presenter: gilberto m. llanto and marife … 7357 and 7668 which reserves certain lands for tourism...

1 G. M. Llanto and M. M. Ballesteros _____________________________________________________________________________________________

COUNTRY CASE STUDY

PHILIPPINES

PRESENTER: GILBERTO M. LLANTO AND MARIFE M. BALLESTEROS

Introduction

Access to land and productive inputs is a strong predicate for poverty alleviation. In the Philippines, the

poor are strongly dependent on access to land for their livelihood and welfare. Three fourths of the poor

(i.e. more than 20 million people) make a living out of agriculture and fisheries activities.1 Likewise, the

urban poor, who account for 25 percent of total poor population in the country, are also dependent on land

since housing provides them access to the urban economy.2 For many urban poor families, the house

serves as base for income-generating activities (e.g. food vending, tailoring, processing of recyclable

materials, etc.). Thus, sustainable economic activities in agriculture and fisheries sector and in the urban

economy that would address poverty alleviation problems depend on efficient and socially accepted

distribution of land resources.

A major factor to sustained growth and poverty alleviation strategies seems to be the presence of a well-

functioning land market. An efficient land market maximizes the use of land while well-defined land or

property rights can overcome credit market imperfections, provide effective insurance against shocks,

help households improve their health status and provide decent shelter. However, the Philippine land

market has not been efficiently functioning. Land was highly unequally distributed. Problems of

boundary disputes, illegal occupation of state and forestlands, fake titles, inappropriate land valuation,

and lack of commitment to environmental sustainability constrain the efficiency of land markets. These

problems arise from poor and inadequate land administration and management.

In recognition of the critical role played by land markets and the access to land resources by the poor, the

Philippine government’s poverty reduction strategies and development agenda have included several

reforms and measures to address problems on land. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP) has been the fundamental strategy for poverty reduction. CARP has been the main instrument

1 A. Balisacan (2002). Pathways to Sustained Poverty Alleviation: Agrarian Reform Communities and Beneficiaries and the New Economic Paradigm. Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project. World Bank 2 __________ (1994). Poverty, Urbanization and Development Policy A Philippine Perspective. Quezon City: University of the Philippine Press

Country Case Study: Philippines 2 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

correct inequities in land distribution and at the same time to ensure secure tenure to agricultural tenants

in order to increase productivity in the agricultural sector.

In the urban sector, the government is working towards building sustainable urban communities through a

strategy of improving the livability of poor communities and provision of access to basic urban

infrastructure and services. Improvement in land administration has also been started. In particular, the

government has embarked on a long-term program to improve the processes and infrastructure for better

cadastre, record-keeping and information dissemination. Institutional reforms such as decentralization

have paved the way for local governments to be responsible for the management of local resources

including land. Government, however, has yet to define a national land use policy for the country that

will guide allocation and use of resources. The unprecedented urbanization in the country has been

putting pressure on land use and the absence of a land policy has become more evident with the

increasing cases of land conversion disputes. The tension between continued use of certain lands for

agriculture on the one hand, and the demand of rapid urbanization on the other, has led to conflict among

various interested parties such as land developers, agricultural workers and landowners.

Government has adopted a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing critical land issues. The

Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2001-2004, which embodies the antipoverty and

development framework of government outlines the strategies of this approach. The MTPDP seeks not

only better access and secure land tenure for the poor but also efficient land use management for

sustainable economic growth.

Section II of this paper elaborates on the critical land issues and provides a brief discussion of agrarian

reform, urban land reform and the problem of informal settlements. Section III analyzes how these issues

are addressed in national development and poverty alleviation strategies. Section IV provides the

concluding remarks.

Critical Land Issues and Government Land Programs

Land Administration and Management in the Philippines

The Philippine land administration and management is weak in various aspects: legal and policy

framework, land administration infrastructure and land taxation.

Legal and Policy Framework

The Philippine land policy follows the concept of State ownership whereby all waters and lands within

Philippine territorial jurisdiction is owned by the State. Private ownership of land has been allowed for

lands classified by the government as agricultural lands or alienable and disposable (A and D) lands.

There are three types of land – protected areas, alienable and disposable (A & D) lands and privately


owned lands. The protected areas such as forest (timber and pasture and grazing lands) and mineral

lands are owned by the State. These lands are inalienable and can only be leased. Of the total Philippine

land area of 30 million hectares, 15.88 million hectares are forestlands or protected areas and 14.12

million hectares are alienable and disposable (A&D) lands (Table 1). Most A&D lands (64.8%) are titled

and privately owned while the rest are patrimonial properties of the State.3

In terms of land utilization, forestland has the largest share (64%) followed by agricultural land (33%).

Settlements, including inland fisheries, account for 2.5% of the total Philippine land area. Mining,

quarrying, and open lands have the smallest share of only 0.05% (Table 2).

Protected areas are characterized as common property, that is, they are owned by the State but usufruct

rights can be enjoyed by private parties through arrangements such as leasehold or by a group using the

protected area as a common resource. In this respect, there is need to clearly define indigenous people’s

rights or claims over ancestral domains. The scope of ancestral domain, e.g., whether it covers mineral

lands, the superiority of native claims over property rights granted by government through the market

economy’s land registration and titling system and usufruct rights are some of the outstanding issues that

have to be resolved.

Another issue is the unclear delineation of forestlands. Forestlands have been defined as lands with slope

higher than 18 degrees. However, the executive branch of government may reclassify forestlands into

agricultural uses if such lands are more valuable for agricultural use. To illustrate a dimension of this

problem, existing maps indicate certain areas as forestlands but these have not taken into account the

actual patterns of land use. In other words, there is need to establish whether some forestlands or lands

with slope higher than 18 degrees are actually devoted to agricultural use.

Privately owned lands are properties belonging to private persons either individually or collectively.

These private lands emanated from A & D lands that had been granted or sold by the State to individual

citizens, associations and corporations qualified to acquire or hold lands in the country. In the course of

time, the agricultural lands may have been converted to other uses, e.g., industrial, residential in response

to economic incentives. There are several modes of acquiring private ownership of A & D lands:

homestead, free patent, sale and grant. Homestead and free patent are grants; the former is Constitutional

grant on uncultivated lands while the latter is a legislative grant of cultivated lands (Public Land

Act/Commonwealth Act 141). Acquisition through homestead, however, requires cultivation of land for

at least five years as prerequisite to land titles. Grant is a more recent form of acquiring public land

through laws such as the agrarian land reform and presidential proclamation of public lands for socialized

housing. 3 These are public lands presently owned by the State for public use but can be alienated if present use is no longer necessary.


Studies showed that the early system of land acquisition in the country had been highly- politicized and

non-transparent.4 Corruption and political intervention abounded and those who had access to A & D

lands were mainly the elite and those with political connections. The result had been the concentration of

large tract of lands to the moneyed class, resulting in a highly inequitable land distribution.

A major weakness of Philippine land policy is the failure to clearly identify society’s preferences

regarding land use. The transcending importance of efficient land use to society is well understood but

the political economy of establishing social preferences regarding land use is the problematic part. Thus,

there have been significant problems in land use and allocation with the perception that there are policy

reversals specifically on conversion of agrarian reform lands to non-agriculture use. (Table 3).

Government may find itself caught in a policy bind: supporting sectors that would favor agricultural use

over urban use and on other occasions, favoring those sectors that demand the increase of land available

for housing and other nonagricultural uses. We conjecture at this point that this is because of the

inefficiency of land markets and the weaknesses and perhaps, inconsistency in the legal and policy

framework governing land use and management.

The rationalization of land uses thus has been a slow process. Various laws have been implemented for

the classification or reclassification of lands into different uses. In particular, the laws paramount to land

classification are the following: (1) Presidential Decree 399 which reserves strip lands along highways or

public roads for human settlements and other non-agricultural uses; (2) Republic Act (RA) 7279 which

defines urban lands and lands with potential urban use and reserves them for urban development and

social housing purposes; (3) RA 7916 which identifies areas reserved for economic zone development

and prescribes the manner of identifying such areas; (4) RA 7160 (Local Government Code) which

provides for the mechanism for apportioning agricultural lands at the local level; (5) RA 6657 which

provides restrictions on the classification of agricultural and agrarian lands including protected areas; (6)

RA 7357 and 7668 which reserves certain lands for tourism development; (7) RA 8435 or the Agriculture

and Fisheries modernization Act (AFMA) which identifies a network of protected areas for agriculture

and agro-industrial development in effect impinging on existing laws on protected areas under the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources; (8) RA 8850 or Philippine Fisheries Code which has

provisions that run counter to earlier laws defining the utilization and disposal of mangroves; (9) RA

8370, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act that recognizes ancestral domains on lands including mineral

lands and gives priority rights to indigenous peoples and (10) RA 7942 Mining Act, which provides that

all natural resources particularly minerals are owned by the State.

4 G. Sancianco y Goson (1975). The Progress of the Philippines. Manila: National Historical Institute. W. Wolters (1999) The Development of Property Rights in Land: The Philippines Mid-19th Century to the 1920s. Property Rights and Economic Development: Land and Natural Resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Edited by T. van Meiji and F. von Benda Beckmann. London: Kegan Paul International.


