|
By
Annie Ruth C. Sabangan
and Ric R. Puod, Senior Reporters
(Conclusion)
PLURALITY sounds positive when it means a social
system that gives equal access to power. But when the word is taken
to simply mean more than two, chances are it would do more harm than
good when applied to the Philippine land administration system.
A study made by the Land Administration and
Management Project (LAMP) for the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) characterized the present land
administration system in only one word: “multiple.”
This multiplicity, according to LAMP, pervades
the country’s land administration agencies, land administration
laws, land titling processes, certificates of titles, steps for land
transfers, standards for land valuation, taxes on landownership and
transfers and opportunities for graft and corruption.
These multiple features, LAMP noted, have given
rise to the system’s “major structural defects.” The defects
include conflict between laws regulating the system and its
administration, two processes for titling (administrative and
judicial) and multiple forms of ownership rights to the land.
Issues in titling and ownership of lands in
Nasugbu, Batangas, discussed in the previous parts of this special
report appear to be manifestations, if not offshoots, of these
structural defects in the land administration system.
Small islands, which according to the DENR
remain unclassified and part of public forests have been titled
through judicial processes and thus become private properties.
Also, other public lands that have not yet been
declassified and opened up for disposition (either through a
presidential order or an act of Congress as mandated by the Public
Land Act) have been disposed of through forms of titles secured
through the judicial process.
Since multiple agencies decide on landownership
rights and encroach on each other’s jurisdiction using multiple
laws, inconsistencies and disputes arise, causing serious social and
economic problems.
The Supreme Court, according to The Times’
research, has encountered such problematic cases of landownership
rights, not just in Nasugbu but in other provinces as well. The
lower court affirmed applications for land registration although the
subject lands have not yet been classified as alienable and
disposable or are, under the law, cannot be alienated at all.
In these cases, the Court set aside, reversed or
canceled the earlier rulings of the lower courts, which granted the
titling of inalienable or public lands that should have remained
under the state’s jurisdiction.
A case of land reversion
For instance, in its July 1, 2003, decision on a
land case (G.R. 150413), the First Division of the Supreme Court
reversed and set aside the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals.
The appellate court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Regional
Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, granting the application
for original registration of title to a parcel of land in Silang,
Cavite.
The Supreme Court upheld the petition for
reversion by the Office of the Solicitor General, which argued that
the respondent “failed to show that the land subject of her
application [for titling] is classified as alienable and disposable
land of the public domain.”
As explained by former solicitor general Amado
D. Aquino in his book Land Registration and Related Proceedings, a
reversion suit (also called a cancellation or annulment suit) is an
action that paves the way for “a reversion of property through the
cancellation of the certificate title [held by the private owner]
and the consequential reversion of the land . . . to the State.”
In its ruling the Supreme Court noted that under
the Regalian doctrine embodied in the Constitution, “all lands of
the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any
asserted right to ownership of land.”
The Court said all lands that do not appear
“to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to
the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or
alienated to a private person by the State, it remains part of the
inalienable public domain.”
Although a title could be granted under Section
48 of the Public Land Act, the Court noted that it pertains only to
“alienable lands of the public domain.”
No matter how long the claimant has stayed in a
land as its owners, the Court noted that such occupation “cannot
ripen into ownership unless such assets are reclassified and
considered disposable and alienable.”
The lower court should not have granted the
applicant’s claim to a land title, because she failed to present
certification from the concerned agency or an official proclamation
reclassifying the land as alienable and disposable.
What the applicant submitted to the lower court
were the survey map and technical descriptions of the land, which
contained “no information regarding the classification of the
property.”
Forest lands cannot be titled
In another case (G.R. 137887), dated February
28, 2000, the Supreme Court’s First Division also reversed the
decision of the Court of Appeals and the branch of the Regional
Trial Court in Tagaytay City.
The private respondents filed conflicting
applications for confirmation of imperfect titles to parcels of land
in Silang, Cavite. After trial on the merits of the case, the lower
court rendered a favorable judgment to the respondent, which was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s
claim to a land title, because he failed to “comply with the
30-year occupancy and possessory requirements of the law for the
confirmation of imperfect title.”
The applicant’s possession of the land could
not ripen into private ownership, because he possessed the land when
the property “was still inalienable forest land”—or before it
was declared alienable and disposable on January 16, 1968.
