University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

P. Del Rosario St., Cebu City 6000

AGRARIAN LAW and other SPECIAL LEGISLATION

RECOMMENDATIONS and OPINIONS TO STRENGTHEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
LAND DISTRIBUTION AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF RA 6657, as amended, or
known as the COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

Group 1 Members:
Charmaine Lynn B. Tan
Philip Adrian G. Nazario
Dinessa Angelique C. Corvera
Phoenix Mackenzie L. Gocuan
Gerald Paul S. Viernes
EH 406

LLB 2

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas

Agrarian Law and Social Legislation Professor

There are many issues both major and collateral in that can be tackled in
the issue of Agrarian Reform. It is true that after a long length of time since the

presidency of Corazon C. Aquino, up to the present, Agrarian Reform has not yet
been fully implemented throughout the country. It is a major piece of social
legislation but its provisions are vast and The group would like to discuss and
opine on some points regarding the Land Distribution (Chapter VII, Topic IV) of
Republic Act 6657, as amended or commonly known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law. As a group, we find it important to discuss land distribution
because it is the lions share of the law; it is what the law is about. Land for the
Landless, as what the clich goes about by this law. We hope to give ideas and
discussions, maybe to strengthen or give ideas and recommendations for
amendments in the implementation of land distribution.
Sec. 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL, is the
governing provision for those landless tenants who can be qualified beneficiaries
of land redistribution reform. It states:
Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP
shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same
barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality
in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b)
regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e)
actual tillers or occupants of public lands; (f) collectives or cooperatives of the
above beneficiaries; and (g) others directly working on the land. Provided,
however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of
this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents:
and Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be
ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27
who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to
become beneficiaries under this Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary
shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as
productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or
performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or
misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to
continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the
performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. If, due to the landowner's
retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land,
there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be
granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the
option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not
accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given
preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.
The law provides for the order of priority in the distribution of the land.
Firstly, the children of the landowners must be given preference, if this would be
the case, the actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or
removed therefrom. Secondly, it shall be distributed to landless residents of the
same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same
municipality in the following order of priority:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

agricultural lessees and share tenants;

regular farmworkers;
seasonal farmworkers;
other farmworkers;
actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
others directly working on the land;

The law also enunciates the grounds for disqualification or forfeiting the
right of ownership over a land, those are:
1. Beneficiaries under the Presidential Decree 27 who have culpably
sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land
2. Those any beneficiary, upon the result of the monitoring power of
DAR, is guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support
extended to him.
The group sees that the provision entails the core objective of the law,
that is, to cultivate the land, making emphasis on the basic qualification of a
beneficiary that he/she must possess, these are - the willingness, aptitude and
ability to cultivate and making the land productive. These qualities are applied to
all beneficiaries. The children of the landowner who are given highest preference
in the land distribution of the lands of their parents before it can be distributed to
other prospective tenants are not an exemption to this rule. They too must
actually tilling or directly managing the farm. In the occurrence where there is
not enough land to accommodate other tenants, the provision provides that they
are given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from public domain.
Although we are not in the position to interpret the laws, we can opine as
to its boons and banes. It is already out of dispute that Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) is the redistribution of public and private agricultural
lands to landless farmers and farmworkers who are landless regardless of any
existing tenurial arrangement. Indeed, the law attaches the essence of
comprehensive to its title. The word landless beneficiary, however, does not
mean complete absence of any land ownership; it means, One who owns less
than three hectares of agricultural land. It is explicitly provided under Sec. 23 of
CARL that No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land. Hence, a farmer or farmworker who already owns a land not
more than three hectares can still be a qualified beneficiary over the land he/she
is actually tilling or cultivating provided that he/she will not exceed the three
hectares limit. Notwithstanding the enumerations provided, the law is silent as
to the instances wherein there are several farmworkers to a land which has an
equivalent land area not enough to cater its division for distribution. In this
instance, there is no qualifications enumerated as to who among them are given
preferential rights. Who has the power to adjudicate over the matter? Does the
landowner have the right to choose among its farmworkers? In the absence
thereof, it all rest on the power of DAR. We opine that this too must be
systematic in order to achieve the purest objective of the law. Moreover, despite
giving leeway to the interpretation of the concept landless, the law must give
preferential rights to a farmer who owns naught land area and who is just
dependent of the land he/she is actually tilling in choosing among the qualified
beneficiary.
Sec. 24 is maybe understood in two parts. The first part of Section 24 of
Republic Act 6657, as amended, is procedural in nature as it gives a specific
period when DAR shall complete the granting of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the latter part of the law provides for the registration of
the land under the beneficiarys name. It states:
Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of
the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the
land to him, which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180)
days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of