There is a need to review the consistency of these laws in the light of the requirements of sustainable

economic growth and poverty alleviation objectives5. Although a National Land Use Inter-agency

Committee has been created to address problems of land allocation, utilization and management, and

among others help to resolve land use conflicts, the Committee has limited powers (i.e. no quasi-judicial

powers). A draft National Land Use Act prepared by the Committee to provide a mechanism for the

implementation of a national land use policy has been languishing in Congress.

The way government deals with squatting seems to reflect the vagueness of the legislators’ stand on the

issue. While the Constitution upholds private ownership, the enacted law was tolerant of squatting.

Thus, occupation and possession as a mode of acquisition have become common not only on public lands

but also private and patrimonial properties. Land markets are, thus, constrained by the presence of a third

party that have no legal claims over possession and enjoyment of the land but only quasi-legal or de facto

rights over use of the land. The presence of squatters has increased transaction cost in the land market.

Evicting them is no easy task. The law entitles squatters to a due process before eviction and demolition

can be undertaken. Litigation, however, is a slow and tedious process. On the average, resolution of

squatting cases takes years. Carrying out a court order is even more difficult. Local governments are

given the primary responsibility to carry out eviction orders but they cannot just easily implement these

orders because the law requires them to first find resettlement or relocation areas for squatters. Under the

existing Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), resettlement and relocation can be carried out

only under court orders and only when preliminary conditions, that is, relocation site, fair compensation,

availability of basic public services at the relocation site, etc., have been satisfied. However, local

government units sometimes neither have the resources nor the site to relocate the squatters. There is also

an incentive problem since some local officials may be reluctant to carry out this responsibility due to its

implications on their local election chances. The squatters represent a big block of voters which local

officials court to put them in elective positions.

Land Administration Infrastructure

The land administration infrastructure, including the land information system in the Philippines is poor

and inadequate. Information about land ownership, location, boundaries, actual land uses and land values

cannot be provided systematically in many local governments. One result is fraud in land titling and it can

take years to resolve land ownership conflicts. In particular, the Philippine land administration system

has the following characteristics.6 First, there are 19 agencies involved in land administration but their

operations are not coordinated and information integration is poor. There also seems no institutional

5 Another problem is that the implementation of these laws is handled by different agencies. The result is overlapping mandates and multiple processes. 6 This section draws from the following sources: GHK International (2000). Development of Poor Urban Communities Project (DPUCP) Philippines. ADB: Philippines (Appendix C); National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) National Land Use Committee.


mechanism in place to resolve conflicting issues. Second, major land administration laws are outdated

and some are not in accord with recent land use legislation. For instance, on land registration, the

governing law is the Property Registration Decree from 1978 (PD 1529). The law is comprehensive yet it

no longer addresses some of the weaknesses of the current land administration system. All title disputes

(including smallest corrections on title) have to go to the courts. This has caused widespread delays and

invited abuse. Third, existing land records management is inefficient. There are limited inventories of

land records. A large proportion of records have been missing due to destruction from war, theft, and fire

and water damage. Some were also misplaced due to frequent transfer of records. Many of the remaining

records are in fragile conditions and some have been illegally altered. Fourth, cadastral information is

inadequate. There is no complete set of cadastral maps that show titled and untitled properties and the

boundaries of private, public and forest land parcels. The most convenient way for a person to obtain

information about the land is to visit the site, make inquiries and have the land resurveyed to check

boundaries. Fifth, information in the land registry is not easily accessible. Title records in the Registry of

Deeds (RoD), which is the ultimate repository of land titles in the country, cannot be matched with parcel

or cadastral map number. The Land Management Bureau (LMB) under the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources keeps the original cadastral surveys and record maps while the Land Registration

Authority under the Department of Justice keeps copies of subsequent surveys on titled property and the

municipal index maps. These maps, however, does not show the cadastral information stored with LMB.

Because of this mismatch, problems of duplication and/or overlap are not easily detected. The system of

access is also manual and hence, inefficient. Corollary, to this is the fact that some land title records have

not been updated. Ownership titles issued in the past have not been perfected into the Torrens registration

system and records of these possesory or ownership titles are not available. Sixth, there is an absence of a

national standard and method for real property valuation. Several systems and methodologies are applied

in the valuation of real properties. Thus, property valuation varies depending on the purpose to which

land is being assessed. There is valuation of land for real property taxation, for compensation of land

acquired for public investment and valuation under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

(CARP). The private sector also provides its own valuation for purposes of bank lending, insurance,

purchase and sale of real property by investors.

The inefficient land administration system resulted in high transaction costs in securing, registering and

transferring property rights. There is no efficient mechanism to resolve land disputes, and the land

administration system does not generate reliable information needed by the courts to hear land cases.

Also, the high cost of registering land discourages registration and consequently investments on land.


Poor land administration can erode public confidence and trust in the titling and land registration system

and this puts the especially the poor at a great disadvantage. Under the current land registration system, it

takes between six months to several years to obtain original titles and between several weeks to a few

months to register subsequent land transactions.7 The percentage of untitled lands in rural areas is high,

estimated at approximately 1/3 of land parcels in rural areas. Informal land transactions to obtain access

to land are the only avenues left to the landless. In the urban areas, this is illustrated by informal

settlements or squatting.

Land Taxation

The cost of holding idle, unimproved land in the country is minimal. Although the property tax system is

well designed, land taxation is not used effectively to generate revenue or to encourage active land

markets. The authority to impose land taxes is with the local government units sharing in the revenue

according to a fixed formula. Provinces can impose taxes up to 1% (2% in cities) plus an education

surcharge of 1% of the assessed value. Local governments can also impose an idle land tax of up to 5%

of the value of the land. In addition, capital gains taxes (1/4 of 1%)) are also paid from sale of lands. The

implementation of these taxes is, however, poor. This is partly due to inefficient land valuation but the

significant factor is political. A landowner dominated local council may not support efficient land

taxation, including the periodic assessment of land values to establish an appropriate tax base. Political

pressure may also come from local businessmen or banks in possession of foreclosed lands.

On the other hand, the implementation of the idle land tax has been neglected despite provisions in the

law that mandate local governments to keep a record of idle lands within their jurisdiction (Section 239 of

the Local Government Code) and to impose a tax on idle lands at 5% of assessed value of the property

(Sections 236 and 237 of the Local Government Code and UDHA Art XI Sec 42). Monitoring of idle

lands has remained undone and only one municipality so far has implemented the idle land tax.8

The efficient allocation of lands to their best use has been constrained by relatively low tax burdens. This

practice has encouraged land speculation and undermined the generation of significant revenues for land

ownership. It also provided an incentive to overvalue real property and underestimate property-related

risk. Doubtful and contested land valuations have also caused long delays in the implementation of

government and private sector projects due to contestations in courts. In particular, it has significant

implications on infrastructure developments in the country. A major factor that caused delays in

infrastructure completion is the right of way acquisition (ROWA).9

7 World Bank (2000). Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Learning and Innovation Loan. Land Administration and Management Project. Rural Development and Natural Resource Sector. 8 Housing and Urban Development and Coordinating Council (HUDCC). Regional Housing Summit. August 2001. 9 R. Manasan and R. Mercado (2001). An Assessment of the Absorptive Capacity of Agencies Involved in Public Sector Works. PIDS Discussion Paper 2001-17.


The inefficient land valuation valuation has persisted as major contentious issue overtime. Different

agencies have provided widely disparate estimates of land valuation. For instance, the Bureau of Internal

Revenue (BIR), the local government assessors, the Bankers Association of the Philippines, the different

realty appraisers associations all tend to apply different valuation to the same property. The courts have

been asked to resolve the disagreements on valuation but this has caused further delays given the slow

pace at which expropriation cases are resolved and the backlog of court cases that are not just on

property-related problems alone.

Recently, Congress approved RA 8974 and RA 8975, which intend to expedite acquisition of ROW. RA

8974 upholds the BIR zonal valuation as basis for the computation of “just compensation” for the

acquisition of ROW. It also provides a time frame of 60 days for the courts to determine just

compensation in cases when no BIR zonal valuations are available. On the other hand, RA 8975 prohibits

the lower courts from issuing restraining orders and injunctions on infrastructure projects. These laws,

however, only addresses the issue of ROWA. Different standards in land valuation still remains a

problem in the land markets.

Key Programs Affecting Land Policy and Use

In a developing country like the Philippines, land is a very strategic resource to accumulation of wealth

and to the improvement of households’ economic status. Those who own land are usually the ones who

control and/or have access to productive resources such as credit, technologies and other inputs of

production. Inequitable distribution of land has contributed to high poverty incidence specifically in the

countryside. Thus, initial efforts of government on poverty alleviation have focused on providing the

poor access to land. Key programs along this line are the following: (1) agrarian land reform and (2)

urban land reform and community based housing programs. National urban planning programs that

called for efficient land use management supported these programs.

