Forms & Publications

Forms


Publications

Land Tenancy and Land Reform

Ronald E. Dolan, ed. Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991

Philippines Table of Contents

An important legacy of the Spanish colonial period was the high concentration of land ownership, and the consequent widespread poverty and agrarian unrest. United States administrators and several Philippine presidential administrations launched land reform programs to maintain social stability in the countryside. Lack of sustained political will, however, as well as landlord resistance, severely limited the impact of the various initiatives.

Farm size is a significant indicator of concentration of ownership. Although nationwide approximately 50 percent of farms in 1980 were less than two hectares, these small farms made up only 16 percent of total farm area. On the other hand, only about 3 percent of farms were over ten hectares, yet they covered approximately 25 percent of farm area. Farms also varied in size based on crops cultivated. Rice farms tended to be smaller; only 9 percent of rice land was on farms as large as ten hectares. Coconut farms tended to be somewhat larger; approximately 28 percent of the land planted in coconuts was on farms larger than ten hectares. Sugarcane, however, generally was planted on large farms. Nearly 80 percent of land planted in sugarcane was on farms larger than ten hectares. Pineapple plantations were a special case. Because the two largest producers were subsidiaries of transnational firms — Del Monte and Castle and Cooke — they were not permitted to directly own land. The transnationals circumvented this restriction, however, by leasing land. In 1987 subsidiaries of these two companies leased 21,400 hectares, 40 percent of the total hectarage devoted to pineapple production.

In September 1972, the second presidential decree that Marcos issued under martial law declared the entire Philippines a land reform area. A month later, he issued Presidential Decree No. 27, which contained the specifics of his land reform program. On paper, the program was the most comprehensive ever attempted in the Philippines, notwithstanding the fact that only rice and corn land were included. Holdings of more than seven hectares were to be purchased and parceled out to individual tenants (up to three hectares of irrigated, or five hectares of unirrigated, land), who would then pay off the value of the land over a fifteen-year period. Sharecroppers on holdings of less than seven hectares were to be converted to leaseholders, paying fixed rents.

The Marcos land reform program succeeded in breaking down many of the large haciendas in Central Luzon, a traditional center of agrarian unrest where landed elite and Marcos allies were not as numerous as in other parts of the country. In the country as a whole, however, the program was generally considered a failure. Only 20 percent of rice and corn land, or 10 percent of total farm land, was covered by the program, and in 1985, thirteen years after Marcos's proclamation, 75 percent of the expected beneficiaries had not become owner-cultivators. By 1988 less than 6 percent of all agricultural households had received a certificate of land transfer, indicating that the land they were cultivating had been registered as a land transfer holding. About half of this group, 2.4 percent, had received titles, referred to as emancipation patents. Political commitment on the part of the government waned rather quickly, after Marcos succeeded in undermining the strength of land elites who had opposed him. Even where efforts were made, implementation was selective, mismanaged, and subject to considerable graft and corruption.

The failure of the Marcos land reform program was a major theme in Aquino's 1986 presidential campaign, and she gave land reform first priority: "Land-to-the-tiller must become a reality, instead of an empty slogan." The issue was of some significance inasmuch as one of the largest landholdings in the country was her family's 15,000-hectare Hacienda Luisita. But the candidate was quite clear; the land reform would apply to Hacienda Luisita as well as to any other landholding. She did not actually begin to address the land reform question, however, until the issue was brought to a head in January 1987, when the military attacked a group of peasants marching to Malacañang, the presidential residence, to demand action on the promised land reform killing 18 and wounding more than 100 of them. The event galvanized the government into action: a land reform commission was formed, and in July 1987, one week before the new Congress convened and her decree-making powers would be curtailed, Aquino proclaimed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. More than 80 percent of cultivated land and almost 65 percent of agricultural households were to be included in a phased process that would consider the type of land and size of holding. In conformity with the country's new Constitution, provisions for "voluntary land sharing" and just compensation were included. The important details of timing, priorities, and minimum legal holdings, however, were left to be determined by the new Congress, the majority of whose members were connected to landed interests.

Criticism of Aquino's plan came from both sides. Landowners thought that it went too far, and peasant organizations complained that the program did not go far enough and that by leaving the details to a landlord-dominated Congress, the program was doomed to failure. A World Bank mission was quite critical of a draft of the land reform program. In its report, the mission suggested that in order to limit efforts to subvert the process, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program needed to be carried out swiftly rather than in stages, and land prices should be determined using a mechanical formula rather than subjective valuation. The World Bank mission also was critical of a provision allowing incorporated farm entities to distribute stock to tenants and workers rather than the land itself. The scheme would be attractive, the mission argued, "to those landowners who believed that they would not have to live up to the agreement to transfer the land to the beneficiaries." The mission's recommendations were largely ignored in the final version of the government's program.

On June 10, 1988, a year after the proclamation, Congress passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Landowners were allowed to retain up to five hectares plus three hectares for each heir at least fifteen years of age. The program was to be implemented in phases. The amount of land that could be retained was to be gradually decreased, and a non-land-transfer, profit-sharing program could be used as an alternative to actual land transfer.

