Plan222 - Yap 2003 - Quest For Land Ownership

FOUR PRESIDENTS AND THE QUEST FOR LAND OWNERSHIP
FORMAL AND INFORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES

RIVERSIDE BARANGAY SANTOLAN, PASIG CITY
FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED TO
PHILIPPINE – AUSTRALIAN LAND ADMINISTRATION

AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT (PA-LAMP)
SUBMITTED BY
DAVID LEONIDES T. YAP

TARITA L. LEDESMA
MYLA A. CRUZ
UP SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

E. JACINTO ST. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
OCTOBER 2, 2003
Four Presidents and The Quest For Land Ownership
Formal and Informal Land Acquisition Processes:
Barangay Santolan, Pasig City
This report is a result of technical assistance managed by Land Equity International to the
Government of the Philippines. The TA was funded by AusAID and the views expressed in
this work do not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth of Australia.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE vii
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT APPRECIATION
1.1 Project Description 1

1.2 Significance of the Project 3
1.3 Methodology 3
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT AREA
2.1 Pasig City 6

2.2 Barangay Santolan 8
2.3 Riverside Barangay Santolan 9
2.4 17-Hectare Contested Area:
The Quest for Land Ownership 17
CHAPTER 3 FORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
3.1 Court Cases, TCTs, OCTs, and Tax Declarations 22

3.2 The Santolan Neighborhood Federation, Inc. 26
3.3 The Case of Myla A. Cruz 28
CHAPTER 4 INFORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
4.1 The Farmers 31

4.2 The Residents 33
4.3 Spurious Transactions 36
CHAPTER 5 GOVERNMENT OFFICES

AND LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
5.1 Land Classification 38

5.2 Direct Land Acquisition Procedures 39
5.3 Indirect Land Acquisition Procedures 44
5.4 The Local Government Unit and Barangay 47
CHAPTER 6 PROCESS ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
6.1 Introduction 49
6.2 Formal Processes 49
6.3 Informal Processes 54
6.4 Summary of Findings 56
ANNEXES
A By-laws of Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc.

B Areas for Priority Development Program
ii
C History of Santolan Neighborhood Federation, Inc.

D Court Decision Favoring Nieva Balagapo
E Survey Forms
F Deeds of Sale
G Instructions from Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office
H Community Mortgage Program
I Letters of Appeal to Mayor Solidad Eusebio and Councilor Emir
Cruz
J Court Ruling on Omaňa Property
K Tax Declarations
L Transfer Certificates of Title
M Court Ruling Nullifying Ignacio Claim
N Other Claimants
O DENR Flow Chart and Matrix for Land Patent Applications
P Original Certificates of Title of Omaña Property
Q SWO-13-000668, Ammendments to PSU-107981 Property
R Legal Documents/Receipts Submitted by Myla A. Cruz
S Status Report of Properties for DPWH Near Site Resettlement
T Letter of A.H. Lingayo to Sen. Jaworski
U Key Informant Interviews with Government Officials
V Letter of Sen. Jaworski to LRA OIC-Deputy Administrator
W CMP Application Process
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Aerial Photograph showing DPWH Dike Alignment 2

2. Conceptual Framework 4
3. Map of Metro Manila 6
4. Pasig City Existing Land Use Map 7
5. Pasig City Proposed Land Use Map 7
6. Barangay Santolan 8
7. Overlapping Claims in Riverside Barangay Santolan 20
8. Land Classification 39
9. Approaches to Land Acquisition 41
10. Legal Procedures in Transfer of Land Title 43
11. Legal Procedures in Transfer of a Portion of a Land Title 43
12. Land Proclaimed as APDs 45
13. Land Proclamations 47
14. Legal Procedure for Direct Purchase of Land 52
LIST OF TABLES
1. Tenurial Status of Censused Households 9

2. Length of Residence 10
3. Reason for Establishing Residence in the Area 11
4. Type of Structure 11
5. Type of Housing Materials 11
6. Number of Households per Residential Structure 12
7. Distribution of Households per Residential Structure 12
8. Distribution of Household Members by Educational Attainment 13
9. Distribution of Monthly Income of Individuals/Income Earners 14
10. Distribution of Employed Household Members
by Type of Occupation 14
11. Distribution of Individual Income Earners by Place of Work 15
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A and D Alienable and Disposable (lands)

APD Areas for Priority Development
CA Community Association
CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
CBO Community-Based Organization
CBTAPCC Community Based Tenurial Assistance Coordinating Committee
CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Award
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMP Community Mortgage Program
CSW Complete Staff Work
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR-NCR DENR-National Capital Region
DENR-RO DENR-Regional Office
DOH Department of Health
DOJ Department of Justice
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
HGC Home Guarantee Corporation
HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
LAD Land Acquisition and Development
LAMP Land Administration and Management Program
LMB Land Management Bureau
LMS Land Management Services
LOG Letter of Guarantee
LRA Land Registration Authority
LTAP Land Transfer and Acquisition Program
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority
MMP Mag-Balikatan Para sa Maunlad na Pabahay
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MTC Municipal Trial Court
NHA National Housing Authority
NHMFC National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation
v
OCT Original Certificate of Title