The Supreme Court noted that jurisprudence is
“replete” with such cases that “reiterate that forest lands or
forest reserves are not capable of private appropriation, and
[their] possession, however long, cannot convert them into private
property.”
In such cases where inalienable forest lands are
applied for a private title, the Court ruled that the application
“could never ripen into ownership” whether “spanning decades
or centuries.”
Cancellation of ‘innocent purchaser’s’
title
On June 28, 1999, the Supreme Court again denied
a petition (G.R. 105912) for the confirmation of title to a parcel
of land in Ubihan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, lodged in 1997 before the
then Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
The applicants claimed to be the “absolute
owners” of the property, having bought it from its previous
owners. Both of them had been “in actual, open, adverse and
continuous possession” of the property for more than 30 years.
The government, through the then director of
forestry, opposed the claim, stressing that the subject land “is
part of the public domain [that is] within the unclassified area in
Meycauayan, Bulacan.” Thus, it is “not available for private
ownership.”
In 1989 the trial court also ruled that a
certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public
domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. “Any
title thus issued on nondisposable lots, even in the hands of the
innocent purchaser for value [or a buyer in good faith] should be
canceled,” the court maintained.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the trial
court that, “forest lands cannot be owned by private persons.”
It reiterated that possession of the lands, “no matter how long,
does not ripen into a registrable title.”
Court has no jurisdiction over forest lands
In other decisions wherein indisposable lands
were titled, the Supreme Court maintained that those titles are
“null and void,” because the lands are indisposable.
An earlier ruling (in Republic v. Animas, 56,
SCRA 499, 503 and Ledesma v. Municipality of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 769)
stated, “If a person obtains a title under the Public Land Act,
which includes, by oversight, lands which cannot be registered under
the Torrens System, or when the Director of Lands had no
jurisdiction over the same case, because it is a public forest, the
grantee does not, by virtue of the said certificate of title alone,
become the owner of the land illegally included.”
In such case, the Supreme Court said the
“certificate of title may be ordered canceled.” The
cancellation, the Court noted, “may be pursued through an ordinary
action. . . .” Such action (of a concerned agency), the Court
ruled, cannot be barred by the land registration court, “since the
said court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.”
In another case, dated September 11, 1980, (G.R.
L-45202) the Supreme Court noted that the court has no authority to
allocate assets found to be part of inalienable timber land. It
stated that under the law, the director of forestry “is the
official clothed with jurisdiction and authority over the
demarcation, protection, management, reproduction, reforestation,
occupancy and use of all forests and forest resources.”
Intervention of the courts
In its study, the Land Administration and
Management Project also found a problem in the court’s
intervention on the matters of land administration. In such a
situation, LAMP said the “Philippines is unusual” in
“requiring the intervention of the courts in a range of land
administration matters that are dealt with elsewhere by
administrative processes.”
LAMP said that the court’s intervention in the
land administration system “gives rise to unnecessary costs,
extensive delays and, in some cases, competing claims to land being
determined by administrative and judicial processes concurrently but
in isolation of each other.” This also “burdens” the court
system, which is already overloaded with other matters, LAMP noted
in its study.
Land problems in Nasugbu, Batangas, earlier
discussed in the previous parts of this report, are just a small
part of the huge problem in the country’s land administration
system. The problem came from the government and in part from those
who circumvented the law. Thus, the solution should also come from
those who created the problem or else the situation will just always
be a vicious circle.
‘Why don’t they file a case in court and I
will not lift a finger to defend my husband’–Legarda
(Excerpts from the interview with Sen.Loren
Legarda at the Manila Polo Club on the first week of March.)
Manila Times: Do you consider yourself as an
environmental activist?
Sen. Loren Legarda: I’ve always been an
environmentalist at heart. From my projects you will see outside of
legislation and apart from environmental laws I’ve enacted, the
primary of which is the ecological solid waste management, the first
law signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2001. I
have coauthored the Clean Air Act. I authored the Seasonal Forest
Resources Management Act pero hindi pa natin law yan. I have my
Luntiang Pilipinas because I basically am energetic, young and
dynamic. Hindi pwedeng legislation, hihintayin, pagnasaibatas mo
na, anim na buwan o isang taon ang implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) tapos, pag hindi inimplement ng ahensya ng
gobyerno . . . Luntiang Pilipinas magtata nim ako ng malaking
puno.
You know, legislation is one aspect, and
implementation of laws that you’ve helped craft is another. It’s
a challenge to be in the Executive so that whatever you can
immediately implement in various regions. Pag legislation ang tagal
eh, you will debate on it for one year . . . very slow.