the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award,

which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and
shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the
Certificate of Title.
Qualified beneficiaries of CARP have rights and responsibilities which they
acquire together with the ownership of the land granted to them. These rights
and responsibilities, as mentioned in the section, start upon the receipt of
ownership of beneficiary, which should be completed within one hundred eighty
days.
Also, Section 24 mentioned of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) given to the qualified beneficiary to be recorded in the Register of Deeds
as evidence of the grant given to him by the government. It expressly required
that the restrictions and conditions on the ownership grant should be included in
the Certificate.
Which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the
time the DAR takes actual possession of the land.
This specification in the law is a good way to mandate DAR to promptly
distribute the land and most especially to ensure that the acquired lands would
be distributed by DAR. Since government officials in the Philippines are known to
be not immune to temptations, the time-frame given would direct these officials
to distribute the lands within the period. Thus, such phrase in the provision would
not only ensure the beneficiarys timely receipt of the ownership of the land but
its distribution per se.
Beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award.
Having a title over the land which they till, plant and harvest will give the
farmers pride, honour and assurance. In the Philippines, people look up to the
landed because acquisition of a land is expensive. So through the Certificate of
Title which would be registered under the name of the beneficiary and giving
such to them would assure them of their right over the land awarded to them.
Holding a Cerificate over the land which a farmer would possess could motivate
him in developing such and improve the productivity of land. Such improvement
would create a domino effect to alleviating the economic status of the country.

Section 26 of RA No. 6657 provides for the amortization period given to CARP
beneficiaries and the consequence of non-payment of amortizations. It states:
Section 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be
paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%)
interest per annum. The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at
reduced amounts as established by the PARC: provided, that the first five (5) annual
payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross production
as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed
ten percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not
due to the beneficiary's fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal
obligations to make the repayment affordable.
The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and
this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3)
annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary

whose land, as provided herein, has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently
disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.
Beneficiaries of CARP are given 30 years to pay for the land which they were granted
with. The payment of such is by way of amortization which shall be:
a. Thirty (30) annual amortizations (First 3 years may be at reduced amounts);
b. Six percent (6%) interest per annum; and
c. First five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value
of the annual gross production.
The intended beneficiary shall state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court
that he/she is willing to work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation
of paying the amortization for the compensation of the land. (Caliwan,. Agrarian Law
Reviewer. 1st ed. academia.edu.ph, 2014. Web. 1 Aug. 2015.)
The second part of the section mentioned the effect of non-payment of beneficiary for
three aggregate annual amortizations--- the foreclosure of the land and their disqualification
from becoming a beneficiary.
..shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations
Thirty years to pay for the land granted in the law is just. Granting fewer years for the
period of payment would result to the disqualification of more grantees or beneficiaries and
granting more years would possibly result to either an increase of interest which the
beneficiaries would pay or a loss on the part of the government.
If the payment of grantees for the lands awarded to them will be lessened, the amount
they would need to pay will increase. Say for example, the total amount of the land is P1,
500, 000.00 (without interest), which if divided into 30 years would be equal to P 50, 000.00.
This P 50, 000.00 would be the annual payment the beneficiary need to deposit with LBP. So
if the number of years would be decreased, say for example it would be decreased to 15
years, the grantee would need to pay P100, 000.00 annually instead. The difference between
the two periods, which in this illustration is P50, 000.00, would already be a great liability for
the farmers. Thus, granting fewer periods for payment would result in the non-payment and
later the foreclosure and disqualification of the grantees.
On the other hand, if the government would impose more years for the amortization
period, the government would be forced to put additional interest to that of the existing
percentage to cover possible losses of waiting for the payment it is entitled. Consequently, if
the government would choose to impose more interest, a heavier burden would be levied on
the beneficiaries and would later result to more grantees being disqualified of the award of
lands.
be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.
Economic statuses of the regions in the Philippines are varying. In fact, in a survey
posted in the listph.com, most progressive provinces are those in the urbanwhich income
comes from industrial sectors, not agricultural. (Top 11 List of Richest Cities/Provinces in
the Philippines. Listph.com. http://www.listph.com/2015/01/top-11-list-of-richest-citiesprovinces-in-philippines-page-2.html (July 31, 2015).) The survey shows that though
agriculture is one of the top sources of livelihood in the country, it does not give as much
financial compensation compared to those of industrial sectors in the economy.