OP Office of the President
PA-LAMP Philippine-Australian Land Administration and Management Project
PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer
PMRCIP Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project
RD Registry of Deeds
RED Regional Executive Director
RTC Regional Trial Court
RTD Regional Technical Director
TCT Transfer Certificate of Title
TD Tax Declaration
SBMSI Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc.
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
SNFI Santolan Neighborhood Federation, Inc.
ZIP Zonal Improvement Program
vi
PREFACE
The second report, Research Data, submitted on June 23, 2003, documented the
point of view of the informal settlers in Riverside Barangay Santolan. The report
was based on accounts from key informants about how they came to reside in
the area. The study team obtained copies of deeds of sale, signed agreements,
notarized transactions, court decisions, and letters supporting the claims of the
informal settlers.
The present report, the Final Report, puts into perspective the accounts of the
informal settlers through a chronological listing of events that brought about the
present situation in Riverside Barangay Santolan. The study team interviewed
knowledgeable persons from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and Land
Management Bureau (LMB), obtained certified true copies of court decisions
documenting the history of the area, interviewed landowners, and conducted
follow-up investigations with key informants.
Chapters 2 to 5 of the present report put into proper perspective the sequence of
events that took place. The documentation of land acquisition processes in
Riverside Barangay Santolan begins with twenty-nine (29) parcels of land with a
total area of 23.959 hectares located in Barangays Santolan and Rosario. The
property was recorded in three (3) sheets under PSU-107981. The legal
documents obtained by the study team date back to February 15, 1940 beginning
with the case of Eufracio Lozada and Zosima T. Lozada, et.al. (Applicants)
versus Simeon Mejia, et.al. (Oppositors) in LRC Case Number 1489.
The "actors" in the land acquisition processes documented by the study team
consist of three (3) main "streams." The first is the formal process, which dates
back to the 1940s and is marred by a series of legal maneuvers: applications,
claims, contests, restraining orders, issuance of decrees and titles, cancellation
and nullification of decrees and titles, buy-outs, substitutions, alliances, and so
on.
While these legal battles raged in court (and still do up to the present time), a
second stream, the informal process, composed of the farmers and informal
settlers, took place. Documents obtained by the study team show that beginning
1973 the farmers began "selling" small portions of the area to informal settlers.
Thinking that the land was abandoned after Don Juan Omaña of Rosario, the
"owner" known to the farmers, passed away, the farmers made their respective
claims over the land and subdivided it among themselves. A few, like Mang Tato,
even ventured to have their portion surveyed and applied for a title to the
property.
The third stream begins when the informal settlers realized that the farmers who
sold them the land were not the rightful owners nor did they possess any legal
document verifying their claims over the land. Informal settlers organized
themselves into associations as early as 1983 to seek legal (and illegal) ways to
acquire the land. Realizing their political leverage (in terms of number of voters),
the informal settlers approached politicians interested in running for office in the
upcoming 2004 national elections. Informal settlers approached a congressman,
a former mayor, the present mayor, the barangay captain, the President, various
city councilors, various directors of housing and land agencies, and most
recently, a senator whose son is reputedly interested in running for the lone
congressional seat of Pasig City. The politicians have interceded "on behalf" of
vii
the informal settlers in trying to have the ownership of the land transferred to the
informal settlers through the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) or through a
Presidential Proclamation.
The succeeding chapters of the present report document the formal and informal
land acquisition processes that have taken place in Riverside Barangay
Santolan.
This research is funded by the ongoing Philippine-Australian Land Administration

and Management Project (PA-LAMP) of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). The grant was obtained through the Institute on
Church and Social Issues (ICSI), Social Development Complex, Ateneo de
Manila Campus, through its Executive Director, Dr. Anna Marie Karaos with the
kind assistance of the Research Grant Coordinator, Ms. Elisea Adem.
Various individuals and groups assisted in providing documents and granting

interviews that aided in this research. The authors wish to thank the members
and officers of the nine (9) associations of Riverside Barangay Santolan for
sharing their knowledge about land transactions in the area; officials of the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) and Land Management Bureau (LMB), particularly
Engr. Leonardo Platon and Engr. Edmund Mateo, and Atty. Crizaldy Barcelo;
officials of the National Housing Authority (NHA) particularly Archt. Luis
Bacamante and Ms. Mich Iballa; officials of the Department of Public Works and
Highways and their Consultants for the Pasig-Marikina River Channel
Improvement Project (PMRCIP), and the many others who contributed their
valuable time and effort to the completion of this research.
The Authors
viii
1
PROJECT APPRECIATION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
"Nakaapat na presidente na kami, si Cory, si Ramos, si Erap, at

ngayon si Gloria. Hanggang ngayon, hindi pa namin nakakamit
itong lupang tinitirikan ng aming mga tahanan." 1
The proposed research project seeks to document how informal settlers, private
individuals and/or groups, local government, and national government agencies
acquire public land through formal and informal processes.
The project area is in Barangay Santolan in Pasig City, situated along the banks
of the Marikina River upstream of the Mangahan Floodway. The area is one of
the areas that would be affected by the Department of Public Works and
Highway's (DPWH) flood control project in the Pasig and Marikina Rivers (refer to
Fig. 1). To address the perennial flood problem plaguing low-lying areas in Metro
Manila, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) proposed the
building of flood control structures along the 27-kilometer stretch of the Pasig
River from the mouth at Manila Bay to Barangay Sto. Niño in Marikina City.
Better known as the Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project
(PMRCIP), the proposed engineering interventions consist of improving existing
revetments downstream of the Pasig River to widening, dredging, and
constructing dikes at the upper section of the Marikina River.
A component of the PMRCIP is right-of-way acquisition. Presently, rights-of-way

range from the prescribed three- (3) and ten- (10) meter easements along the
Pasig River. The proposal is for the acquisition of an eighty- (80) meter right-of-
way in Barangay Santolan (the dike alignment is indicated in the darker lines in
Fig. 1). This will cause the displacement of many informal settlers residing
alongside this project.
In Barangay Santolan, "near-site" resettlement is being explored as an option to

minimize any negative social and/or economic impacts the project may have on
affected families.
Vacant lands for resettlement within the barangay were identified using aerial
photographs taken in 2001. In the course of identifying the owners of the vacant
lands, the DPWH discovered that very few claimants of the properties had
complete documents, i.e., land titles (Transfer Certificate of Title) and tax
declarations. Most claimants could only produce tax declarations or survey maps,
while the others could not produce any document showing they owned the
property.
The affected families said they acquired the plots of land by paying for the
"rights" to occupy them. A few residents said they acquired their plots from
people who used to farm the land; while others said they bought their land from
1
This sentiment was voiced by the Santolan Neighborhood Federation's spokesperson at the start of
dialogues with families to be affected by the project.
1
Figure 1. Aerial Photograph of Pasig-Marikina