Manila Times: So how would you address
environmental concerns if you’re in agriculture?
Legarda: My God, it is greatly related. How can
you have a bounty of resources from your coastal waters if you
dynamite, if you don’t follow the laws on dynamiting or cyanide
fishing. How can you protect coastal areas from a natural disaster
if you don’t take care of the coastal areas, or how can you also
protect residents or villages from an Ormoc or from what happened in
Camiguin and in other areas or Cherry Hills if you do not continue
to reforest. So how can we even say that we are protecting our
farmers and providing them support for crops if we do not take care
of the envrironment? In short, environment and agriculture are
directly related. The planting of trees and the reforestation in our
mountainous areas—yung pagtatanim ng puno sa kabundukan ay maaring
pagkunan din ng pondo ng pamahalaan at pwedeng mag-hire ng mga taong
walang trabaho, yung mga marginalized na people, yung mga imps
pwede ‘yang tulungan sa kabundukan para sila ang tagatanim ng puno
so that the concept of agriculture is not just planting crops. No,
it can extend and expand to even the reforestation.
I have a passion for work. I have a passion for
the environment, agriculture and women issues. I’m so passionate.
Halata naman yan eh sa aking trabaho at sa produkto ng aking mga
ginagawa. Hindi ko sinasabing ako ang magiging agriculture
secretary, hindi. Isa lang yung area ng interest na nakikita ko
malaki ang hamon dyan dahil hindi nga nabigyan ng sapat na pansin sa
nakaraang administrasyon.
Manila Times: On the Luntiang Pilipinas
criticism
Legarda: Ang Filipino mentality ay maghahanap at
maghahanap ng butas yan. Pero ako kung pinansin ko na lahat ng mga
sinasabi nila di sana hindi ako nakapagtanim ng dalawang milyong
puno. The bottom line is, those who criticized me or my
programs—how many trees have you planted in your life?
Manila Times: On Fortune Island:
Legarda: He (Antonio Leviste) has owned that
long before I met him. He’s owned that even long before I met him
through the legal judicial process. If there’s anyone who wants to
complain, why don’t they file a case in court? Why is there no
case? Why do they bring it up during the election? You know, I’ve
been married to my husband for 15 years; he owned that long before I
met him. So if there’s anyone who would question him why don’t
they file a case in court? Bakit bini-bring up lang during the
election.
Manila Times: On the Lorelei 2
Legarda: Again, it has a clean title. My husband
owned that even before I met him. So many other people own islands
so no problem with that. You know it’s easy to bring up issues
during the election time. But then again, if there’s any problem
with the acquisition of property, then why don’t they file a case
and I will not lift a finger to defend my husband if he committed
any errors. My record speaks for itself and my people know how
strict I am. Kung si Gil—ito—gumawa ng mali, asawa ko kapatid
ko, tatay ko, ay naku subukan nyo ako. I will not lift a finger if.
. .
In short, the VFA na lang, ipinangako nya ang
aking boto kay Presidente Erap. Nakuha ba nya ang boto ko? Hindi.
Dahil inaway ko sya at bakit ipapangako niya ang boto ko dahil hindi
naman siya ang hinalal na senador. So mula noon tumahimik na sya at
hindi na ako pinapakialaman. His business is his business while my
politics is my politics. Anything that he did before he met me I’m
not answerable for that and if there’s anyone who was wronged or
who feels wronged file a case and I would not lift a finger to help
him. Ganon lang yun eh. Believe me, I’m so straight and they have
to invent things about me. That’s their frustration. Look at the
things being thrown at me mabababaw lahat.
‘Why don’t they file a case in court and I
will not lift a finger to defend my husband’–Legarda
(Excerpts from the interview with Sen.Loren
Legarda at the Manila Polo Club on the first week of March.)
Manila Times: Do you consider yourself as an
environmental activist?
Sen. Loren Legarda: I’ve always been an
environmentalist at heart. From my projects you will see outside of
legislation and apart from environmental laws I’ve enacted, the
primary of which is the ecological solid waste management, the first
law signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2001. I
have coauthored the Clean Air Act. I authored the Seasonal Forest
Resources Management Act pero hindi pa natin law yan. I have my
Luntiang Pilipinas because I basically am energetic, young and
dynamic. Hindi pwedeng legislation, hihintayin, pagnasaibatas mo
na, anim na buwan o isang taon ang implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) tapos, pag hindi inimplement ng ahensya ng
gobyerno . . . Luntiang Pilipinas magtata nim ako ng malaking
puno.