Also, products produced by every region are comparatively different than other
regions and there are regions whose products are valued more compared to those of other
regions. Such difference in value of produce is determinative of the gap which farmers from
various regions. Through these, it could be deduced that farmers based on the regions where
products are less valued and are harder to sell or distribute would earn less which could result
in the non-payment of amortization required by the law resulting to the foreclosure of their
land and their disqualification as beneficiaries of CARP.
Therefore, this phrase in the law is tantamount to discrimination.
Disqualification for delinquency of payment is not equitable.
The government also needs to ask for the value of the land to prevent it from incurring
losses and to further implement their programs. However, permanent disqualification for nonpayment of three years is not a good way to prevent government loss nor is it a good
provision to penalize the grantees.
Most grantees come from the middle class citizens or lower, so if their permanent
disqualification from becoming a beneficiary of this Act would be tantamount to the grantees
great loss of income. So instead of permanently disqualifying them for non-payment of
aggregate of three annual amortizations, the government can impose either of these:
1. Disqualification of the grantees for a certain period of time to become beneficiary
of the Act;
2. Amending the provision from three annual amortizations to five annual
amortizations, to grant the beneficiaries more time to pay for their delinquency; or
3. Taking the possession of 1/10 (or estimate equivalent of unpaid three annual
amortizations) portion of the lot from the beneficiary, and give them two more
years to redeem possession.
Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this
Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the
government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years:
provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice
of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given
due notice thereof by the BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be
transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to
any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the
land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which
shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately
preceding paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one
lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of
improvements he has made on the land.
Section 27 imposes limitations on the transfer of ownership of the land awarded
by DAR to qualified beneficiaries. It provides that the land shall not be
transferred within ten years from the receipt of ownership thereof. But this rule
admits an exemption, which is the transfer of such land to either of the following:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Heirs,
Government,
LBP, or
Other qualified beneficiaries.