Especially controversial was the provision that allowed large landowners to transfer a portion of the respective corporation's total assets equivalent in value to that of its land assets, in lieu of the land being subdivided and distributed to tenants and farm laborers. In May 1989, the 7,000 tenants of the Aquino family estate, Hacienda Luisita, agreed to take a 33 percent share of the hacienda's corporate stock rather than a portion of the land itself. Because the remaining two-thirds of the stock (the value of non-land corporate assets) remained with Aquino's family, effective control of the land did not pass to the tillers. Proponents of land reform considered the stock-ownership provision a loophole in the law, and one that many large landowners would probably use. Following the example of the Hacienda Luisita, thirty-four agrocorporations had requested approval for a stock transfer as of mid-1990. Although legal, the action of the president's family raised questions as to the president's commitment to land reform.

It is difficult to estimate the cost allowing for inflation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Early on, in 1988 estimates ranged between P170 billion and P220 billion; the following year they were as high as P332 billion, of which P83 billion was for land acquisition and P248 billion for support services and infrastructure. The lowest mentioned figure averages to P17 billion a year, 2.1 percent of 1988 GNP in the Philippines and 8.9 percent of government expenditure that year. The sum was well beyond the capacity of the country, unless tax revenues were increased substantially and expenditure priorities reordered. To circumvent this difficulty, the Aquino government planned to obtain 50 to 60 percent of the funding requirements from foreign aid. As of 1990, however, success had been minimal.

Government claims that in the first three years of implementation the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program met with considerable success were open to question. Between July 1987 and March 1990, 430,730 hectares were distributed. About 80 percent of this, however, was from the continuation of the Marcos land reform program. Distribution of privately owned lands other than land growing rice and corn, 3,470 hectares, was insignificant not only in absolute terms, but it was also only 2 percent of what had been targeted. The inability of the Department of Agrarian Reform to spend its budget also indicated implementation difficulties. As of June 1990, the department had utilized only 44 percent of the P14.2 billion allocated to it for the period January 1988-June 1990. In part because of Supreme Court rulings, the Department of Agrarian Reform cut its land acquisition target in late 1990 by almost half from 400,000 hectares to 250,000 hectares.

The Land Registration Authority of the Philippines

by Thess R. Rosete, Fil-Estate Legal-Titling and Registration Department
(article was written in 2005)

The Land Registration Authority (www.lra.gov.ph) is the agency mandated by Philippine laws with the task of preserving the integrity of the land registration process and protecting the sanctity of the Torrens Title. It is the central depository of all lands records and through its Registry of Deeds offices nationwide, that all records are kept of its instruments affecting registered and unregistered lands as well as chattel mortgages affecting movable properties.

"Title" is a generic word meaning proof, evidence or monument of ownership, such as Tax Declarations, Real Property Tax Receipts, Deeds of Sale, and the Torrens title. Title, contrary to popular understanding, is not directly synonymous with Torrens, which is considered as the best evidence of ownership because "it is binding and indefeasible to the whole world."

The Torrens System originated when Sir Robert Torrens became a member of South Australia's First Colonial Ministry, where he introduced in the parliament a bill providing for the adoption of his scheme of land registration. Torrens was inspired by the facility with which ships or undivided shares therein were negotiated and transferred in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts. Becoming a Register of Deeds, he devised a scheme of registration of title that improved the old system.

In the Philippines, the Philippine Commission enacted in November 6, 1902 the Act 496, otherwise known as the Land Registration Law. This Act created the Court of Land Registration (CLR), the offices of the Registers of Deeds, and of the institution in this country of the Torrens System of registration, whereby a real estate ownership may be judicially confirmed and recorded in the archives of the government. However, the system actually took effect on February 1, 1903.

Later, the Court of Land Registration, because of Act No. 2347, was given over o the Court of First Instance and a new office was established - the General Land Registration Office (GLRO).

On June 17, 1954, Republic Act No. 1151 abolished the GLRO and created the Land Registration Commission (LRC) wherein the Commissioner took over the powers and functions of the GLRO, directly working under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and was in direct control of the Registers of Deeds (RD's) as well as the Clerks of Court of First Instance in land registration cases.

A Registry of Deeds was established in every city and every province and a branch registry was put up wherever else possible at that time. On February 9, 1981, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive Order No. 649, reorganizing the LRC into the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA). This was changed into the Land Registration Authority by virtue of a Presidential Memorandum Circular dated September 30, 1988 and in line with Executive Order No. 292 dated July 25, 1987, instituting the Administrative Code of 1987, which took effect in November 1989.

At present, the LRA is still and attached agency of the Department of Justice and is working hand in hand with the following public sector agencies:

1. Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) - collection of capital gains and other related taxes

2. Local Government Units (LGU's) - collection of real property and transfer taxes

3. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) - issuance of patents for land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

4. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) CENRO, PENRO RED - issuance of patents (title to land) Regional Land Management Service (DENR-LMS) - examination and approval of survey plans

5. Regional Trial Courts (RTC) and Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) - determination of validity of ownership claims in applications for original registration, judicial reconstitution of titles, and amendments to certificates

6. Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) - identification and investigation of fraudulent titles

7. Philippine National Police (PNP) - apprehension and prosecution of persons or syndicates caught in possession of or transacting in fake or spurious certificates of land title

The Authority has grown through the years, now with a total of 2,500 employees nationwide. The Authority is more active than ever, willing and able to defend the integrity of the Torrens system in the Philippines for the benefit of the Filipino landowners.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License