INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES
The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) the umbrella organization of all leagues of local
government units and locally elected officials in the country with the AustralianAID (DFAT)The Asia
Foundation (TAF) partnership in the Philippines, and Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), conducted
a Focus Group Discussion and Workshop on Section 4 of the Residential Free Patent Act (RFPA) or RA
10023.
The issues on the untitled public lands utilized by the LGUs for public use was first raised during the
conduct of the consultation meetings of ULAP with the LGUs under the RFPA advocacy campaign from
March to July 2015. The issues centered on the fact that since the passage of RA 10023, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) on Section 4 was released on March 3, 2015 through Administrative Order No.
2015-01, but, only for public schools with untitled lands. The IRR for the titling of lands for the LGUs and
NGAs is still under the development phase, as reported by Director Emelyne Talabis of the DENR Land
Management Bureau to the ULAP National Executive Board (NEB)1 during the 77th National Executive
Board Meeting on August 7, 2015.
Consequently, the ULAP NEB passed Resolution No. 2015-23, Pursuing Policy Research and Advocacy to
Support the Development of the Residential Free Patent Act (RA 10023) Section 4 for Local Government-Used Lands.
ULAP NEB deemed that with its capacity and political capital as the umbrella organization of all the
local government units and officials, ULAP should be the forefront and prime advocate of the issues on
Section 4 of RA 10023 to DENR and other concerned agencies. Moreover, the resolution further instructs
the conduct of further study on the specific section with regard to the issues and concerns of the LGUs
on land titling and develop necessary policy support materials to pursue the advocacy.
Given the demand from the LGUs with regard to the issues of the IRR of Section 4 on LGU-used untitled
lands, and with support from the TAF partnership, ULAP conducted a workshop on Section 4 of RA 10023
on August 28, 2015 at Maxs Restaurant, Circle Food Complex, Quezon City Circle, Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City. ULAP invited the Provincial Administrator and/or Provincial Assessor of the provinces from
Regions 2, 3, 4A, 4B, and 5, and cities from NCR to attend the workshop. A total of 45 participants from 20
LGUs participated in the workshop.
The said workshop focused on the issues and concerns of the LGUs with regard to their untitled public
lands for public use and that can be reflected in the IRR. The following are the objectives of the focus group
discussion and workshop:
The ULAP NEB is composed of the top two officials of each of its 10 member leagues.
Page 2 of 15
To gather support from provincial governments for the issuance of an IRR for titling of LGU
properties under Section 4 of RA 10023.
WORKSHOP PROPER
A total of 45 participants from 20 LGUs participated in the workshop, of which list is documented in Annex
A: List of Workshop Participants. Herein under is the list of participating LGUs:2
Region 2
Isabela
Region 3
Bataan
Bulacan
Nueva Ecija
Pampanga
Tarlac
Zambales
NCR
Quezon City
San Juan City
Caloocan City
Muntinlupa City
Pasig City
During the workshop preliminaries, Atty. George Katigbak of FEF presented the components of RA 10023,
concentrating on the Section 4 of the law. Through the first session of the workshop, it was noted that
majority of the participants are unaware of RA 10023, especially on Section 4. This encouraged the
participants to ask queries on how to solve their issues on LGU land titling in their respective areas which
will be addressed in the second part of the workshop.
The workshop proper, facilitated by ULAP Executive Director Czarina Medina-Guce, served as avenue for
the participants to discuss their respective issues on the current status of their untitled lands as well as on
the titling process The participants were asked to fill out worksheets that asked them to fill out the
following information:
ULAP Executive Director Medina-Guce proceeded in processing the issues experienced by the LGUs
concerning their untiled properties. The succeeding section maps out all the issues generated from the LGU
worksheets and the group processing to summarize the range of issues and needs expressed by the LGUs.
Page 3 of 15
The issues and concerns identified during the discussion are summarized in the diagram below, with each
issue discussed in the succeeding sections.
Page 4 of 15
Given the vast data on land records, the LGUs expressed that they have very limited access to these since
no mechanism or system for data sharing and integration of land records thus provides difficulty in having
an inventory of titled and untitled lands. In order for them to create an inventory, they must gather all the
data relative to their LGU from all of these agencies and consolidate these data.