River Channel Improvement Project (PMRCIP)
2
previous occupants or relatives. A few said the barangay gave them permission
to live there. In 1983, the residents organized themselves into the "Samahan ng
Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc."2 One of the objectives of the
organization was to acquire ownership of the property through the Areas for
Priority Development Program (APD) under PD 2016. This, however, did not
prosper. The present area is not one of the 245 sites earmarked for priority
development by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). In 2002,
members of the Santolan Neighborhood Federation Inc. proceeded to survey
each of the plots occupied by their houses in an effort to have these titled.
According to them they received instructions from the Land Management Bureau
(LMB). Negotiations with the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council (HUDCC) are also underway to have the land transferred through the
Community Mortgage Program (CMP).
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT
The project aims to document case studies of formal and informal processes
utilized by informal settlers, private individuals and/or groups, local government,
and national government agencies in acquiring public land. The findings may be
used by the ongoing PA LAMP project for better insight on these processes.
The proposed project will involve a leader of the Santolan Neighborhood

Federation Inc. (SNFI), Ms. Myla A. Cruz, to familiarize her with the various
processes and legislation pertaining to land acquisition. It is hoped that this
would increase her awareness and understanding of the available options in
securing tenure to land.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The Water Code of the Philippines imposes a three- (3) meter easement
alongside bodies of water in highly urbanized areas. These easements are
declared public domain to ensure that everybody has access to this natural
resource. Yet despite this law, private entities, including informal settlers, occupy
such areas. In not a few cases, they are even able to obtain titles to these lands.
The proposed research will document case studies that illustrate the processes
utilized by different individuals or groups, whether private or public, including
informal settlers, to occupy and/or use land (refer to conceptual framework
below). These processes will then be compared to legal procedures regarding
land procurement or use established by appropriate land agencies.
The objective of the study is to compare actual land procurement and/or

utilization practices against those used by government and private land agencies.
For each group, the procedures adopted would be presented in a flow chart. The
procedures in acquiring "rights" or "ownership" to public land (formal and informal
processes) would be documented and compared.
The objective of this activity is to determine which processes adopted by each

group follows the formal procedure specified in the law and which deviate from it.
In cases where deviations occur, key informants will be asked why they did not
2
The Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc. was the forerunner of the Santolan
Neighborhood Federation Inc. (SNFI), the present organization. SNFI was formed in 1992.
3
follow the usual processes. It is hypothesized here that local authorities are
prone to misinterpreting laws or have the tendency to shortcut procedures or
adjust land laws to local situations, in a sense "localizing" such laws. It is also
hypothesized that in translating land acquisition procedures to residents, there
are instances that information gaps occur. The methodology adapted in the
proposed research seeks to identify what these gaps, misinterpretations, short
cuts, etc. are.
The method of data gathering will be through key informant interviews with a)
families residing in Riverside Barangay Santolan; b) claimants to properties in the
area; c) city assessor's office (Pasig City) particularly officials handling land
acquisition procedures; and, d) officials of government agencies such as the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) and Register of Deeds, the Land Management
Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and
so on. The latter are national government agencies that have been intervening
on behalf of the informal settlers with regard to land acquisition. Fig. 2 below
attempts to show the intricate interrelationship of various claims to public land.
LEGISLATION /
LAND AGENCIES /
LOCAL GOVERNMENT THRU
LAND USE PLANS
LAND OWNERS WITH
TITLES / CLAIMANTS
INFORMAL SETTLERS
LANDLESS PEOPLE
PUBLIC
LAND
NATIONAL GOV'T
AGENCIES SUCH AS
DENR, DPWH, HUDCC,
HLURB, NHA
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework
Data will also be gathered through the examination of land titles, tax declarations,
survey maps, and similar documents.
Initially, two criteria for selecting families to be interviewed are considered. The
first depends on the length of stay in the area and the second, the location of
their dwelling relative to the river. It is hypothesized here that these variables
have some bearing on the procedure in obtaining "rights" to reside in the area.
For length of stay, the following will be considered:
4
a. Structure owners who have been residing in the area for less than 10
years (2 ~ 4 families)
b. Structure owners who have been residing in the area for 10 to 20 years
(2 ~ 4 families)
c. Structure owners who have been residing in the area for 20 to 30 years
(2 ~ 4 families)
d. Structure owners who have been residing in the area for more than 30
years (2 ~ 4 families)
With regard to location, the following criteria will be considered:
a. Structure owners who reside less than 10 meters from the river bank (2 ~
4 families)
b. Structure owners who reside between 10 and 50 meters from the river
bank (2 ~ 4 families)
c. Structure owners who reside more than 50 meters from the river bank,
near the road (2 ~ 4 families)
The families who will be selected would be those who are actively involved in
community affairs. Initially, two families for each category will be interviewed. If
variations in the processes used are observed, more interviews will be
conducted.
Initial investigations by DPWH show that there are three kinds of claimants to the
land in the area. Those with complete documents (land title and tax declaration),
those with tax declarations only, and those who claim to have been tilling the
area for generations (no documents to show). Two families from each group will
be interviewed. These groups include:
a. Families who till (nagsasaka) tracts of land in Barangay Santolan (2 ~ 4)

b. Families who fenced off (binakuran pero hindi nakatira) tracts of land in
Barangay Santolan
c. Factory owners
Government entities will be represented by officials from the barangay, city, and
national government agencies that have been involved in land acquisition
procedures in the area.
5
2
PROJECT AREA
2.1 Pasig City
Formerly the capital of Rizal Province, Pasig is one of the 12 cities and 5
municipalities that comprise Metropolitan Manila (Pasig was converted into a
highly urbanized city in December 1994 by virtue of Republic Act 7829). It is
located within the intermediate core of Metro Manila (Figure 3) and is bounded by
Marikina City and Quezon City on the north, Cainta and Taytay on the East,
Mandaluyong on the west, and on the south by Pateros.
Figure 3. Map of Metro Manila
Pasig City lies within the