The Agrarian Reform Program

The agrarian reform program has been a major strategy for growth and poverty alleviation in rural and

agricultural sector. The skewed agrarian structure of the country dates back from 400 years of Spanish

colonization. Inequitable land distribution and landlessness were the result of the establishment of

haciendas and the encomienda system during the Spanish regime. The Americans attempted to provide

lands to many of the population but this failed because land distribution was politicized. It was also

because the undeveloped rural areas did not provide much incentive for the population to settle in these

areas. There have been several attempts to abolish tenancy and redistribute land to tenants since the

1930s but these attempts have failed mainly because of political interference and the stranglehold of the


local elite over land resources. The agrarian reform laws were either watered down or not implemented

because of landlord dominated Congress or municipal councils according to a local researcher.10

The first major attempt at land reform was made in 1972 (PD 27) under the Marcos administration. This

land reform program aimed to liberate tenants from agrarian bondage and enable them to increase

productivity and incomes. However, this initial attempt accomplished little.11 The program failed to

reach the majority of farmers since it was limited in scope. It covered only rice and corn lands and some

landlords shifted to other crops to avoid the law. The implementation of the land reform program was

also very slow. Between 1972 and June 1986, only 3.2% of its target beneficiaries have been issued

emancipation patents (i.e. certificate indicating ownership rights over the land)12 and only 35% of the

landlords have been actually compensated. Problems in land valuation; landowner resistance and lack of

land surveys delayed the transfer of rights to the beneficiaries. Moreover, support services to the agrarian

reform beneficiaries have not been adequate. In the case of credit, the formal banking system has no

incentive to provide credit to agrarian beneficiaries on the strength of emancipation patents that substitute

poorly to the traditional transfer of certificate title.

In 1988, a comprehensive agrarian reform law was enacted to correct the flaws in the previous land

reform program. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was formulated covering all

private and public agricultural lands regardless of commodity produced. Beneficiaries of the program

include not only farmers but also all workers in the land.

The CARP was considerably more meritorious than the 1972 reforms. Recent research seems to indicate

that CARP showed a positive impact on poverty alleviation. In particular, the incidence of poverty

among agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) is observed to be lower than that of non-ARBs (Table 4).

About 45.1% of ARBs are poor compared to 56.3% of non-ARBs. It was also reported that there has

been a decline in the poverty incidence among ARB households from 47.6% in 1990 to 45.2% in 2000

(Table 5). In contrast, there has been an increase in the proportion of poor households among non-ARBs

from 55.1% in 1990 to 56.4% in 2000. The greater proportion of ARBs who became non-poor suggests

that the probability for an agrarian reform beneficiary to move out of poverty is higher than the non-ARB.

The creation of Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs) has provided a more efficient mechanism for

delivering support services to agrarian reform beneficiaries. Support services, which include capacity

building, credit, infrastructure and livelihood, have enhanced smallholder productivity. There are 1,313

ARCs all over the country (Table 6) consisting of about three fourths of total ARB-households.

10 L.Adriano (1991). A General Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform. PIDS Working paper Series No. 91-03. 11 This is largely based on the assessment in the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 1987- 1992. 12 These patents have to be registered at the Land Registration Office to obtain a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), which is the official document certifying the actual transfer of ownership to the beneficiary from the State.


However, an inherent weakness of the CARP is the lack of attention given to other resources that make up

the farming systems.13 There is also the lack of social preparation of agrarian reform beneficiaries, who

will eventually take over the land. Moreover, the CARP law is not airtight. There are several areas for

evading the law.14 For instance, the law provides limited area coverage where a long list of land types that

constitutes the non-reform sector is excluded. This provision allows landowners to convert their

landholdings into “non-profit” ventures since the law exempts areas used for non-profit activities.

Agribusiness plantations are also exempted from land reform with the belief that there is economies-of-

scale in export productions.

Land acquisition and disposal under the CARP has also been slow. There has been a continuing

slowdown in the pace of land transfer owing to the shift in coverage towards privately owned lands.15

DAR’s land redistribution accomplishments show that on the average, it has accomplished 70% of its

target from 1987 to September 2001 (Table 7). Most lands redistributed are non-private lands. The slow

redistribution of lands and poor performance on private lands have been attributed to the following

factors:16 (1) cumbersome land valuation; (2) slow pace in land survey process; (3) backlogs in land

registration; (4) cumbersome land acquisition and distribution process due to numerous documents

required and difficulty of coordination of land-reform related activities.

Land valuation takes time due to lack of accurate information to assess the appropriate price of land while

ensuring that the indices specified in CARL for valuation are met. Extensive field and secondary research

have to be done and with the limited resources (staff and budget) at the Land Bank of the Philippines

(LBP) the process has often been delayed.17 Cost sharing among the agencies, DAR, DENR and LBP to

accomplish this task is not practiced since LBP often decides on land value independent of other agencies.

Each agency does its own field investigation. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initiates an ocular

inspection to identify the landowners and prospective farmer-beneficiaries and the area to be covered for

reform. It also gathers data relating to land (e.g. production data). DENR also does its own field

investigation to look into CARP and non-CARP areas and boundaries. LBP gathers the same information

as DAR and DENR. DAR’s formula for computing “just compensation” has changed three times

between 1988 and 1992. Compounding this problem is the lack of standardized definitions of what

should be covered by CARP and of who has the final prerogative in determining land value (i.e the DAR

Adjudication Board decision vs. LBP’s estimate). Each agency also requires different documentary

requirements.

13 Regional Development and Coordinating Staff, NEDA 14 L.Adriano (1991). A General Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform. PIDS Working paper Series No. 91-03 15 World Bank (2002) Public Expenditure, Procurement and Financial Management Review: Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. 16 L. Adriano (1994). DAR, Land Reform-Related Agencies and the CARP: A Study of Government and Alternative Approaches to Land Acquisition and Distribution. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 94-13, Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. 17 Land valuation for land acquisition and distribution is being handled by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).


The registration of emancipation patents (EPs) with the Register of Deeds (RoD) plays a critical role in

the land acquisition and distribution process. It provides the chain linking the final stage of the

acquisition phase. So far, RoD has kept pace with the registration of EPs and Certificates of Land

Ownership Awards (CLOAs) except for some provinces.18 The bottleneck, however, is in registration of

the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) for land acquisition, that is, the transfer of title from landowner to

the State. The problem lies on the following: (1) non-surrender of owner’s duplicate copy of the title; (2)

unreconstituted (i.e. loss/unreadable titles have to be restored) original copy of title; (3) the Supreme

Court ruling that the land be fully paid to landowner before transfer of certificate; (4) non-surrender of

duplicate copy of title by LBP due to inventory; (5) incentive problem among RoD staff; (6) too many

rules governing registration; (7) menial deficiencies in the technical documents or clerical error. These

are not resolved in the RoD level but instead are returned to the DAR for corrections. These bottlenecks

have made the EPs and CLOAs imperfect instruments of ownership and thus, they are unacceptable to

banks as collateral.

Recent assessment of CARP points to problems that also result from weak land administratione:19 First,

landowner’s resistance due to absence of clear valuation of “fair market value” on the land. Second, the

presence of problematic lands and lands without proper documentation. A significant percentage (21%) of

the 1.2 million hectares of CARP scope is composed of problematic lands. These are lands, which have

ownership conflicts or with conflicts regarding the actual area of land that is covered by agrarian reform.

It is possible that portions of a land parcel have been covered by an exemption (i.e the land has been

zoned non-agricultural) . Other CARP lands have no proper documentation (18%). There are also CARP

identified lands that have to be validated due to possible error in the identification of the land (33%).

Some of these lands may not be CARP-able and thus have to be deducted from the CARP scope. A third

problem is the failure to install ARBs on awarded lands due to unsettled and pending cases of

counterclaims by landowners at the DAR Adjudication Board. Fourth opposition from some local

governments to land acquisition and disposal program. Local governments oftentimes help landowners

convert their lands to non-agricultural uses in view of higher tax revenues from non-agricultural uses.

Fifth, regulations on land conversion issues are unclear.

Urban Land Reform and Community- Based Housing Programs

In the urban sector, access to land has been addressed through an urban land reform and housing program

that has provided opportunities for informal settlers to own land they occupy. The Urban Land Reform

Act (PD 1517) was enacted in 1978, to protect long time residents or tenants in urban lands and to prevent

18 Adriano, 1994 19 A. Balisacan (2002). Pathways to Sustained Poverty Alleviation: Agrarian Reform Communities and Beneficiaries and the New Economic Paradigm. Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project. World Bank


the unreasonable increases in the price of urban lands. Specific sites in Metro Manila and other highly

urbanized cities have been identified for this purpose. Between 1978 and 1989, 264 urban zone sites were

identified for Metro Manila and 20 sites in the regions (Table 8). These areas were selected primarily

due to their blighted condition. The sale of land and development of these areas required clearance from

the government. The existing occupants were given the right of first refusal to purchase the land within a

reasonable time and at a price decided by the government through the Housing and Land Use Regulatory

Board (TAMA BA ITO?). In some cases, government expropriated these properties. Most sites were

developed by the National Housing Authority (NHA) through its various programs such as zonal

improvement program, slum upgrading, community mortgage program and special projects. Other sites

were developed by the local government units or were purchased by the concerned community

organization in the area. Of the sites identified in Metro Manila, about 106 sites are pending

development. About 12 of these sites are under litigation due to multiple ownership, land valuation

problems, refusal of landowners to sell property or refusal of some residents to pay for the property.

