural Lands under VLT/Direct Payment Scheme.

DAR MC No. 7 (1993) refers to the implementing guidelines on the Distribution and Tilling of the Public
Agricultural Lands turned over by the National Livelihood and Support Fund to the DAR for distribution
under the CARP pursuant to EO 407, Series of 1990 as amended by EO 448, Series of 1991 and as
clarified under Memorandum Order No. 107 of the President of the Philippines dated March 23, 1993.

Despite all of these, there are challenges that the administration faced during implementation of the
program. One of which is the failure in enforcing the installation of some farmer beneficiaries on awarded
lands. Critics also say that “non-physical installation of FBs has been the norm rather than the exception.

Some sectors also complained on the slowness of this administration in the acquisition and distribution of
privately owned lands. Although this administration was credited for having the biggest accomplishment in
terms of LAD, critics say this is because the land acquired and distributed were more on public lands and
rice and corn lands.

Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001)

During this administration the Magkabalikat Para sa kaunlarang Agraryo (MAGKASAKA) which was
launched which is directed for the investors to bring in capital, technology and management support while
the farmers will contribute, at most, the use of their land itself.

The MAGKASAKA aims to encourage investors to bring investments into the countryside and to enhance
the income of the farmers through joint venture schemes and contract growing schemes. The program
also aims to enable the farmers to be more efficient and be globally competitive.

This administration saw the urgency of land distribution, and believed that it can be served if it is built on
farmers’ capacities to pursue their own development. One of the first things this administration did was to
rework performance targets – by focusing on the number of hectares of land distributed coupled with an
accounting of farmer beneficiaries and the specific croplands and farm systems covered. This approach
sought to integrate land distribution and support services. It was during this period that DAR launched a
series of land occupations by working with farmer claimants, the LGU and government security forces.

To help speed up litigation, DAR also helped set up the agrarian justice fund for farmer beneficiaries as
well as DAR field workers who, due to the nature of the job, are named as respondents in cases filed by
recalcitrant landowners. Support services took a much more entrepreneurial approach during this
administration. Sustainable rural development district program, were designed to help farmers attain a
level of economic viability.

It has forged alliances among countries implementing AR through the International Conference on
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. The department then began aggressively to assert its place in
national development planning processes to raise DAR’s profile both in national and international fora.
With this, DAR was able to secure a seat in the annual consultative group meeting between the
Philippines’s economic management team and the donor community. This period also launched the DAR-
DA-DENR convergence initiative.

But there were also some hindrances that the administration faced like the fiscal constraints encountered
that resulted to unpaid or delayed payment of landowners covered under the compulsory acquisition and
VOS schemes.

There were also issues on inter and intra ARBs conflicts due to arguments for control over negotiations
with prospective joint venture partners, some of which became violent.

Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo (2001 – 2010)

The GMA administration has adopted the BAYAN-ANIHAN concept as the implementing framework for
CARP. Bayan means people and Anihan means harvest and Bayanihan means working together. Applied
to CARP, Bayan Anihan means a united people working together for the successful implementation of
agrarian reform.

The Bayan-Anihan Framework has different implementing strategies namely:

Salin-Lupa: Accelerating land transfer and improving land tenure.

Katarungan: Prompt and fair settlement of agrarian disputes and delivery of agrarian reform justice.

Bayanihan: Better delivery by the government of appropriate support services to ARBs and the
mobilization of the ARBs themselves in the transformation of the agrarian reform communities into an
agrarian reform zones and into progressive farming.

Kabayanihan or the Konsehong Bayan Para sa Anihan: Institutionalization not only of the system of
dialogue and consultation but also joint problem solving with AR stakeholders, particularly people’s
organizations, cooperatives and NGOs.

Kamalayan: Raising the awareness of DAR personnel, agrarian reform beneficiaries and the general
public on agrarian reform and its contribution to social justice and development.

Under Arroyo’s administration introduced the Kapit Bisig sa Kahirapan Agrarian Reform Zones
(KARZONEs) as a program strategy of the DAR in CARP Implementation. KARZONEs is a partnership
and convergence strategy aimed at achieving asset reform, poverty reduction, food sufficiency, farm
productivity, good governance, social equity and empowerment of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs)
both in ARCs and non-ARCs.

Other specific programs under this administration to enhance CARP were also implemented like the
Gulayan Magsasakang Agraryo. This intends to add income and food security to farmers and their
communities. Educational opportunities were also ushered in to farmer’s children and dependents
through the Diosdado Macapagal Scholar Program.

This administration is also credited in heightening agrarian case resolution by introducing a quota system
to compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian cases and train farmers into paralegals.

Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” C. Aquino III (2010–up to present)

Under the governance of President Noynoy Aquino, the DAR which is the lead agency for CARP
implementation is bent on sustaining the gains of agrarian reform through its three major components–
Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD) and Agrarian Justice
Delivery (AJD). The following are the strategic directions of the Aquino Administration for the agrarian
reform program:

To substantially complete asset reform as mandated by R.A. No. 9700 by:

1. Completing the land acquisition and distribution (LAD) in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Extension with Reforms (CARPER) or Republic Act 9700 balance through: Focus on large-sized private
agricultural lands; Redeployment of competent DAR personnel to the 20 high LAD provinces; Streamline
LAD processes and procedures; and Enhance the database of landholdings for ease in targeting and
monitoring the LAD;

2. Prioritizing the subdivision of collective Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) involving LBP-
compensable lands;

3. Fast tracking the documentation and settlement of landowner compensation for already distributed
lands;

4. Synergizing and rationalizing the efforts of the CARP implementing agencies in all processes of LAD;

5. Partnering with the civil society organizations (CSOs) in the delivery of LTI services, particularly the
large-sized private agricultural lands (PAL);

6. Adopting a job-sharing scheme wherein under the ONE-DAR concept, provinces will share
responsibilities (low-LAD provinces with high LAD provinces) to minimize the need to hire new personnel;
and

7. Increasing the utilization of the services of geodetic engineers to assist the provincial and municipal
offices in land acquisition considering the difficulty of hiring new personnel and the demands of a post-
2014 scenario.

Under President Aquino’s administration, the DAR’s Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD) priorities
are geared in:

1. Undertaking convergence initiatives with rural development agencies to complement the resources and
streamline the efforts of DAR, DA and DENR;

2. Inking public-private partnerships (PPPs) develop models of collaboration and business models in AR
areas with the participation of the CSOs, academe, research and development institutions and LGUs;

3. Expanding official development assistance (ODA) portfolio in order to augment incomes for PBD;

4. Integrating LTI and PBD on a province-to-province basis;

5. Shifting focus of low-LAD balance provinces to PBD; and

6. Unlocking credit facilities for the agrarian reform beneficiaries through capacity development for credit
providers and farmer-borrowers.

To speed up resolution of AR related cases, the Agrarian Justice Delivery component is geared at:

1. Putting the legal framework in place to expedite the LAD process and undertake PBD lawyering to
ensure ARBs’ free and informed consent on agribusiness agreements;

2. Developing common templates and legal outlines in order to rationalize the DAR lawyers’ and
paralegals’ appreciation and decision on cases;

3. Improving the capabilities of DAR lawyers and legal officers; and

4. Utilizing information, communication technology (ICT) to enhance legal work.

Together with the efforts to fight graft and corruption by the President, it is imperative to have institutional
reforms within DAR as acomplement to the abovementioned DAR components as well as give credence,
transparency and accountability at all sectors of the DAR bureaucracy.
Source : http://www.dar.gov.ph/9-main/996-dar-historical-background 03262018 08:01PM