Laguna de Bay basin. The
geographical division of
Metro Manila has placed it
under the Marikina Valley
Zone. As such, soil
composition is generally
characterized by Marikina
Clay loam (representing
86% of the total land area)
while the remaining 14% is
within the Guadalupe
Plateau Zone where soil is
very suitable for urban
development.
Pasig is generally flat,

characterized by level to
undulating slopes with
gradients ranging from 0-
5%.
It is traversed by the Pasig

and Marikina Rivers toge-
ther with the man-made
Manggahan Floodway.
Pasig City has a total land area of 31 square kilometers (3,100 hectares), roughly
5% that of Metropolitan Manila. Almost 58% of the land area within the city is
used for residential purposes while the remaining are devoted for commercial
use (6%), industrial use (14%), institutional use (1%) and parks and open spaces
(21%).
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the city suggests that most
industrial areas are already being (or will be) converted into residential areas. As
stated in the same document, the trends show an increasing density in
residential development where “scarcity of land, increasing land valuation and
6
increasing population is now forcing development or redevelopment of residential

areas into smaller plots/lots."
Figure 4. Pasig City Existing Land Use Map
Case Study:
Barangay Santolan
(See Figure 6)
Figure 5. Pasig City Proposed Land Use Map

The existing land use map
(Fig.4) is presented here
above the proposed land
use map (Fig. 5) to further
demonstrate land use
trends in the city. Note
that most of the industrial
areas (pink) have shifted
mostly to residential uses
(yellow).
The second development

trend also mentioned in
the CLUP is the declining
industrialization rate be-
cause previously existing
industries “have relocated
to other growth centers
(CALABARZON area)”;
and because “develop-
ment of new large
industries has not been
visible within the last ten
(10) years”.
7
2.2 Barangay Santolan
There are thirty (30) barangays in the city of Pasig and Santolan is one of them.
It is located at the north-west part of Pasig City (refer to Figure 6), bounded on
the north by Marikina, on the south by the Marikina River, on the west by Quezon
City and on the east by Barangay Dela Paz. Out of an aggregate area of 3,100
hectares, Barangay Santolan occupies only 170 or 5.5% of the city area.
In a city with a population of 471,075, only 30,881 (6.6%) reside in Barangay

Santolan in a total of 7,671 households (the city has 105,342 households). This
gives the barangay a population density of 182 per hectare, which is below the
average of other barangays within the city.
Figure 6. Project Area
8
2.3 Riverside Barangay Santolan
The project study area is situated at the westernmost side of Barangay Santolan.
It is bounded at the east by Paseo de Animales Road (refer to Figure 6) and at
the west by Marikina River. Residents in the area refer to the land they occupy as
"Riverside Barangay Santolan". According to key informants, Paseo de Animales
Road separates the legal residents (those who possess legitimate titles to the
lands they occupy) from the "squatters" (those who do not possess any title to
the land they occupy).
2.3.1 Socio-Economic Profile
A census tagging operation and household survey were conducted between April
and June 2002 by the DPWH among the households that would be affected by
the Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project (PMRCIP). A total of one
thousand three hundred sixty-eight (1,368) households living in seven hundred
forty-six (746) structures or 1.83 households per structure would be affected by
the project. Figure 1 shows the aerial photograph of the project study area and
the dike alignment of the DPWH.
Of the 1,368 households, 1,087 were surveyed. The discussion below presents
selected data of the survey to provide a rough description of the socio-economic
profile of the residents in Riverside Barangay Santolan.
2.3.1.1 Tenurial Status of Surveyed Households
Only 515 or 47.38% of the 1,087 surveyed households are structure owners as
shown in Table 1 below. A significantly large percentage, 334 or 30.73% are
renters. During the key informant interview, one household head confided that
their income source comes from leasing out a room in their house. It is
interesting to note that subletting rooms is prevalent among residents in
Riverside Barangay Santolan even if most of them are aware that they do not
legally own the land they built their houses on.
The remainder of the households are classified as rent-free occupants (probably