The practice of identifying urban land reform sites was discontinued starting 1989 due to opposition from

landowners and the regressive effect of the law on land markets. Instead, government scaled up

community-based housing programs to provide a mechanism by which informal settlers can gain access

and secure tenure on urban lands. These programs provided low cost financing to organized household

communities for land acquisition and development. The first of these programs is the Community

Mortgage Program (CMP) that was implemented in 1988 by the National Home Mortgage Finance

Corporation (NHMFC). The other programs are the Group Land Acquisition and Development (GLAD)

Program implemented by the Home Development and Mutual Fund (HDMF) and the Land Tenure

Acquisition Program (LTAP) of the National Housing Authority. Of these aforementioned housing

programs, CMP remains the most availed of by the informal settlers.20 From 1989 to last quarter 2001, a

total of P3.14 billion has been released under CMP. This has benefited some 110,528 households in 881

communities (Table 9). About half of all communities assisted have been in Metro Manila: 70% of all

CMP projects are in Metro Manila and the two adjacent regions (Regions 3 and 4). One view on the

reason for this concentration is that it is not because the need is greatest in these regions but because of

ease of access and communication between communities in Manila and the NHMFC, between central

bureaucrats and their client and between representatives of poor communities and power holders in the

center.21 On the other hand, one can surmise that it is in Metro Manila and the nearby urban areas, that is,

20 The GLAD program suspended its operation in 2000 while LTAP was created as a support program for CMP. 21 M. Lee (1995). The Community Mortgage Program: An Almost Successful Alternative for Some Urban Poor. Habitat International, 19(4) 1995.


in Regions 3 and 4 where informal settlers congregate in search of better opportunities and hence, the

relative emphasis in these areas in respect to CMP implementation.

Two case studies from Metro Manila illustrate how squatter communities formally try to access land

through the CMP (see Box 1).


Box 1: How the Poor Access Land: The Community Mortgage Program

1. The NAPICO Association 22

In February 1986, a day after the People Power Revolution, a group of 20 landless families occupied a vacant government property at Pasig, Metro Manila. Ka Lando, a former barangay23 investigator led this group. Each family selected a parcel of lot defining the lot boundaries with a rope. The families cleared their lots and built temporary shelters. By word of mouth, other landless families came to settle in the area. By the end of 1990 there were about 5,000 households occupying the 38-hectare land.24

The squatter families were organized in 1987 through Ka Lando’s initiative. Their group was known as the Association of Landless Residents of Manggahan (ALARM) and was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During this time the group approached the MMDA (formerly Metro Manila Council), the legal owner of the land, to express their interest in buying the land. In response, the MMDA Chairman issued Resolution 41 that provided the residents the right of first refusal to purchase the land. Resolution 41 according to the residents provided them legal claim on the property.

In 1990, the group was initiated to the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) through NHA’s support.25 Since the area was large, it was subdivided into 13 independent zones. Smaller grouping would also facilitate loan releases. Each zone elected its own set of leaders and all the 13 zones were under an umbrella organization or federation. This federation was known as the Ninoy Aquino Pilot Community (NAPICO). It was registered with the Home Insurance Guarantee Fund (HIGC) in 1990.

To determine the fair market value for the property, NHA made a study of the surrounding area. The site is a residential zone. In 1990, the surrounding residential areas were selling at P1,200 per square meter. Since the site was considered raw land a price of P600 per square meter was proposed by the NHA. This price was acceptable to both the Federation and the MMDA.

Eight years have passed since the group’s initiation to the CMP but only one zone was able to get financing. Many residents were ambivalent on the success of the CMP in their case. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the MMDA and NAPICO remained unsigned to date. This MOA effectively assigned to NAPICO ownership of the land upon payment of the agreed price. In the absence of this MOA, the Foundation's officers were unable to assure the residents on MMDA's action.

Moreover, in 1994, “professional squatters” infiltrated the site. At least two groups surfaced to claim ownership of the land. These "professional squatters" have been creating division among groups reducing the CMP’s chances to succeed.

2. Apitong Neighborhood Association 26

The Apitong neighborhood is situated some ten miles from the center of Marikina. The original settlement was formed by a group of 14 families that squatted on vacant private land in the early 1960s. The settlers were mainly construction workers coming from various parts of the country. These families paid rent to self-appointed "caretakers" in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to remain in the place. In 1987, the Presidential Commission for Urban Proverty (PCUP) extended assistance to the community by helping them negotiate for the sale of the land. The Center for Community Assistance and Development (CCAD), an NGO, helped the group organize and acted as the group's negotiator for the purchase of the land including facilitation of financing from CMP. In March 1989, the Apitong Neighborhood Association was formed and accredited with the PCUP. The association consisted of 87 households whose principal occupations were carpenters, construction workers, drivers and security guards. Between March and April 1990, a re-blocking survey was carried out on the land and individual lots were demarcated. The landowner was paid in November 1990.

The community has a 99.9% collection rate on its loan. Partly, this is due to an unorthodox penalty scheme (e.g. confiscate household appliances or remove parts of the roof) for non-payment. A contingent fund has also been put up for members who are unable to pay their loan amortization on time. Money for the contingent fund has been raised through various fund raising activities.

Although the land has yet to be individually titled, "rights" are being sold. These rights are sold through a lease purchase agreement. Around 10 cases of land sales have been reported between 1991 and 1992. Most common reason for selling was relocation of the previous grantee. Others sold their rights because they were unable to pay the amortization due to illness in the family or loss of job of the household head. Where possible, the community encourages sale within family, that is, sell the "rights" to another family member. In some cases, the lot is sold to the association who finds a new grantee.

22 The status of this village is reported as of 1998. M. Ballesteros (2000) The Urban Land and Real Estate Market: A Socio-economic Analysis. PhD Dissertation. Katholieke Universiteit of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 23 Smallest political unit or geographical subdivision of cities or municipalities 24 The total land area of the property is 41.1 hectares. However, when the squatters settled in the area about 3 hectares have already been developed under the former Ministry of Human Settlements BLISS Housing Program. 25 The CMP became a component of the government-housing program in 1988. To avail of financing, the squatters, landless households or the urban poor should be organized and accredited with SEC or the HIGC. NHA and/or the accredited NGOs act as originators, who organize the squatters and facilitate approval of financing. 26 The status of this village is reported as of 1991. Planning and Development Collaborative International (PADCO), Inc. Assessment of the Community Mortgage Program, vol. 3, May 1993.


Comparatively, CMP performed better in terms of collection efficiency than other government housing

programs. In the early years of the program, average collection efficiency rate (CER) is about 77%

(Table 10). The CER, however, is noted to be on the decline with an average CER of 70.5% in 2001. A

further examination of loan recovery shows that overall situation is not good. The CER may look

acceptable but this is because of some prepayments. About 17% of communities are in default or past

due for more than 6 months while only about 20% of communities were recorded as being up to date.27

The sustainability of the program is in doubt and several problems and shortcomings have been noted:28

First, the CMP is complex. Many poor communities could not cope with its administrative processes nor

understand the program’s procedural complexities. These complexities are further exacerbated by

problems on multiple land ownership, land valuation issues and presence of professional squatters.

Second, the program does not always provide a realistic option for addressing tenure concerns of some

poor squatter perhaps because some landowners have no intention of dealing with the community or some

communities lack the requisite negotiating skills. Third, the community essence of the loan creates a

titling dilemma. The design of the CMP is predicated on communities providing peer pressure, on the

community’s ability to assist their members and on the ability of the group to negotiate the sale of land.

There are, however, strong pressures for community loans to be individualized as quickly as possible.

Those members who are able to pay off their loans want to acquire secure title to their own plot and to get

rid of the responsibility of meeting the financial shortfalls of the rest of the community. Fourth, the CMP

is designed mainly to help squatters on private lands but does not offer much help to low-income renters.

It is also designed as a means to improve tenure status of squatters but has few other benefits to point to

since basic infrastructure development in the community has not been adequately addressed. Fifth, the

main benefits from CMP is access to land but it provides little in terms of meeting problems of slum

upgrading and provision of basic services or infrastructure.

National Urban Planning Programs

A system of land planning has also been instituted to manage land resources in the country. The Urban

Land Reform Act of 1974 paved way to the implementation of a comprehensive system of permits and

licensing and the drawing up of town plans in every municipality. It has also redefined the rationale of

the anti-conversion law (Presidential Decree 815) from one primarily concerned with the welfare of

tenants or lessees to that of land use management. A major drawback is that the town plans of most

municipalities and cities were inadequate and irrelevant as basis for guiding the growth of cities. Many

27 M. Ballesteros (2002). Community-Based Housing Programs: CMP, LTAP and GLAD Programs. PIDS Discussion Paper (forthcoming). 28 These problems are discussed in detail in M. Lee, 1995; M. Ballesteros, 2002


town plans were found to be not technically sound.29 These plans are mainly physical plans prepared for

built up areas with unclear basis for land allocation. There is also a weak link between land use and

infrastructure planning of government.

In March 2000, a National Urban Planning Agenda (NUPA) was formulated to provide policy directions

and measures that will address urban development concerns. The NUPA is comprehensive, integrative,

promoting urban-rural linkages and private sector participation in urban development issues. A National

and Regional Physical Framework Plans that integrates physical planning at the national and regional

levels supported it.