You know, legislation is one aspect, and
implementation of laws that you’ve helped craft is another. It’s
a challenge to be in the Executive so that whatever you can
immediately implement in various regions. Pag legislation ang tagal
eh, you will debate on it for one year . . . very slow.
Manila Times: So how would you address
environmental concerns if you’re in agriculture?
Legarda: My God, it is greatly related. How can
you have a bounty of resources from your coastal waters if you
dynamite, if you don’t follow the laws on dynamiting or cyanide
fishing. How can you protect coastal areas from a natural disaster
if you don’t take care of the coastal areas, or how can you also
protect residents or villages from an Ormoc or from what happened in
Camiguin and in other areas or Cherry Hills if you do not continue
to reforest. So how can we even say that we are protecting our
farmers and providing them support for crops if we do not take care
of the envrironment? In short, environment and agriculture are
directly related. The planting of trees and the reforestation in our
mountainous areas—yung pagtatanim ng puno sa kabundukan ay maaring
pagkunan din ng pondo ng pamahalaan at pwedeng mag-hire ng mga taong
walang trabaho, yung mga marginalized na people, yung mga imps
pwede ‘yang tulungan sa kabundukan para sila ang tagatanim ng puno
so that the concept of agriculture is not just planting crops. No,
it can extend and expand to even the reforestation.
I have a passion for work. I have a passion for
the environment, agriculture and women issues. I’m so passionate.
Halata naman yan eh sa aking trabaho at sa produkto ng aking mga
ginagawa. Hindi ko sinasabing ako ang magiging agriculture
secretary, hindi. Isa lang yung area ng interest na nakikita ko
malaki ang hamon dyan dahil hindi nga nabigyan ng sapat na pansin sa
nakaraang administrasyon.
Manila Times: On the Luntiang Pilipinas
criticism
Legarda: Ang Filipino mentality ay maghahanap at
maghahanap ng butas yan. Pero ako kung pinansin ko na lahat ng mga
sinasabi nila di sana hindi ako nakapagtanim ng dalawang milyong
puno. The bottom line is, those who criticized me or my
programs—how many trees have you planted in your life?
Manila Times: On Fortune Island:
Legarda: He (Antonio Leviste) has owned that
long before I met him. He’s owned that even long before I met him
through the legal judicial process. If there’s anyone who wants to
complain, why don’t they file a case in court? Why is there no
case? Why do they bring it up during the election? You know, I’ve
been married to my husband for 15 years; he owned that long before I
met him. So if there’s anyone who would question him why don’t
they file a case in court? Bakit bini-bring up lang during the
election.
Manila Times: On the Lorelei 2
Legarda: Again, it has a clean title. My husband
owned that even before I met him. So many other people own islands
so no problem with that. You know it’s easy to bring up issues
during the election time. But then again, if there’s any problem
with the acquisition of property, then why don’t they file a case
and I will not lift a finger to defend my husband if he committed
any errors. My record speaks for itself and my people know how
strict I am. Kung si Gil—ito—gumawa ng mali, asawa ko kapatid
ko, tatay ko, ay naku subukan nyo ako. I will not lift a finger if.
. .
In short, the VFA na lang, ipinangako nya ang
aking boto kay Presidente Erap. Nakuha ba nya ang boto ko? Hindi.
Dahil inaway ko sya at bakit ipapangako niya ang boto ko dahil hindi
naman siya ang hinalal na senador. So mula noon tumahimik na sya at
hindi na ako pinapakialaman. His business is his business while my
politics is my politics. Anything that he did before he met me I’m
not answerable for that and if there’s anyone who was wronged or
who feels wronged file a case and I would not lift a finger to help
him. Ganon lang yun eh. Believe me, I’m so straight and they have
to invent things about me. That’s their frustration. Look at the
things being thrown at me mabababaw lahat.
‘Why don’t they file a case in court and I
will not lift a finger to defend my husband’–Legarda
(Excerpts from the interview with Sen.Loren
Legarda at the Manila Polo Club on the first week of March.)
Manila Times: Do you consider yourself as an
environmental activist?