relatives of structure owners), co-owners and caretakers.
Table 1. Tenurial Status of Censused Households
Tenurial Status f %
Owner 515 47.38
Renter 334 30.73
Rent-Free-Occupant 174 16.01
Co-Owner 55 5.06
Caretaker 9 0.83
Total 1,087 100.00
9
2.3.1.2 Length of Residence in the Area
In terms of length of residence, 565 or almost 52% have lived in the area for less
than 10 years. Quite a number, 103 or 9.48% have lived in the area for less than
a year. It is probable that these persons settled in the area by buying the rights to
the land as well as the structure itself from previous residents. Such cases were
documented in the key informant interviews. This situation is different from those
that bought the right to settle in the land and then subsequently built their
houses.
Forty-eight percent (48%) or 522 households have been in the area for more
than 10 years. A significant 4% or 44 households have been residing in the area
for more than 25 years. As revealed in the key informant interview, the people
who lived in the area the longest were the people who used to farm the land. The
average length of stay is between 9 and 12 years.
Table 2. Length of Residence in the Area
Length of Stay f %
Less than 1 year 103 9.48
1 - 3 years 155 14.26
4 - 6 years 194 17.85
7 - 9 years 113 10.40
10 - 12 years 165 15.18
13 - 15 years 76 6.99
16 - 18 years 79 7.27
19 - 21 years 110 10.12
22 - 24 years 48 4.42
More than 25 years 44 4.05
Total 1,087 100.00
2.3.1.3 Reason for Establishing Residence in the Area
The presence of relatives or "family ties" is the primary reason the surveyed
households gave for establishing residence in Riverside Barangay Santolan (393
or 36.15%). Proximity to place of work is a close second at 29.53% (or 321
households). Many, 246 or 22.63% said that they moved into the area because
they were able to acquire rights to settle.
The remaining households (11.68%) gave other reasons (see Table 3 below).
Twenty-six (2.39%) said that they had no other place to go. Key informants
confided that the barangay officials settled a few families in the area (close to the
river) when shanties in the Mangahan Floodway were removed as part of the
government's flood control program. Although it could not be verified in the
survey, it is possible that these families belonged to that group. What is
noteworthy is the fact that barangay officials seem to have the authority to settle
people in public land (or in this case, contested land).
10
Table 3. Reason for Establishing Residence in the Area
Reasons f %
Family Ties 393 36.15
Proximity to Work Place 321 29.53
Affordable Rental Rates 66 6.07
Acquired Rights 246 22.63
Emergency (due to
10 0.92
Demolition, calamity)
To be independent 18 1.66
No other place to go 26 2.39
Other reasons 7 0.64
Total 1,087 100.00
2.3.1.4 Type of Structure
Six hundred ninety-eight (93.57%) of the 746 affected structures in Riverside

Barangay Santolan are single-detached houses. An ocular survey of the area
shows the houses are well built and deviate from the stereotype of an urban poor
community.
Table 4. Type of Structure
Type of Structure f %
Single-Detached 698 93.57
Duplex 14 1.88
Extended Housing 20 2.68
Apartment/Rowhouse 14 1.88
Total 746 100.00
2.3.1.5 Type of Housing Materials
Most of the structures 46.51% or 347 are made of strong materials (concrete
hollow blocks). Only a small percentage of the houses in Riverside Barangay
Santolan, 188 or 25.2% are made of light or salvaged materials.
Table 5. Type of Housing Materials
Housing Material f %
Salvaged 19 2.55
Light 169 22.65
Strong 347 46.51
Mixed 211 28.28
Total 746 100.00
11
2.3.1.6 Number of Households per Residential Structure
Almost 52.03% or 372 structures out of 746 have a single household occupancy.
On the average, there are 1.83 households per structure. Only a low percentage,
26.15% or 187 structures, had 3 or more households.
Table 6. Number of Households per

Residential Structure
Household Number f %
1 372 52.03
2 156 21.82
3 80 11.19
4 46 6.43
5 and Above 61 8.53
Total 715 100.00
2.3.1.7 Household Size
The average household size is 4.22. This figure is below 4.92, the average size
of a Filipino household (2000 National Census).
Table 7. Distribution of Households per

Residential Structure
Number of Members f %
1 21 1.93
2 163 15.00
3 233 21.44
4 248 22.82
5 194 17.85
6 100 9.20
7 69 6.35
8 35 3.22
9 13 1.20
10 6 0.55
11 2 0.18
12 2 0.18
13 1 0.09
Total 1,087 100.00
12
2.3.1.8 Educational Attainment
Literacy is high among the surveyed household members with almost 95% or
3,846 of the 4,049 household members having received some form of formal
education. Majority of the household members, 1,050 or 25.93%, finished high
school. Elementary undergraduates are a close second at 879 household
members or 21.71%. These figures are surprising considering the fact that the
area is walking distance from the Santolan Elementary School and the Santo
Tomas de Villanueva High School. Only 319 household members (7.88%)
reached the college level. One hundred ninety-eight (198) or 4.89% finished
college.
Table 8. Distribution of Household Members by

Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment f %
None 13 0.32
Pre-School (4-5 yrs.) 133 3.28
Elementary
879 21.71
Undergraduate
Elementary Graduate 363 8.97
High School
761 18.79
Undergraduate
High School Graduate 1,050 25.93
Vocational/Technical 143 3.53
College Undergraduate 319 7.88
College Graduate 198 4.89
Masteral/PhD 0 0.00
Pre-School Age but not
190 4.69
enrolled
Total 4,049 100.00
2.3.1.9 Individual Monthly Income
A total of 1,327 or 93.65% of the 1,417 individual earners have a monthly income
of P10,000 and below while the rest, 90 or 6.35% earn more than P10,000.
These figures are surprising especially if one considers the type of housing in the
area and the kind of materials used (Tables 4 and 5).
The largest concentration are those who earn between P4,001 and P6,000, 511
or 36.06%. This is followed by those who earn between P6,001 and 8,000 (298
individuals or 21.03%) and those who earn between P2,001 and 4,000 (280
individuals or 19.76%). A significant 8.54% or 121 of the employed household
members earn below P2,000 a month.
13
Table 9. Distribution of Monthly Income of