It is emphasized that the shift to a decentralized system of governance has brought major effects on land

and urban planning. First, the formulation and updating of comprehensive land use plans have become

the responsibility of local governments. Second, the local governments were given the authority to

reclassify alienable and disposable lands to the extent of 5 to 15% of the city/municipality’s total land

area. Third, the issuance and approval of development permits and subdivision plans were devolved to

the local governments. These conditions require institutional strengthening and capacity building

specifically at the local level. Local governments generally lack the capacity and resources for planning,

mapping, environmental and waste management. In the case of land use planning, for instance, only 10%

of the total municipalities and cities in the country have updated town plans as of end 2001.30 About 38%

have no town plans and the rest have town plans that have not been updated. Aside from the lack of

sufficiently skilled technical staff at the local level, city and municipal planning offices face budgetary

constraints. Completing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan cost about US$100,000 and involves more than

one year of studies, planning and public consultations. The political returns may be too small given a

political cycle of only three years for elective local officials.31

A bigger problem, however, is the weakness of Philippine land laws as stated earlier. For instance,

industrialization is competing with the goals of CARP. This is seen in the changes in patterns of land use

from agriculture to residential, recreational or industrial uses in some cases at the expense of agriculture.

In many places, agrarian reform has lost its original intent because of economic realities, e.g., there are

incentives to land conversion, rapid urbanization creates new demands for land, etc. Even beneficiaries of

agrarian reform are tempted to part with their land for the right price – a price difficult to match with

earnings from agriculture. But the mechanism to accomplish this is land conversion. Otherwise, under

existing law, the present agrarian lands can only be sold to the government at the price dictated by the

29 W. Silva (1993). Land Use Conversion: Present Problems and Possible Solutions. Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Project. Manila: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 30 Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 31 World Bank, 2000


government. This of course has complicated the situation by making the rural land markets very

inefficient, with negative impact on farm investments and introduction of new agricultural technologies.

Potential agrarian reform beneficiaries would want land distribution to go on because land has become

even more a tradable asset but not necessarily for agricultural reasons. A major danger of this is that it can

potentially lead to rural squatting. We might be now witnesses to a new crop of landless households

because of the sale of “rights” to agrarian land. In addition, the urban political economy may lead one to

surmise that the urban and industrial function of the economy may have created a shift in the traditional

protagonists in land tenure issue, i.e., landowner vs. tenant has shifted to farmers vs. real estate

developers/new landowners; farm workers vs. industrial plantation owners; community vs. capitalist

entrepreneurs, etc.

The foregoing discussions show that the government has launched key land programs for growth and

poverty alleviation but their implementation has not been without significant problems. This has been

traced to the weakness in Philippine land laws and land administration infrastructure. Another factor is

inadequate support systems to those land programs- e.g. provision of infrastructure, credit facilities.

Although poverty incidence has declined and there has been a steady improvement in the country’s

Human Development Index, the poor are still highly vulnerable.

Policy Reforms and Strategies that Address Critical Land Issues

The Medium Term Philippine Development Program (MTPDP) 2001-2004 embodies the overall

strategies for development and poverty reduction of the present administration. The Plan provides a

comprehensive and integrated approach to poverty alleviation focusing not only on access and secure land

tenure but also on preserving the productivity of land resources through better management of land. In

particular, the relevant strategies to address land critical issues are the following: (1) expanding access

and secure tenure; (2) promoting sustainable management; (3) accelerating infrastructure development;

and (4) improving land administration and management.

Expanding Access and Secure Tenure32

Land distribution and disposal under the CARP is envisioned to be completed during the period 2001-

2004. An important measure that will facilitate its full implementation is the completion of forestland

demarcation. Forestland demarcation would establish the forest limits as well as total agricultural lands

and thus settle issues relating to the classification of forestlands currently used for agricultural purposes

and the release of marginal forestlands for agricultural purposes. Other support measures will also be

provided such as the following: (1) strengthen the database and information system to facilitate planning

32 The succeeding discussions are drawn mainly from the 2001-2004 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan.


and monitoring of program areas and beneficiaries; (2) pursue partnership with peasant organizations,

non-governmental organizations, people’s organizations, local governments, landowners as well as

alliances and networks for advocacy and budgetary support; (3) explore other funding sources to finance

land distribution activities covering private lands; (4) speedy delivery of agrarian justice by strengthening

the DAR adjudication board, engaging the services of more lawyers, enhancing DAR field personnel in

dispute resolution and mediation skills and ensuring better case management and feedback mechanism.

These measures will be complemented by improvements in the land administration and management to be

spearheaded by Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

In urban areas, access and secure tenure for shelter will be expanded. The bias of past housing programs

is for all households to own houses regardless of their economic capacity. This bias rests on wrong

assumptions of the housing demand. Not everyone can afford to buy and own a house. The real problem

is not how to provide everyone a house to own but how to provide access to affordable and decent shelter.

There are several mechanisms for this such as ownership through purchase or private transfers, renting

and public housing for certain sectors of society. For ownership, government is focusing on community-

based housing programs that have significant impact on the bottom 40% in society. Major programs to

implement this strategy include the Community Mortgage Program (CMP), the Land Tenure Acquisition

Program (LTAP), and Group Land Acquisition and Development (GLAD) programs. The government

also earmarked parcels of public lands that are informally occupied for distribution to the urban poor.

The main benefit from these programs is improvement in tenure status of squatters. Infrastructure

improvement remains a problem and this will certainly be a major challenge in the development agenda.

In the case of renting, the provision of low-cost rental housing is encouraged. Efficient rental markets

will be promoted through incentives for private sector participation, provision of on-site and off-site

services and adoption of rent-to-own schemes.

Promotion of Sustainable Management33

The natural resources degradation and declining quality of coastal and marine resources in the country

have brought about low productivity in agriculture and fishery. Land continues to be degraded, with

conversion of forestlands and grasslands to urban use. Forty-five percent of the country’s land area

suffers moderate to severe soil erosion. Agricultural yields in the lowlands are stagnating, increasingly

beset by salinity and water logging. Moreover, forest cover in the Philippines has been substantially

reduced over the last forty years due to shifting cultivation, increasing urbanization, illegal logging and

forest fires. Illegal logging continues to be a major problem while reforestation efforts by government

have been slow and constrained by inadequate funding. 33 This section draws from report by the RCDS, NEDA


On coastal and marine resources, coastal areas are deteriorating from marine and land-based pollution

sources. The country’s coral reefs are under threat from siltation, pollution, over-fishing and destructive

fishing techniques. Mangrove forests are also disappearing rapidly due to conversion to aquaculture and

indiscriminate cutting for firewood and construction. There has been an increased pressure on marine

fisheries over the last 20 years from rapidly growing population and rise in exports of marine products

such as shrimps.

The current administration intends to correct these problems through four key strategies to sustainable

development, which is the following: (1) integrating environmental concerns in planning and decision-

making at all levels of the bureaucracy; (2) broader participation of stakeholders in management and

protection of natural resources; (3) equitable access to productive resources and resources by the issuance

of ancestral domain titles to indigenous peoples; and (4) promotion of technology based production in the

forestry and natural resources.

The enactment of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) in 1997 has initiated actions

along these strategies. AFMA paved the way for the integration of function between the Department of

Agriculture (DA), the Department of Public Ways and Highways (DPWH) and the Local Government

Unit (LGU) on rural development. The law also spelled out the specific principles and guidelines for

irrigation and watershed development, the devolution of communal systems to LGUs and the promotion

of private sector led development of minor systems. In particular, Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries

Development Zones (SAFDZ) have been identified to serve as basic units for reforms and reorientation in

the provision of public services. The SAFDZs are suitable agricultural areas set aside and protected from

unreasonable conversion. Each SAFDZ will have an in Integrated Development Plan (complete with

infrastructure and marketing programs), which will be integrated into the local AFM Plan. Many SAFDZ

have been identified and mapped out nationwide. However, these areas have yet to be incorporated in the

comprehensive land use plans of LGUs. An emerging issue in this undertaking is the overlapping

boundaries of SAFDZs that may be attributed to the unsettled boundary disputes between some LGUs,

which are brought about by the lack of cadastral maps. Another issue is that some LGUs reportedly want

to have their whole territory demarcated as SAFDZs because of the possibility that such zones would be

prioritized in public investments as mandated under the AFMA.

In terms of forest preservation, the government adopted a shift in policy towards contract reforestation in

1988 in lieu of issuance of timber licenses. This proved a better alternative. Massive reforestation efforts

undertaken between 1989 and 1993, revealed a significant improvement in survival rate (76% as against

26% based on government reforestation efforts). In 1995, government also shifted from government-

managed forestry to community-led forest management. About 4.9 million hectares of forestlands have


been under community management as of 1998 compared to only 32,000 hectares in 1982. This people-

oriented forestry initiative has allowed for longer tenure and provided the necessary incentive towards

conservation and sustainable management. By 2004, government intends not only to increase forestlands

under community management but also to recognize and issue certificates on ancestral domain claim

areas.

Accelerating Infrastructure Development

Infrastructure including those for transportation, water supply, power, education, health and other services

supports economic and other social activities. Infrastructure development is thus given major priority

since it will support the modernization of the agricultural sector, tourism and the objective of pursuing a

balanced regional development. However, the infrastructure requirements of the country remain large.

Several major strategies will be pursued to accelerate infrastructure development. First, the government

shall increasingly rely on the private sector to fund the huge investment requirements specifically of

transport, power and water infrastructures. Government financial assistance will focus on socially and

economically desirable but financially unprofitable investments. User charges and fees shall be adjusted

to encourage private sector participation at the same time allow the poor access to basic infrastructure.