According to the Provincial Assessor Joselito Javier of Batangas, Right now as an assessor, we cannot
determine what properties are classified as public land because most of these lands are undeclared. This was
supported as well by the others, wherein 18 of the participating LGUs put in their worksheets that they
have incomplete or no inventory of untitled public lands. In the case of Bataan, the Provincial Assessor also
manifested that their current database only contains lands that are utilized as public roads and highways.
As a result, there is under-utilization or non-utilization of the properties of the LGUs that should have been
allocated to projects intended for the development of the community.
Supporting this issue is the case of Nueva Ecija wherein they have conducted surveys in their LGU,
however, they have a problem in validating the data they have gathered.
Page 5 of 15
The problem arises when lands that are utilized by the LGUs are classified as Forest Lands. This is the case
of the local government of Palawan wherein they are unable to utilize their reserved lands as they are
classified as protected area. This is a concern for the LGU of Palawan since 90% of their lands remain
unclassified, thus limiting the powers of the provincial government to utilize their lands and expand
projects and programs for development in the province.
In addition, initially identified and used by the LGUs for public use are vulnerable to the encroachment of
individuals or other entities. Once occupied by informal settlers, it will be an additional burden to the LGUs
to find another property to transfer them. This will take time and additional resources from the LGU that
should have been used for other purposes. If ever the LGU will already utilize the property, the delay
caused by transferring informal settlers can result in losses of economic opportunity. Also in the case of
Isabela, the lot of the old provincial capitol of Isabela was also occupied by informal settlers and have
secured land titles in their favor. Aside from informal settlers, provincial offices of national government
agencies also occupy the same property, which complicates the issue of ownership even further.
Page 6 of 15
As explained by the representatives of Palawan, if the property is owned by the LGU in its proprietary
capacity, it has the exclusive right to sell, lease or dispose of the property. Elia Cay from Oriental Mindoro
added that in this sense, the LGU has the capability to use the property to its advantage to acquire funds
by selling the property or acquiring loans by using the property as a credit capital. This provides LGUs
additional financial opportunity, especially for those that are dependent on their IRA, to fund their
programs and projects within their jurisdiction. However, LGUs encounter difficulties in declaring
patrimonial lands being used for public purpose as their own property because it needs to undergo lengthy
and arduous legal proceedings.
[1] MULTIPLE AND CONFLIC TING SURVEY MAPS THAT LE ADS TO DIFFICULTIES IN
IDENTIFYING UNTITLED LANDS
The most common survey map used by the LGUs is the cadastral map, which shows the metes and bounds
or political boundaries of cities, municipalities and provinces. However, the cadastral map issued by DENR
is incomplete. This is because the function of DENR to conduct isolated and special surveys were devolved
to LGUs in 1992. But due to lack of manpower and financial resources, not a single municipality had
completed its cadastral survey. Because of this, DENR issued DENR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 200123 which reverted back to the agency the functions to execute, supervise and manage lands surveys.
However, as of January of 2015, DENR has only completed 86.84% out of the total of 1,631 cities and
municipalities under its jurisdiction.
Moreover, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has its own survey map, which uses technical
descriptions of land titles. However, technical descriptions on land title may differ with the actual ground
survey using the Global Positioning System (GPS). A tax map, on the other hand shows location,
dimensions, and other information pertaining to a parcel land subject to property taxes.
Each of these surveys maps serves their own purpose. However, based on the LGUs experience, there are
discrepancies with the different maps, often times producing conflicting metes and bounds. The reason for
these discrepancies come from the different sources of the data for DENR, data come from actual ground
survey using GPS, while for LRA, data are from the lot data computation. Thus, since data are from two
different sources, there are cases wherein discrepancies in political subdivision in the maps are evident.
This scenario then poses a problem in identifying untitled lands because the LGUs do not know which
survey map to use. Moreover, having multiple survey maps lead to additional expenses in the titling
process since the LGUs need to pay for all of them.
Page 7 of 15
Discussions with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) showed that the cadastral survey
submitted to them by the Land Management Bureau (LMB) increased the total land area of the country by
four thousand square kilometers (4,000 km2) compared to the survey it submitted in the year 2001 3. A
possible reason for this is that the land areas of newly created LGUs were not subtracted from the land area
of the LGU it formerly belonged to, thus doubling the land area. Furthermore, LGUs that have pending
land disputes still include the land area in their survey even though the dispute has not been resolved.