Individual Income Earners
Monthly Income f %
Below P2,000 121 8.54
P2,001-4,000 280 19.76
P4,001-6,000 511 36.06
P6,001-8,000 298 21.03
P8,001-10,000 117 8.26
P10,001-12,000 26 1.83
P12,001-14,000 10 0.71
P14,001-16,000 21 1.48
P16,001-18,000 3 0.21
P18,001-20,000 15 1.06
P20,001 - Above 15 1.06
Total 1,417 100.00
2.3.1.10 Occupation
The eleven major occupational groups of the employed residents are ranked
below in Table 10. A significant number, 203 or 19.19%, have jobs related to
manufacturing and industrial plant operations. The project study area, as
mentioned in section 2.1 and 2.2 (land use), is situated in an industrial zone.
Table 10. Distribution of Employed Household Members

by Type of Occupation
Type of Occupation f %
Car, Taxi, Van, Jeepney Driver 198 14.69
Market, Sidewalk, Store Vendor 165 13.49
Hand Packers and Other Related
Manufacturing Laborer
135 11.69
Motorcycle Driver 122 11.24
Carpenter 112 10.94
Building Construction Laborer 95 9.45
Sewer, Embroiderer, and Other
Related Worker
76 8.70
Plant Operator and Assembler 68 7.50
Security Guard 62 6.45
Sales Worker 54 5.85
Boat Operator (Bangkero) 0 0.00
Others 330 27.60
Total 1,087 100.00
14
2.3.1.11 Place of Work
Majority of the individual income earners' place of work (1,004 or 70.85%) is

outside Riverside Barangay Santolan but within Metro Manila. A significantly high
number, 235 or 16.58%, work within the project study area. Some of these
people most probably work in the factories surrounding the area, but this has not
been verified.
Table 11. Distribution of Individual Income Earners

by Place of Work
Place of Work f %
Residence/House 107 7.55
Neighborhood 128 9.03
Metro Manila 1,004 70.85
Outside Metro Manila 36 2.54
No Definite Area of
115 8.12
Coverage
Abroad 27 1.91
Total 1,417 100.00
2.3.2 Peoples' Organizations
The history of the organizations, associations, and federation in Riverside

Barangay Santolan tell of a people's struggle to gain ownership of the land.
According to key informants, people organized themselves to prevent outsiders
(private landowners or claimants and government agencies) from evicting them
from the area. The same narrative however, is also marred by accusations
among the residents of deception, fraud, and abuse. This history of deception
starts with the farmers who started charging the new settlers monthly rent. Later
on, other older and more influential residents began collecting monthly
"association dues." To protect themselves from such usury, and because the
community was permeated with an aura of distrust, later residents formed other
associations to protect themselves.
Concerted initiatives by the people to acquire the land they were occupying were
done as early as the last years of the Marcos presidency. They established an
association called the Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc.
(SBMSI) on January 3, 19833 through the Area for Priority Development (APD)
program. The following were the objectives of the SBMSI:
a. To have a lot of our own;

b. To have electricity;
c. To have potable drinking water; and
d. To have roads and clean surroundings.
3
According to interviews with Francisco Gabriel or Mang Tato, residents organized themselves into an
association to try to secure the land after learning in 1982 that the farmers' claims to land ownership was
false.
15
Members in SBMSI included "any tenant who bought land rights and those
whose houses are erected on a rented lot." (Annex A and Annex B, Research
Data) SBMSI's membership extended from Doroteo Extension until M. de Leon
(refer to Figure 6).
Based on the study team's research at the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), the Santolan area is not one of the 245 identified APDs. Former
officers of SBMSI confided that they were not able to follow-up on their
application to the APD program. The events that followed the assassination of
former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. in August 1983 put to an end all
hopes of securing ownership through the APD program. President Corazon
Aquino, in 1986, stopped all land programs initiated under the Marcos
presidency. The SBMSI ceased to exist in 1986.
In 1987, Zenona Mejia-Labuguen, also known as Tiya Nonay, formed an

association to discourage outsiders from entering the area and causing the
eviction of the residents. Membership in this association was half the size of
SBMSI. Tiya Nonay counted as her members, residents living in Raymundo until
Sergeant De Leon. Former Barangay Santolan Kagawad Emir Cruz (now a city
councilor) formed another association in the early 1990s. Membership in this
association was the same as the one formed by Tiya Nonay.
In 1992, residents of Tawiran, Doroteo, Sergeant De Leon, and Gabriel formed

independent associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
however advised them to form a mother organization to avoid too many
associations in the area. A month or so later, the Santolan Neighborhood
Federation, Inc. (SNFI) was organized. The SNFI had the same officers as the
associations. The main objective of SNFI was to secure legitimate ownership of
the estimated 17 hectares of land that the residents were occupying (Annex C).
In the first years of its existence, membership in the SNFI included around 1,700
household heads from Tawiran Extension to Sergeant De Leon (refer to Figure
6).
In the years that followed, because of disagreements regarding the collection of

monthly dues, residents in other streets formed their own associations. According
to key informants, the Robles clan (of Rafael Compound) started claiming
adjacent lands and collecting dues from the residents in Raymundo. To protect
themselves, these residents formed their own association. The last three
associations formed were Victorino, Sto. Tomas, and Tawiran Ibaba because the
residents here felt the federation was not protecting their rights.
Presently, there are nine (9) associations in the area:
a. Sitio Bacood Neighborhood Association (SBNA), Tawiran Extension,

established in 1992;
b. Samahang Nagkakaisang Magkapitbahay ng Doroteo Extension
(SNMDE), Doroteo Extension, established in 1992;
c. Farmville Neighborhood Association (FNA), Sergeant De Leon Street,
d. Gabriel Extension Neighborhood Association (GENA), Gabriel
Extension, established in 1992;
16
e. Damayan Neighborhood Association (DNA), Raymundo Compound,

f. Rafael Cruz Compound Association (RCCA), Rafael Cruz Compound,
g. Neighborhood Association of Santo Tomas Extension Santolan Inc.
(NASESI), Santo Tomas Extension established in 2002;
h. Samahang Kapitbahay ng mga Taga Victorino Riverside (SKTVR),
Victorino Extension, established in 2002; and
i. Nagkakaisang Magkapitbahay ng Tawiran Ibaba, Inc. (NAMBATI),
Tawiran Ibaba, established in 2002.
The SNFI functions as the umbrella organization. The officers of the nine (9)
associations sit as officers and board members of the federation. According to
key informants, a tenth association exists. The residents occupy the Ortigas
property but have refused to join the Federation.
In all meetings concerning land whether with government agencies or private

entities, all officers of the nine (9) associations and one (1) federation attend.
2.4 17-Hectare Contested Area: The Quest for Land Ownership
The 17 hectares presently occupied by the informal settlers in Riverside