Second, integrated planning and investment will be used to manage diverse issues in developing

infrastructure (e.g. rural-urban linkages, access of the poor to basic infrastructure service, environmental

and safety regulations, etc.). Moreover, infrastructure development will be linked with physical regional

planning to achieve spatial organization and balance in development. Coordination shall be improved

among national government agencies, local governments, the private sector and affected communities in

the formulation and implementation of infrastructure plans and projects. Within government, the

interfacing of national and local government roles in planning, designing, construction and operation of

infrastructure shall be clearly established. Third, infrastructure investments will shift from the highly

developed megacenters, like Metro Manila, to the designated regional growth centers. This move is

necessary to stimulate development of the countryside and relieve the impact of rapid rural-to-urban

migration on infrastructure services. Specifically, urban centers in various regions will be encouraged to

grow and linked to Metro Manila. So far, Metro Manila remains to be the urban core. A large proportion

of the country’s population and economic activities have been concentrated in Metro Manila. This

concentration will be dispersed through transportation networks that will link Metro Manila to major

industrial centers. This development will increase the supply of urban lands and increase the areas that

can serve as alternative investment sites to Metro Manila. It will open up vast lands that will rationalize

land prices, reduce urban congestion and temper increases in land and housing prices. Various

infrastructure projects for physical integration have been identified. Growth networks that have been

established in the regions (e.g. CALABARZON) will serve as major points for opportunities and greater


collaboration among other areas. The LGUs as main economic units in the regions will play a major role

in infrastructure development thus, there is need to enhance LGU capability.

Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP)

The LAMP is government’s first step towards the implementation of a long-term (about 15-20 years) land

administration and management program. This program, which was initiated in 2000, aims to foster

efficient land markets through the development of an efficient system of land titling and administration

based on clear, transparent, coherent and consistent policies and laws supported by appropriate

institutional structure. Initially, a three-year program will be undertaken whereby the groundwork for the

long-term implementation of the project will be established. The preparation of Phase II or the long-term

program will be based on the output and experience from Phase 1. Phase I consists of three components,

which are as follows.

Land Policy Studies: This component consists of initially six policy-oriented studies that build on past

studies and extensive consultations with key stakeholders. The studies include the following: (a) property

valuation study which is intended to come up with recommendations that will support the development of

a national real property valuation framework acceptable to all stakeholders and in line with international

standards and practices; (b) finance and fee structure study that will recommend revisions in the structure

and levels of taxes and charges in the transfer of land to eliminate current disincentives for registration of

land transactions and to correct real property market distortions; (c) land development process study that

will recommend an action plan to harmonize the implementation of guidelines for land allocation with the

view of improving equitability and efficiency in land-use; (d) demarcation of forest boundaries policy

study that will develop a framework for forest boundaries demarcation; (e) fragmented land laws and

regulations policy study which will lay the legal foundation in land policy, management and

administration; and (f) Institutional arrangements for land administration and management study, that

intends to generate an institutional structure that would improved the coordination of organizations in the

land sector. The institutional problems are not new and widely acknowledge and understood. Several

recommendations have been made but no serious progress has been made. The reason appears to be the

inability and lack of will amongst senior executives in the stakeholders’ agencies to reach consensus on

the areas where major improvements should occur.

Prototypes: This is the core component of Phase I. The objective is to pilot test innovative solutions to

problems currently confronting land administration and management system in the country. Prototype I

will be on land administration and titling. This will focus on testing institutional collaboration in land

administration through the creation of a one-stop shop of land administration where different agencies

responsible for land adjudication and issuance of titles will be coordinated and physically located in one


building. The activities will include verification of accuracy of titles, production of large-scale cadastral

maps showing all land parcels and parcel numbers in the prototype area. On the other hand, Prototype II

will involve title reconstruction and record management prototype. This prototype will conduct a

comprehensive inventory of records and undertake a program of validation and security in the selected

prototype area. It will also validate and consolidate maps and plans and develop new processes for the

reconstitution of lost/destroyed records and titles, upgrade records management procedures and physical

storage facilities. The outcome of this prototype is the development of Land Information Management

with respect to data storage and sharing, access to land-related data, security, and archiving.

Institutional Development: This component will provide support to the LAM project to manage and

monitor the project. It will include three components, namely: project management including technical

assistance, education and training, and monitoring and evaluation. A Project Management Office (PMO)

will be established to provide management and control essential to ensuring the delivery of outputs. On

the other hand, education and training will be conducted in areas of management, surveying and mapping

land administration, and land information system. Monitoring and evaluation is designed to monitor

development impact, testing and learning aspects of the project and implementation progress.

The institutional support for the project has already been set in place. In particular, the prototype on land

titling and administration has shown significant progress specifically in cadastral index mapping (Table

11). The one-stop shop has been launched and the infrastructure and operational support completed.

Comparatively, Prototype 2, which is being implemented in Manila, shows slow progress. In cadastral

mapping, very slow progress was made in the retrieval of titles from the registry of deeds. Field

validation of reconstituted titles has also made slow progress because residents have not been receptive to

the activity. Only 17% of the targeted households responded. Delays in release of funds have also been

experience due to the frequent change in the administration of the DENR, which is the lead agency in the

project. Except for some problems in title reconstitution at Quezon City, the other components of the

project are proceeding with success. The continuing success of the project, however, will depend largely

on the political support by succeeding administrations.

Concluding Remarks

There are severe problems affecting the land markets in the country. These arise from inadequacies in

land administration and valuation and taxation to seeming inconsistencies in land laws and policies.

There is need for a review of the legal and policy framework affecting land resources including the

institutional arrangements that are the basic infrastructure for efficient land markets. The government has

implemented land programs in the agrarian and urban sectors but the serious attempts to address land

problems in those sectors have been constrained by a number of issues. There is a need for an in-depth


analysis of those issues, including the failure to have a clear land use policy and the identification of

societal preferences in respect to the use of land resources. While the Medium Term Philippine

Development Plan (2001-2004) presents a significant strategy to integrate land issues in poverty reduction

strategies and the broader development agenda, much more remains to be done in the areas of actual

implementation of the identified strategies, in producing the resources to fund the development measures

and in harmonizing different vested interests toward the goal of the reducing poverty within the decade as

promised by the current administration.

Given the finite and irreversible character of land as well as its function as economic base, it is urgent and

necessary to provide the analytical framework for their allocation, use and management. Several priority

measures need to be undertaken as pre-conditions for the effective and efficient management of land

resources in the country, as follows:

Completion of cadastral survey of the entire country and use of such maps as bases for land use and

physical planning, tax mapping, and other activities.

Identification and delineation of forestland that can be used for agricultural expansion/activities, and non-

agricultural activities, particularly that of housing, tourism, industry ad other settlement expansion areas.

Identification and delineation of existing and potential agricultural production areas, based on regional

supply and demand requirements and productivity trends, and subsequent protection of such areas from

conversion and identification and provision of necessary support infrastructure, facilities, and services.

Mapping of the boundaries of protected areas, including disaster, hazard, and risk-prone areas,

establishing a database for such areas with appropriate development limits and specifications.

Identification and protection of priority infrastructure rights-of-way.

Identification of socialized/mass housing sites in every city or municipality.

The establishment of an integrated land information system is crucial. The vast data generated from land

classification, geodetic controls, land use, cadastral surveys, land titling, land registration, and from

various administrative, legal and fiscal aspects of land need to be compressed into meaningful, accessible

and comprehensive information over specific geographic locations. Specifically, this would require the

conduct of a national benchmarking activity and the establishment of a national common database. Some

initial studies that would be helpful to support improvements in land administration and management are

the following:

�� Feasibility study on implementing urban development programs in marginal agricultural lands and on totally prohibiting urban expansion on farmlands;

�� Analysis of socio-cultural factors and land use practices;


�� Development of viable and sustainable rural/upland communities; �� Carrying capacities of major land use activities to support population at acceptable levels of

living.


References

Adriano, Lourdes, S. 1991. A General Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Working Paper Series No. 91-03.

_______________. 1994. DAR, Land Reform-Related Agencies and the CARP: A Study of Government and Alternative Approaches to Land Acquisition and Distribution. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 94-13, Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Balisacan, Arsenio M. 1994. Poverty, Urbanization and Development Policy A Philippine Perspective. Quezon City: University of the Philippine Press.

__________________. 2002. Pathways to Sustained Poverty Alleviation: Agrarian Reform Communities and Beneficiaries and the New Economic Paradigm. Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project. World Bank.

Ballesteros, Marife M. 2000. The Urban Land and Real Estate Market: A Socio-economic Analysis. PhD Dissertation. Katholieke Universiteit of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Filamor, Alberto E. 1997. Philippine Real Estate Law and Jurisprudence. Manila: Philippine Copyright.

Goson, G. Sancianco y. 1975. The Progress of the Philippines: Manila: National Historical Institute.

Housing and Urban Development and Coordinating Council (HUDCC). 2001. Regional Housing Summit. August.

Lee, M. 1995. The Community Mortgage Program: An Almost Successful Alternative for some Urban Poor. Habitat International, 19 (4) 1995.

Manasan, Rosario G. and Ruben G. Mercado. An Assessment of the Absorptive Capacity of Agencies Involved in the Public Work Sector. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-17, Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

National Anti-Poverty Action Agenda. 2000. “ERAP Para sa Mahihirap Breaking Free from Poverty”, Manila.

National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). 2000. National Urban Policy Agenda. Manila: National Economic Development Authority, March 2000.

__________________________________. 2001. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004. Manila: National Economic Development Authority, November.

National Land Use Committee. 2000. National Framework for Physical Planning: 2001-2030, Manila: National Economic Development Authority.