It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or
conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerated four exceptions: (1)
through hereditary succession; (2) to the government; (3) to the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. In short, during the
prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights
is void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian
reform laws. (Lebrudo v. Loyola, GR No. 181370, March 9, 2011)
Moreover, Section 27 of RA No. 6657 also answers the question: can ownership
of the agricultural land be transferred or sold?
Transferability of ownership can be allowed, provided the agricultural land
has been fully paid and provided further that the transferee thereof is qualified
under the CARP and does not own more than 5 hectares of agricultural land.
(Caliwan,. Agrarian Law Reviewer. 1st ed. academia.edu.ph, 2014. Web. 1 Aug.
2015.) If the land has not been fully paid, transfer can still prosper provided that
such transfer will be upon approval of DAR and that the land will be conveyed to
the heirs of the beneficiary who will step into his shoes with regard to the rights
and responsibilities of a CARP land grantee.
The purpose of the non-transferability clause of the law is to ensure that
the grantees would cultivate the land awarded to them and to ensure that these
lands will not be acquired by other non-qualified individuals or entities in a
certain period.
This provision is equitable and just to both the government and grantee.
Since the transfer or conveyance may not be done without prior payment in full
of the land awarded to the grantee, the government will be assured of receiving
the just payment they need to not incur any loss with the transaction. The tenyear prohibition period on the other hand, gives beneficiaries ample time to
cultivate their land, and when such cultivation will not be effective for them, as
such would not grant them the opportunity to earn a sustainable income, then
they would be allowed to transfer ownership through sale which proceeds can be
used for another business or trade compatible to the grantee.
However, the problem will only occur when the land would be conveyed to
entities who, even if also qualified as CARP beneficiary, will not be able to
cultivate the land and fail to comply all responsibilities by a CARP grantee.
Because this failure would result to the disqualification of the person or to
another conveyance.
DAR is implementing various programs for farmers and are conducting
different seminars. These activities by DAR aim to enhance the quality and
quantity of products of farmers and more importantly, of CARP grantees.
However, despite such seminars, there are still a number of grantees who fail to
comply with their responsibilities on the award given to them by the government.
A DAR-GERMAN (GTZ) study says, DAR has concentrated mainly on land
redistribution, without considering viability and support services. (HOW CARPS
FAILURE IMPACTS ON SOCIAL SERVICES AND AGRARIAN-REFORM BENEFICIARIES:
A
FIRSTHANDACCOUNT,midfield.wordpress.com,

https://midfield.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/how-carp%E2%80%99s-failure-impacts-onsocial-services-and-agrarian-reform-beneficiaries-a-firsthand-account-2/, August 2, 2015.)

Therefore, to further promote the goals of CARP, the government must provide
more seminars which would focus on sustainability of grantees on the production
and distribution of their crops.

RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) does not contain a
specific provision in the law which expressly provides for the defeasibility of titles, or
corollarily its indefeasibility. Nowhere in the law can the word indefeasibility be found, or
its synonym. Unsurprisingly, it has spawned several opposing contentions by parties that are
left to settle such matter. However, in the case of Estribillo, et al. V. DAR, et al., the Supreme
Court has finally laid to rest this gray area. But before going to a summary of the facts of the
case, let us first define certain principles.
Indefeasible is defined by Wests Encyclopedia of American Law as, that cannot be
altered or voided, usually in reference to an interest in real property. 1 Similarly, in a
landmark case decided by the Supreme Courty, it has clearly enunciated the principle of
indefeasibilty of a title. Under the Torrens System of registration, the Torrens title becomes
indefeasible na dincontrovertible ne year from its final decree. A torrens title is generally
conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. A strong presumption
exists that the title was regularly issue and that it is valid. It is incontrovertible as against any
information possessoria or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the
title.2
Chapter V of RA 6657 entitled Land Acquisition provides for specific procedure in
the acquisition and distribution of lands. In fact, it specifically provided in Sec. 16 par. (e)
that:
Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. (emphasis
ours)
Similarly, the law states that ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidence by a Certificate
of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in
this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the
Certificate of Title.3
Moving on to the case of Estribillo, the facts of the case are as follows:
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. "indefeasible." Retrieved August 2 2015
from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indefeasible
2
Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR No. L-27594, Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177; Republic v. Nillas, GR No.
159595, Jan. 23, 2007, 512 SCRA 286.
3
Section 24 of R.A. 6657 AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO
PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS
IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
1