Sen. Loren Legarda: I’ve always been an
environmentalist at heart. From my projects you will see outside of
legislation and apart from environmental laws I’ve enacted, the
primary of which is the ecological solid waste management, the first
law signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2001. I
have coauthored the Clean Air Act. I authored the Seasonal Forest
Resources Management Act pero hindi pa natin law yan. I have my
Luntiang Pilipinas because I basically am energetic, young and
dynamic. Hindi pwedeng legislation, hihintayin, pagnasaibatas mo
na, anim na buwan o isang taon ang implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) tapos, pag hindi inimplement ng ahensya ng
gobyerno . . . Luntiang Pilipinas magtata nim ako ng malaking
puno.
You know, legislation is one aspect, and
implementation of laws that you’ve helped craft is another. It’s
a challenge to be in the Executive so that whatever you can
immediately implement in various regions. Pag legislation ang tagal
eh, you will debate on it for one year . . . very slow.
Manila Times: So how would you address
environmental concerns if you’re in agriculture?
Legarda: My God, it is greatly related. How can
you have a bounty of resources from your coastal waters if you
dynamite, if you don’t follow the laws on dynamiting or cyanide
fishing. How can you protect coastal areas from a natural disaster
if you don’t take care of the coastal areas, or how can you also
protect residents or villages from an Ormoc or from what happened in
Camiguin and in other areas or Cherry Hills if you do not continue
to reforest. So how can we even say that we are protecting our
farmers and providing them support for crops if we do not take care
of the envrironment? In short, environment and agriculture are
directly related. The planting of trees and the reforestation in our
mountainous areas—yung pagtatanim ng puno sa kabundukan ay maaring
pagkunan din ng pondo ng pamahalaan at pwedeng mag-hire ng mga taong
walang trabaho, yung mga marginalized na people, yung mga imps
pwede ‘yang tulungan sa kabundukan para sila ang tagatanim ng puno
so that the concept of agriculture is not just planting crops. No,
it can extend and expand to even the reforestation.
I have a passion for work. I have a passion for
the environment, agriculture and women issues. I’m so passionate.
Halata naman yan eh sa aking trabaho at sa produkto ng aking mga
ginagawa. Hindi ko sinasabing ako ang magiging agriculture
secretary, hindi. Isa lang yung area ng interest na nakikita ko
malaki ang hamon dyan dahil hindi nga nabigyan ng sapat na pansin sa
nakaraang administrasyon.
Manila Times: On the Luntiang Pilipinas
criticism
Legarda: Ang Filipino mentality ay maghahanap at
maghahanap ng butas yan. Pero ako kung pinansin ko na lahat ng mga
sinasabi nila di sana hindi ako nakapagtanim ng dalawang milyong
puno. The bottom line is, those who criticized me or my
programs—how many trees have you planted in your life?
Manila Times: On Fortune Island:
Legarda: He (Antonio Leviste) has owned that
long before I met him. He’s owned that even long before I met him
through the legal judicial process. If there’s anyone who wants to
complain, why don’t they file a case in court? Why is there no
case? Why do they bring it up during the election? You know, I’ve
been married to my husband for 15 years; he owned that long before I
met him. So if there’s anyone who would question him why don’t
they file a case in court? Bakit bini-bring up lang during the
election.
Manila Times: On the Lorelei 2
Legarda: Again, it has a clean title. My husband
owned that even before I met him. So many other people own islands
so no problem with that. You know it’s easy to bring up issues
during the election time. But then again, if there’s any problem
with the acquisition of property, then why don’t they file a case
and I will not lift a finger to defend my husband if he committed
any errors. My record speaks for itself and my people know how
strict I am. Kung si Gil—ito—gumawa ng mali, asawa ko kapatid
ko, tatay ko, ay naku subukan nyo ako. I will not lift a finger if.
. .
In short, the VFA na lang, ipinangako nya ang
aking boto kay Presidente Erap. Nakuha ba nya ang boto ko? Hindi.
Dahil inaway ko sya at bakit ipapangako niya ang boto ko dahil hindi
naman siya ang hinalal na senador. So mula noon tumahimik na sya at
hindi na ako pinapakialaman. His business is his business while my
politics is my politics. Anything that he did before he met me I’m
not answerable for that and if there’s anyone who was wronged or
who feels wronged file a case and I would not lift a finger to help
him. Ganon lang yun eh. Believe me, I’m so straight and they have
to invent things about me. That’s their frustration. Look at the
things being thrown at me mabababaw lahat.
Part
1 |Part
2 |Part 3 |Part
4 |
|