Republic of the Philippines and Asian Development Bank. 2001. “Poverty Partnership Agreement,” Manila.

Reyes, Celia M. 2002. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty,” PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-02, Makati: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Silva, W. P.T. 1993. Land Use Conversion: Present Problems and Possible Solutions. Technical Support to Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Project. Manila: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Wolters, W. 1999. The Development of Property Rights in Land: The Philippines Mid-19th Century to the 1920s. Property Rights and Economic Development: Land and Natural Resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Edited by T. van Meiji and F. von Benda Beckmann. London: Kegan Paul International.

The World Bank. 2000. “The State of the Environmental: A Wake-up Call,” in Philippine Environmental Monitor 2000, World Bank, July.

_________________. 2000. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Learning and Innovation Loan Land Administration and Management Project. Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector, World Bank.

_________________. 2001. Impact Assessment Report. Agrarian Reform Communities Project, FAO/SARC/PSSARD.


______________. 2001. “Philippine Poverty Assessment, Volume I: Main Report,” World Bank, May 31.

______________. 2001. “Philippine Poverty Assessment, Volume II: Methodology,” World Bank, May 31.

______________. 2001. Land Policy and Administration: Lesson Learned and New Challenges for the Bank’s Development Agenda. World E-Conference on Land Issues.

______________. 2002. Public Expenditure, Procurement and Financial Management Review: Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.


Table 1. Status of Land Classification by Region (in hectares), 1997

Forest Land

Classified

National Military

Certified Established Established parks & naval Civil

Region Total Area A & D Total Unclassified Total for Res. timberland GRBS/WA reservation reservation Fishpond

Philippines 30,000,000 14,117,244 15,882,756 881,197 15,001,599 3,272,912 10,015,866 1,340,997 130,330 165,946 75,548

NCR 63,600 48,232 15,368 14,740 628 0 237 59 0 0 332

CAR 1,829,368 340,656 1,488,712 21,135 1,467,577 804,795 655,321 6,907 554 0 0

Region 1 1,284,019 810,062 473,957 33,155 440,802 226,846 199,140 12,999 288 923 606

Region 2 2,683,758 960,064 1,723,694 146,305 1,577,389 209,288 1,331,281 26,388 412 8,931 1,089

Region 3 1,823,082 1,051,908 771,174 26,874 744,300 166,104 422,729 32,780 117,019 804 4,864

Region 4 4,692,416 2,161,264 2,531,152 160,348 2,370,844 455,395 831,218 1,029,442 3,835 45,278 5,676

Region 5 1,763,249 1,222,060 541,189 29,873 511,316 69,939 412,996 25,276 0 63 3,042

Region 6 2,022,311 1,408,782 613,529 1,606 611,923 135,344 428,939 23,505 0 235 23,900

Region 7 1,495,142 959,223 535,919 69,555 466,364 49,407 397,450 15,054 4 114 4,335

Region 8 2,143,169 1,023,715 1,119,454 38,925 1,080,529 51,508 1,018,238 4,108 176 862 5,637

Region 9 1,599,734 762,252 837,482 26,871 810,611 424,924 370,288 2,607 46 2,611 10,135

Region 10 2,299,843 878,728 1,421,115 44,068 1,377,047 223,546 1,084,355 53,319 0 5,197 10,630

Region 11 2,714,059 1,079,824 1,634,235 115,649 1,518,586 144,783 1,299,769 53,643 0 19,127 1,264

Region 12 1,437,274 546,828 890,446 49,631 840,815 122,346 608,674 20,552 7,996 80,789 458

Region 13 988,147 320,819 667,328 7,789 659,539 164,328 489,547 2,415 0 1,012 2,237

ARMM 1,160,829 542,827 618,002 94,673 523,329 24,359 465,684 31,943 0 0 1,343 Source: 1997 Philippine Forestry Statistics


Table 2. Existing Land Use, by Broad Category and by Region (in hectares), 1998

Region Total Agriculture Forestry Settlement Mining & Inland Open

Quarrying Fisheries Land

Philippines 29,538,200 9,728,800 19,062,600 131,400 8,700 595,700 11,000

CAR 1,828,300 105,400 1,705,500 0 1,300 16,100 0

Region 1 1,285,000 486,700 754,400 6,200 100 33,600 4,000

Region 2 2,605,500 620,800 1,952,800 6,100 0 24,800 1,000

Region 3 1,823,000 777,300 954,700 23,300 700 66,300 700

Region 4 4,664,400 1,477,500 2,967,500 58,400 1,000 159,900 100

Region 5 1,763,400 1,085,000 656,200 1,700 800 18,200 1,500

Region 6 2,009,800 807,300 1,137,700 6,200 200 58,400 0

Region 7 1,495,100 506,600 970,100 3,300 1,700 9,700 3,700

Region 8 2,142,300 578,400 1,557,200 2,000 200 4,500 0

Region 9 1,592,500 723,900 839,600 3,800 0 25,200 0

Region 10 2,830,100 702,900 2,083,900 6,000 1,800 35,500 0

Region 11 3,169,500 921,900 2,228,600 9,900 800 8,300 0

Region 12 2,329,300 935,100 1,254,400 4,500 100 135,200 0 ’Source: SPOT Satellite Data, NAMRIA, 1998.


Table 3. Corporate Land Subdivision Projects in Agriculturally Productive Lands, 1985-97

Name of Subdivision Location Area (has.) Developer Land Use before Conversion

Sunshine Village Residential Subdivision Gen. Trias, Cavite 12 State Land Investment Corp. tenant-cultivated upland

Tierra Grande Residential Subdivision Gen. Trias, Cavite 36 State Land Investment Corp tenant-cultivated upland

Green Breeze Village 6 Gen. Trias, Cavite 80 Cityland Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated upland

Kingsland farm Gen. Trias, Cavite 50 AMA Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated; rain-fed and upland

Arcontica Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 5.9 Arcontica Investment Corp. tenant-cultivated, irrigated and upland

Don Gregorio Heights II Dasmariñas, Cavite 4.4 F & C Realty Corp. tenant-cultivated, irrigated and upland

Vine Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 20 Vine Devt. Corp tenant-cultivated upland

Saint Anthony Village Dasmariñas, Cavite 19.9 Hone Devt. Inc. tenant-cultivated irrigated, rain-fed and upland

Green Breeze 4 Dasmariñas, Cavite 14 Cityland Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated rain-fed and upland

Dasmariñas Industrial Residential Subdivision Dasmariñas, Cavite 150 Dasmariñas Estates & Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated upland

NDC-Marubeni Industrial Dasmariñas, Cavite 230 Construction & Development Corp.

tenant-cultivated, irrigated, prime agri land

Meridien Homes Dasmariñas, Cavite 52 Meridien Properties Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated, irrigated and upland

Tierra Linda Subdivision Dasmariñas, Cavite 6 E.B. Verzosa Enterprise tenant-cultivated, irrigated

St. Agnes Village Dasmariñas, Cavite St. Agnes Realty and Devt. Corp. tenant-cultivated, irrigated rice land

BF Homes landbank prop. Dasmariñas, Cavite 500 B.F. Homes, Inc. tenant-cultivated upland

DARA Subdivision Dasmariñas, Cavite 2.7 DARA Realty Corp. tenant-cultivated, irrigated

Laguna International Industrial Park (LIIP) Biñan, Laguna 114 LIIP, Inc. tenant -cultivated irrigated CARP beneficiaries

Capitol Golf and Country Club landbank Rodriguez, Rizal 53.11 Capitol Golf and Country Club, Inc.

tenant-cultivated rain-fed

Republic Asahi Glass Industrial Plant Bauan, Batangas 34.4 Republic asahi Glass Corp. tenant-cultivated, rain-fed communal irrigation

Source: J.P. McAndrew Urban Usurpation: From Friar Estates to Industrial Estates in a Philippine Hinterland. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press , 1994, Tables 8 and 14.


Table 4 Poverty Incidence by Location

Region Total NARB ARB

Poor Non-poor Poor Non-poor Poor Non-poor

Dist Prop Dist Prop Dist Prop Dist Prop Dist Prop Dist Prop

100 51.1 100 48.9 100 56.3 100 43.7 100 45.1 100 54.9

CAR 1.5 42.4 2.1 57.6 1.6 36 3.8 64 1.3 62.5 0.6 37.5

Ilocos 6.7 61.4 4.4 38.6 5.5 63.8 4 36.2 8.4 59.3 4.7 40.7

Cagayan Valley 10.1 36.2 18.7 63.8 5.5 37 12 63 16.8 35.8 24.8 64.2

Central Luzon 4.6 31.4 10.6 68.6 2 33.3 5.2 66.7 8.4 30.8 15.5 69.2

Southern Tagalog 11.1 53.1 10.2 46.9 12 53.7 13.4 46.3 9.7 52.1 7.3 47.9

Bicol 9.7 61.2 6.4 38.8 8.2 65.2 5.6 34.8 11.8 57.7 7.1 42.3

Western Visayas 15.8 54.2 13.9 45.8 19.3 63.9 14.1 36.1 10.8 39 13.8 61

Central Visayas 6 54.9 5.2 45.1 8.6 60.3 7.3 39.7 2.4 37.5 3.2 62.5

Eastern Viasyas 13.7 59.9 9.6 40.1 16.2 62.2 12.7 37.8 10 55.1 6.7 44.9

Western Mindanao 8.3 72.6 3.3 27.4 8.9 76.6 3.5 23.4 7.3 66.7 3 33.3

Northern Mindanao 3 82.4 0.7 17.6 3.1 77.3 1.2 22.7 2.9 91.7 0.2 8.3

Southern Mindanao 8.3 51.7 8.1 48.3 7.7 53.8 8.5 46.2 9.2 49.3 7.8 50.7

Central Mindanao 1.3 35.3 2.5 64.7 1.5 33.3 3.8 66.7 1 40 1.3 60

CARAGA 4.5 100 5.2 100 3.9 100 Source: C. Reyes. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty, PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2002-02.