According to DENR Administrative Order 2001-23, the lack of technical manpower and financial resources
hampered the capacity of the LGUs to conduct land surveys, such as cadastral, lot and isolated and special
surveys. DENR, transferred the responsibility of conducting land surveys from the LGUs to the national
agency, through the Land Management Bureau (LMB). However, the policy does not prevent the LGUs
from initiating and funding the conduct of land surveys.
Representatives from Palawan and Tarlac proposed that if the LGUs have the technological and technical
knowledge in conducting their own land surveys, it can expedite land titling process since the data and the
conduct of survey will come from the LGUs, without waiting for the DENR-PENRO.
Representatives from DBM, DILG, and ULAP discussed issues on shares of LGUs in National Wealth in a meeting held last 25 August 2015 in Holiday Inn,
Ortigas Center, Pasig. There are three components in the computation of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) received by LGUs and one of which is the Land Area
that accounts for 25%.
3
Page 8 of 15
Authorized officer or LGU shall file for the application of a special patent or proclamation to DENR
CENRO. DENR CENRO then forwards the application to DENR PENRO for verification and then
to DENR Regional Office. The DENR Regional will again verify the application then will forward
to the Land Management Bureau;
The Director of Land Management Bureau shall submit to the Secretary of the DENR the
application subject to the recommendation of the latter to the President; and,
President approves or disapproves the Special Patent.
The issues discussed in this category pertain to problems that LGUs encounter in the system of land titling.
Aside from the lengthy process, LGUs also need to produce numerous documents that are required in the
titling and surveying process:
In the case of Camarines Norte, they encountered difficulties in producing and processing the
requirements, particularly on the submission of the conveyance of donation of the property.
Zambales is also having difficulties in producing the cadastral map that will be used for the titling
of its provincial capitol.
On the other hand, the province of Isabela cannot process the title for its new provincial capitol
since it lacks a requirement that needs to be secured from the DPWH.
According to Atty. Jefrie Sahagin of the Provincial Government of Palawan, the lack of standard rules and
requirements produces delays in the titling process, which also hinders the capacity of the LGUs to identify
their properties. Here is where the value of titling LGU properties comes in these properties with titles are credit
capital. Using LGU properties, we can loan additional resources for our projects and programs, instead of being just
dependent in IRA (translated from Filipino).
Page 9 of 15
In some cases, LGUs have already developed the area, however, the property is still untitled. This is the
case of Pampanga wherein a parcel of land that was donated to them did not have a proper title. Now that
they are trying to use the property to build a hospital, the heirs of the donor are claiming the property back.
Similar to this case, a parcel of land was donated to the provincial government of Marinduque in the 1940s,
however, the descendants of the donors are claiming back the property.
There are also cases wherein the LGUs have current possession of the property, however, the land titles are
declared under a different owner. This is the experience of Marinduque in which the lot occupied by one
of their District Hospitals is titled under the Roman Catholic Church; however, in the Tax Declaration of
the same property, a private person is shown to own the land. In the same province, the parcel of land used
as a provincial jails site is declared under the Department of Agriculture. These cases show that
discrepancies in the declaration of properties, similar to the case previously cited, further complicate the
titling process for LGUs.
The participating LGUs are looking at the possibility of getting the approval of the application at the
PENRO level, like the case of the residential public lands and untitled public schools. Also, the province of
Palawan is proposing that the approval of the cadastral survey map to be delegated to the PENRO level to
further hasten the process.
Page 10 of 15
in the titling process are resources that can fund other programs and projects of LGUs in the delivery of
other services. Since these are government to government transactions, and the payments for these fees
come from the governments resources, deferring the fees and charges might be possible to help the LGUs.
[5] IMPOSING CAPITAL GAI NS TAX ON CLASSIFIED NON-ECONOMIC AND NONCOMMERCIAL LANDS
Capital Gains Tax is a tax imposed on the gains presumed to have been realized by the seller from the sale,
exchange, or other disposition of capital assets. Capital Gains Tax amounts to 6% of the market value of the
property or the contract price, whichever is higher.
When the government forecloses a property, this tax is still being charged by the BIR even though no gain
was actually received by the LGU. In Palawan, the provincial government is still paying the capital gains
tax of a property that was foreclosed by the LGU because the debtor was not able to pay the mortgage of
the property. The said tax must be waived once the property is foreclosed and/or transferred to the custody
of the LGU since basically the LGU does not benefit from the said property.