The petitioners are recipients of Emancipation Patents over parcels of land located in
Agusan del Sur. These lands were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded
by respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Petitioners, occupied these lands believing that
the same were public lands. Eventually, HMI acquired these lands through a Sales Patent
from the Government.
However, PD 27 issued on October of 1972 was issued which mandated that tenanted
rice and corn lands be brought under the operation of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) and
awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. HMI then requested that its parcels of land be placed under
the OLT. After receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners to cultivate the
lands so that the same may be included in the OLT.
In 1982, a final survet was conducted and the corresponding TCTs and EPs covering
the entire parcels of land were issued to the petitioners. HMI filed with RARAD seeking to
declare erroneous coverage under PD 27 of its landholdings. HMI claimed that said area was
not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation was
paid therefor. After the petitioners failed to comply with the technicalities regarding the case,
their TCTs and EPs were subsequently ordered cancelled.
The Court of Appeals, ruling on the technicalities of the case rather than the merits
similarly dismissed their petition and affirmed DARABs decision which affirmed RARADs
decision.
The Supreme Court after brushing aside the issue of technicality, ruled in favor of the
petitioners. SC dismissed the contention of DARAB which ruled that the EP is a title issued
through the agrarian reform program of the government. Its issuance, correction and
cancellation is governed by the rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Hence, it is not the same as or in the same category
of a Torrens title.
In the case of Ybanez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the SC has held that certificates
of title issue in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in
judicial proceedings:
It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative
proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a
certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered
by said certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land
Law.4
Further, there is no specific provision in the Public Land Law or the Land Registration
Act fixing the one year period within which the public land patent is open to review on the
ground of actual fraud as in Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Sec. 32 of PD 1529,
and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the
pertinent pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Sec. 38 of Land
Registration Act was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director
of Lands. The date of issuance of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the date of the issuance
of the decree in ordinary registration cases. This, to our mind, is in consonance with the intent
and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. Conservation of a family home, and to encourage the
settlement, residence and cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public domain.5
4

G.R. No. 68291, 6 March 1991, 194 SCRA 743, 749-750.

G.R. No. 159674, 30 June 2006

Prof. Antonio Noblejas commented on the silence of PD 27 as to the indefeasibility of

titles is the same as that in the Public Land Act:
Inasmuchas there is no positive statement of the Public Land Law, regarding the titled
granted thereunder, such silence should be construed and interpreted in favor of the
homesteader who come into the possession of his homestead after complying with the
requirements thereof.6 (emphasis ours)
In the same case, the SC has held that once the tenant-farmers have complied with PD
27, the TCTs issued pursuant to their EPs, acquire the same protect accorded to other TCTs.
The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one
year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x x x.7
(emphasis ours)
Cited in the case was Lahora v. Dayanghirang, Jr. which states that where land is
granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is
recorded, and the certificate of title is issue to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically
brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee
becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Sec. 38 of the said Act. In other words,
upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable
and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.8
It cannot therefore be overstated that the EPs, like the CLOAs in RA 6657, are
enrolled in the Torrens of system of registration.
In sum, we are of the opinion that if the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the
statutory requirements and have been duly issued CLOAs, then the former is to be construed
as to have the nature and characteristics of a title issued under those issued in a registration
proceeding. Absent a specific provision in RA 6657 regarding the indefeasibility of titles does
not render it an exception to the operation of the general law, rather, it serves to operate as to
put it under the controlling law which is the Land Registration Act.
We conclude that there are many solutions to the problems and issues facing agrarian
reform. But we do know of the fact that the government as a whole is ill- equipped and rather
lacking in political will to solve the problems of agrarian reform.
Among the recommendations of the group is to concretize the continued support to
the beneficiaries. We cannot turn a blind eye that in truth giving farmers land to till, but
having no means to till the land is still rendering agrarian reform futile.
We can see that the objective of the law is very significant to the development of our
nation as a whole. For it to be strengthened, it rests on the proper and active implementation
of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the Executive Branch of Government. The
monitoring power of DAR on the appropriate use of the land delegated to the bona fide
beneficiary is an important factor to its implementation. One must not put into oblivion that
these lands are being distributed for free, the farmers pay for it. Hence, it is just proper that
the Government in turn must continue to assist on how can these lands be properly develop in
order for it to be fruitful and productive. In turn, the farmers can earn profit from it and will
able to set aside payment for the land and at the same time, will have the means to provide for
their family.
REGISTRATION OF LAND, TITLES AND DEEDS, Antonio H. Noblejas, p. 431 (1992 revised ed.)
Amado D. Aquino, Land registration and related Proceedings, Chapter XII "Land Patents", p. 139;
citing Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-77770, 15 December 1988, 168 SCRA 503, 511; Duran
v. Oliva, 113 Phil. 144, 148-149 (1961).
8
147 Phil. 301, 304 (1971).
6
7