’Table 5. Poverty Incidence in 1990 and 2000 1990 2000

ARB 47.6 45.2

Non-ARB 55.1 56.4

Source: C. Reyes. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty, PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2002-02.

Table 6. ARCs Launched by Year Year Luzon Bicol-Visayas Mindanao Philippines

1993 115 137 87 339

1994 71 91 84 246

1995 62 46 12 120

1996 75 41 54 170

1997 39 0 14 53

1998 29 13 3 45

1999 25 15 21 61

2000 140 45 89 274

2001 June 42 5 7 54

Total 598 393 371 1,313

Source: DAR Planning Service


Table 7 – Land Redistribution Accomplishments by Year (000 hectares)

DAR Accomplishments

Year DAR Target Total % Private Lands Non-Private Lands

1995 540 289.32 54 159.16 130.12

1996 360.06 300.2 83 184.21 115.99

1997 230.54 210.13 91 136.49 73.64

1998 195 137.36 70 102.27 35.09

1999 171.54 132.07 77 90.03 41.99

2000 158.41 110.48 70 74.76 35.72

2001 Sept. 101.32 45.38 45 37.84 7.54

Total 1756.87 1224.94 70 784.76 440.09 Source: DAR Planning Service.


Table 8. Area of Priority Development (APD)a, NCR

Status Report as of June 1995

City/ No. Developed Areas Direct Pending Development For

Municipality of NHA Purchase Planning Stage/For For Land Drop-ping c/

APD Other LGUs by Validation/ Site Research/ With

ZIP CMP Programb Community Inspection/Land court case

Negotiation

Manila 41 11 3 1 2 2 17 2 3

Quezon City 68 6 3 3 23 0 15 3 15

Kalookan City 12 3 4 2 1 0 2 0 0

Pasay City 28 6 6 0 0 0 11 5 0

Makati City 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

Mandaluyong City 10 0 1 1 5 0 1 1 1

Muntinlupa City 14 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 4

Pasig City 18 1 0 1 10 0 4 0 2

Las Piñas 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

Malabon 13 1 1 0 1 1 10 0 0

Marikina 9 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Navotas 9 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0

Parañaque 8 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0

Pateros 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

San Juan 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Taguig 7 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 0

Valenzuela 7 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0

TOTAL 264 35 35 10 49 3 94 12 26 ’a/ There were a total of 284 APDs proclaimed for the entire Philippines distributed as follows: Proclamation No. 1967 (1980) 244 Metro Manila Proclamation No. 2284 (1983) 1 Metro Manila Proclamation No. 1810 (SIR Sites) 19Regional NHA Board Approved (1986-89) 19 Metro Manila; 1 Regional. b/ Flagship projects, medium rise and resettlement housing (e.g. Smokey Mountain, North Triangle, Pabahay sa Riles). ’c/ These sites have been found free from informal settlers or that the sites have long been utilized for purposes other than residential. Source: Corporate Planning Office, NHA.


Table 9. Beneficiary Outreach by Region

No. of CMP1/ Ave. no. of

Region Units (Lots) No. of units per CA

Projects (CA)

Region 1 542 3 181

Region 2 1,966 11 179

Region 3 14,159 58 244

Region 4 23,144 136 170

Region 5 3,634 20 182

Region 6 4,495 40 112

Region 7 3,248 48 68

Region 8 376 3 125

Region 9 4,696 32 147

Region 10 1,636 21 78

Region 11 9,252 66 140

Region 12 1,500 13 115

NCR 40,072 414 97

CAR 88 1 88

CARAGA 1,720 15 115

Total 110,528 881 125

Ave. no of projects/year 68 1/ As of September 2001 Source: NHMFC


Table 10. Collection Efficiency Rate, 1993-1998

(in percent)

Programs Average Collection Rate Average

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Sept. 2001 1993-1998

UHLPa/ 65.30 62.53 62.60 62.62 63.34 61.68 63.01

CMP 69.30 72.64 83.41 81.40 77.34 77.43 67.90 72.04 70.53 76.92

a/ The UHLP is a lending program that targets middle income households. The program was suspended in 1999. Source: NHMFC

35

G

. M. L

lant

o an

d M

. M

. Bal

lest

eros

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Tab

le 1

1. L

and

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent

Pro

ject

(L

AM

P) P

roje

ct S

tatu

s R

epor

t, 2

001

Lea

d C

ompo

nent

A

genc

y/R

egio

n A

ccom

plis

hmen

ts

Rem

arks

I.

Lan

d P

olic

y S

tudi

es

NE

DA

a)

L

and

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

cess

D

EN

R

-

Ter

ms

of r

efer

ence

and

oth

er

b)

F

ores

t bou

ndar

ies

Del

inea

tion

D

OJ

ar

rang

emen

ts f

or th

e co

nduc

t of

c)

F

ragm

ente

d L

and

Law

s D

OF

stud

ies

have

bee

n fi

naliz

ed

d)

F

inan

ce a

nd F

ee

DO

F

e)

V

alua

tion

-

Req

uest

for

pro

posa

ls o

n-go

ing

f)

Inst

itutio

nal S

truc

ture

D

BM

II.

Pro

toty

pe P

roje

cts

M

anag

emen

t

Pro

toty

pe 1

– L

and

Tit

ling

and

adm

inis

trat

ion

Reg

ion

8 -

D

evel

oped

man

ual o

f op

erat

ions

for

on

e-st

op-s

hop.

-

L

eyte

-

T

empo

rary

one

-sto

p-sh

op

offi

ce o

pera

tion

al s

ince

Dec

. 200

0

-

Con

stru

ctio

n of

one

-sto

p-sh

op

build

ing

com

plet

ed w

aiti

ng f

inal

in

spec

tion

and

acc

epta

nce

-

Loc

al a

dvis

ory

grou

p or

gani

zed

and

acti

vate

d

Cad

astr

al I

ndex

Map

ping

(C

IM)

-

Inve

ntor

y of

land

rec

ords

ac

com

plis

hed

by 1

49%

. A

tota

l of

178,

650

reco

rds

out o

f th

e ta

rget

ed

120,

000

wer

e pr

oper

ly in

vent

orie

d

-

Enc

odin

g of

inve

ntor

y re

sult

s co

mpl

eted

-

CIM

pre

para

tion

100

% a

ccom

plis

hed

Cou

ntry

Cas

e St

udy:

Phi

lipp

ines

36

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

-

Man

ual p

lott

ing

and

map

ping

of

surv

eyed

lots

on

CIM

103

%

acco

mpl

ishe

d

-

Inde

x 23

6 ti

tled

lots

(88

%)

and

cros

s in

dexe

d 55

% o

f un

titl

ed lo

ts.

-

Slo

w tu

rn-o

ut d

ue to

un

avai

labi

lity

of

coor

dina

tes

Sys

tem

atic

Adj

udic

atio

n

-

Dis

cuss

ions

wit

h D

AR

on

subd

ivis

ion

of c

olle

ctiv

e C

LO

As

on-g

oing

-

Adm

inis

trat

ive

titl

ing

thro

ugh

issu

ance

of

Hom

este

ad p

aten

ts o

ver

unti

tled

agri

cultu

ral l

ands

wer

e pi

lote

d.

The

sch

eme

was

put

on

hold

in o

ther

ba

rang

ays.

-

Issu

ance

of

Hom

este

ad p

aten

ts

not f

easi

ble

in o

ther

bar

anga

ys d

ue

to te

chni

cal d

efic

ienc

y an

d co

nstr

aint

s (i

.e.,

bias

aga

inst

w

omen

), s

hift

ed to

judi

cial

titl

ing.

Man

agem

ent

Pro

toty

pe I

I –

Lan

d R

ecor

ds a

nd I

nfo

Pro

toty

pe

Que

zon

Cit

y -

L

ocal

adv

isor

y gr

oup

orga

nize

d an

d ac

tiva

ted

Cad

astr

al I

ndex

Map

ping

(C

IM)

-

Onl

y 8%

of

the

targ

et ti

tles

wer

e re

trie

ved

-

Inve

ntor

y at

the

RO

D o

n-go

ing

-

Ret

riev

al o

f ta

x as

sess

men

t rec

ords

co

mpl

eted

Fie

ld V

alid

atio

n an

d R

econ

stitu

tion

of T

itle

-

Onl

y 17

% o

f ho

useh

olds

res

pond

ed to

pi

lot-

test

ing

acti

viti

es

-

Hou

seho

lds

not r

ecep

tive

Sour

ce: L

AM

P Pr

ojec

t Man

agem

ent O

ffic

e, D

EN

R.

presenter: gilberto m. llanto and marife … 7357 and 7668 which reserves certain lands for tourism...

Documents