Page 11 of 15
MOVING FORWARD
Given the above issues and concerns of the LGUs, the following are recommendations by the participating
LGUs during the workshop, as processed by the ULAP team:
Harmonization of survey maps is necessary since this is the primary requirement in titling of lands
of LGUs. Having a harmonized survey map will address many, if not all, land dispute issues
between LGUs. This shall also resolve the issue on which map to use or follow.
Thus, concerned national government agencies must look into the harmonization and alignment
of the existing different maps. Although each map has its own purpose, technical descriptions on
the maps must be aligned to avoid conflicting map results. In addition, technical capacity building
must be provided to the LGUs to be able to conduct the survey maps.
Proper classification of lands should l help LGUs in the inventory of lands within their jurisdiction.
From the inventory, they can identify which areas are public or private, public use or patrimonial,
titled or untitled. A clear and unified guideline in classifying lands must be developed.
Streamlining the process on land titling and surveying shall hasten the application for patent of
LGUs. Having a clear set of guidelines to follow, with definite requirements and length of time of
approval shall give LGUs the proper guidance they need for titling their lands, which is the essence
of the proposed IRR of Section 4 of Republic Act 10023. Approval of application may be done at
the regional or provincial level (PENRO) of DENR, which is currently done for the residential
public lands and untitled public schools.
Land governance in the local level has just been put into meaningful discourse through the ULAPs
facilitation of the RFPAs presence in selected LGUs, in partnership with AusAID (DFAT)- TAF, and in its
National Executive Board, which is composed of all local government units and local officials leagues.
Given the issues and concerns from the LGUs with regard to Land Acquisition and Titling Process and
possible recommendations from the participants, ULAP, as the forefront and representative of the LGUs,
is looking at the opportunity to progress the discussion with the national government, specifically with the
DENR. This paper will be used to start-off policy assessment and advocacy of ULAP for the continuation
of RFPA and development and implementation of Section 4 of the law. Moreover, ULAP will also continue
to gather more evidence from the LGUs to support this advocacy that will help the DENR in the effective
implementation of RFPA.
Page 12 of 15
LGU
POSITION
1.
Camarines Norte
2.
Alice Fetalvero
Romblon
Provincial Administrator
3.
Joselito Jaiver
4.
Elia Cay
5.
Batangas
Oriental Mindoro
LAOO II
Flores Ilagan
Tarlac
6.
Maxima Alfonso
Tarlac
LAOO II
7.
Anthony Buenaventura
Tarlac
LAOO III
8.
Leonisa Dequito
Quezon
LAOO III
9.
Glenn Vallejo
Palawan
DMO IV
Palawan
Chief of Staff
Palawan
Provincial Assessor
Masbate
LAOO IV
Bataan
Admin Consultant
Bataan
Technical Consultant
Bataan
Provincial Assessor
Bulacaan
Tax Mapper IV
Nueva Ecija
Statistician I
Nueva Ecija
LAOO II
Marinduque
Provincial Assessor
Zambales
Provincial Assessor
Zambales
LAOO II
Pampanga
Provincial Assessor
Pampanga
Assistant Assessor
Isabela
Provincial Assessor
Muntinlupa City
Assistant Assessor
Mandaluyong City
LAOO IV
City Assessor
LAOO IV
Security I
Caloocan City
HHRO
Caloocan City
PA Staff
Quezon City
LAOO III
Quezon City
LAOO IV
Quezon City
LAOO II
Quezon City
City Assessor
Pasig City
City Assessor
Pasig City
Computer Officer
Pasig City
Administrative Officer
Page 13 of 15
NAME
39. Rhealyn Dealca
LGU
POSITION
FEF
Consultant
FEF
Consultant
FEF
Consultant
ULAP
ULAP
ICT Officer
ULAP
ULAP
Consultant/Project Officer
Manager, Plans Programs &
Policy
Executive Director
ULAP
Page 14 of 15
For details and further clarifications regarding this report, please contact:
This report is developed by the ULAP Technical Team composed of the following, as completed on
September 15, 2015:
Lead Researcher
Executive Director
Co-Researcher
Genixon David
Research Associates
Technical Officer
Project Officer
Page 15 of 15