Barangay Santolan are part of a 23.925-hectare property consisting of twenty-
nine (29) parcels. The technical descriptions of the property are recorded in three
(3) sheets under PSU-107981. Except for parcels 26 and 27, which are located in
Barangay Rosario, all other parcels are situated within the political boundary of
Barangay Santolan.
Certified true copies of court cases dating back to February 15, 1940 were
obtained from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the Regional Trial Court
of Rizal, Branch 151 (RTC 151). It was only during the latter half of the research
that the study team realized that the informal settlers were not aware of earlier
court decisions regarding the property. Officers and members of the nine (9)
associations in Riverside Barangay Santolan were under the impression that
Macario Omaña and his heirs were the sole owners of the 29 parcels.4
In the course of the research, the study team realized that there were many more
claimants to the estimated 17 hectares of land than initially estimated. The study
team documented three “streams” of claimants to the 29 parcels. This
approximation was arrived at based on the timeframe these claimants entered
into the land acquisition process. The first stream consists of those who formally
applied for titles to the property (formal process). The earliest records obtained
by the study team date back to the 1940s. Documents pertaining to court
decisions recognizing claims, awarding titles, issuing restraining orders,
canceling and nullifying titles, and so on were compiled. Persons belonging to
the first stream are:
4
As proof, the officers and members showed a copy of a court decision dated December 18, 1974 (LRC
No. N-7824) on the claim made by the Omañas for the 29 parcels (Annex J) and copies of Original
Certificate of Titles (OCT) for Parcels 5, 20, 21 and 25 (Annex P). The properties being claimed by the
Omañas were surveyed in 1938.
17
a. Original Owners - Individuals claiming to be descendants of Don Juan

Omaña filed a claim of ownership for the 29 parcels on April 27, 1982. The
study team was able to obtain copies of a court ruling regarding this claim
(Annex J), some Original Certificates of Title (Annex P), and judicial
decisions canceling other claims/oppositions to the said property.
In May 2003, the research team uncovered a letter from a Victoria M.

Rodriguez (Annex N) who claimed to be the sole heiress of Hermogenes
Rodriguez, another person claiming to be the “original owner” of the
property. According to Victoria Rodriguez, her grandfather gained legal
ownership of the property during the Spanish period.
b. Private Individuals and Corporations – Initial documents secured from

DPWH identified around twenty-one (21) individuals who have claimed
ownership to some parcels of land in the area. These individuals
presented documents ranging from Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs),
Tax Declarations, Official Receipts, and Land Surveys issued by
appropriate government agencies (Table 12, Chapter 4, Research Data).
Additional data obtained by the study team revealed that many other
individuals have claimed ownership over some of the 29 parcels by virtue
of having lived in the area continuously for more than thirty (30) years,
having planted vegetables and harvested such, or having paid taxes
(Annex Q ).
The second stream consists of those who bought small plots from persons who
claimed to own the land. The second stream represents the informal process and
involves mainly the farmers and the informal settlers. Data obtained by the study
team show that the farmers who used to cultivate the land started selling small
plots to informal settlers beginning 1973. Other transactions involved “plot
owners" selling their houses, plots, or portions of these to new entrants to the
area (Annex F). It is interesting to note that as claims to ownership of the 29
parcels were being decided in court, subdivision and sale of the same properties
were simultaneously taking place among the informal settlers. Persons belonging
to the second stream include:
a. Farmers - The study team came across the names of five (5) farmers who
claimed to be the original cultivators of the land. Two (2) were interviewed.
According to them, they gave part of their harvest to a certain Don Juan
Omaña of Rosario as payment for the use of the land. During the key
informant interviews, these farmers said they sold parcels of land to the
present settlers of Riverside Barangay Santolan. One farmer said he
applied with DENR to gain ownership of about 2 hectares of land (Annex
E).
b. Association and Federation Members and Non-Members - Residents of

Riverside Barangay Santolan said they bought rights either from the
farmers or previous residents to be able to live in the area. Key informants
showed copies of deeds of sale, signed agreements, and notarized
transactions (Annex F).
The third stream begins sometime before 1983 when the informal settlers
realized that the persons who sold them their land were not the legal owners nor
did they possess any document proving they had a right to sell the land. Informal
settlers organized themselves into associations and approached government
18
agencies and politicians in an attempt to gain legal ownership of the land (formal
and informal processes). Groups and persons included in the third stream are:
a. Community Associations and the Federation. Informal settlers organized

themselves into nine (9) associations and a federation and applied for
government housing programs such as the Areas for Priority Development
(APD) and Community Mortgage Program (CMP). Informal settlers also
made representations with government agencies such as the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) to have the property
they occupied proclaimed as an area for socialized housing. In all their
attempts, informal settlers made representations with politicians (through
their connections) asking the latter to intercede on their behalf.
b. Barangay and City Officials – Informal settlers approached barangay and

city officials to assist them in acquiring the land. One of their main
concerns was to identify landowners and purchase the land at 500 pesos
per square meter (Annex I). Zonal values in the area range from 3,000 to
5,000 pesos per square meter. The study team heard rumors that
barangay and city officials own most of the vacant property in the area.
According to a key informant, association and federation members were
told by barangay and city officials to stop their investigations regarding the
identity of the owners of the land.
It was also learned through a key informant that the barangay captain
allowed displaced families from the Mangahan Floodway to resettle in the
area.
c. Land Registration Authority (LRA) Employees – Informal settlers informed

the study team that they experienced difficulty with documents regarding
the identity of landowners of the 29 parcels from the LRA. They confided
that they had bribed some officials to disclose certain documents.
Consultants of the DPWH encountered the same problem. In the course of
the research, members of the study team learned from DPWH consultants
that certain LRA personnel were selling property (reputedly owned by the
Lomotans) in the project study area.
d. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC). Former

mayor Vicente Eusebio initiated a meeting with the HUDCC represented
by Asst. Dir. Bagatsing, Mr. Lito Ignacio, son of Victorio Ignacio, one of the
claimants of the 29 parcels, and officers of the SNFI and nine (9)
associations. The objective of the meeting was to persuade all officers of
the nine (9) associations to agree to the CMP program initiated by the
former mayor. According to key informants, the former mayor recognized
the late Victorio Ignacio as the owner of the properties in the study area.
During the meeting officers of the nine (9) associations questioned the
claim that Victorio Ignacio was the sole owner of the property and
challenged his son to show proof of ownership.
e. Politicians. Informal settlers sought assistance from politicians – a

congressman, city councilors, the president, and a senator – to help them
identify landowners and/or acquire the land. Some politicians responded
rashly by acceding to requests of the informal settlers to have the land
declared for proclamation without prior investigation regarding the status
of land ownership in the area.
19
The intricacies of the present situation in Riverside Barangay Santolan are

summarized below following the diagram presented in Section 1.3.
TWENTY-
NINE
PARCELS
Figure 7. Overlapping Claims in Riverside

Barangay Santolan
In addition to realizing that there are several contending claimants as well as

conflicting claims (formal process) to the 17-hectare property (project study
area), the study team found out that claimants hesitate or even refuse to disclose
information on how they acquired their property.
The study team also realized that a very high degree of suspicion and distrust
prevails among association and federation members especially when it comes to
issues about land. It was only through an amount of persuasion that a few
informal settlers agreed to be interviewed and provide documents attesting to
how they acquired their land.
The next four (4) chapters are organized as follows:
Chapter 3 documents applications for ownership made by individuals through

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Land
Registration Authority (LRA). Legal documents in the form of Original Certificates
of Title (OCTs) and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), tax declarations and
subdivision plans are presented (Annexes J ~ M, and Annex Q). Formal
processes resorted to by informal settlers to acquire the land are also
documented. These include applications for the Area for Priority Development
Program (APD), Community Mortgage Program (CMP), and Land Proclamation.
The study team also documented the process undertaken by Ms. Myla Cruz, a
member of the study team, in acquiring a piece of property in the area. Legal
documents and official receipts are provided (Annex R).
20
Chapter 4 documents the informal processes used by residents of Riverside

Barangay Santolan in acquiring the land they built their houses on. The
documentation is presented in narrative form starting with how the farmers
obtained the land. The discussions are supported with survey forms (Annex E),
notarized deeds of sale, signed agreements, and so on. Two interesting cases
involving the original farmers are included in this chapter. The first involves the
sale of a piece of property to a businessman. The second involves the mortgage
of a piece of land with the China Banking Corporation. What is interesting is none
of the sellers could produce authentic land titles.
Chapter 5 discusses government procedures in acquiring property. Research by

the study team shows that the government agencies primarily and directly
involved in land transactions in the project study area are the National Capital
Region-Land Management Services (NCR-LMS) and the Land Registration
Authority (LRA). The National Housing Authority (NHA), Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB), Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), and
the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) are only involved when
these agencies have projects in the area.
During interviews with government officials, study team members noted that
some government officials (surprisingly, even those belonging to the same office)
have different understandings and/or interpretations of the procedures in land
acquisition. More importantly, explanations of procedures given to applicants
differ depending on their intentions. When members of the study team
approached government officials as persons wishing to file applications for land
titling, they were told to follow a very complicated, time consuming and informal
process. Officials even ventured to volunteer their personal services or referred
the study team members to their friends in other offices. When the study team
members introduced themselves as researchers for LAMP, they were referred to
the head of the section who then furnished them with a straightforward and
formal procedure.
Diagrams tracing formal land acquisition procedures are provided. Chapter 5

ends with a discussion of the role of the barangay vis-à-vis the transfer of rights
of any real property.
Finally, Chapter 6 presents a comparison of land acquisition processes observed

in the field with processes documented in previous researches of the Land
Administration and Management Project (LAMP) and handbooks distributed by
both the LMB and LRA. Differences in procedures are noted and discussed.
21
3
FORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
The formal process for land titling starts with the application for subdivision of the
land with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The
applicant has his land surveyed and approved to make sure there are no
overlapping boundaries. Once the survey has been certified as correct, the
application is filed with the regional trial court of the municipality or region to
ascertain that there are no other problems or claims made on the property. If no
problems or claims are filed, the court issues an order to the LRA administrator to
issue a decree in favor of the applicant. Two copies are prepared, the master
copy remains with the Register of Deeds for filing while the owner’s duplicate is
given to the applicant.
According to consultants from the Department of Public Works and Highways

(DPWH), there were volumes of court cases regarding the property in the study
area. These consisted of claims made on the property, contests, issuance of
restraining orders, reconstitution of titles, issuance of decrees and titles,
nullification and cancellation of titles, and so on. The court cases date back to the
1940s.
The study team tried to reconstruct the history of the court decisions regarding
the 29 parcels based on the documents it obtained. The team surmised that by
doing so it could establish the status of the property in the area and how this
would affect the claims made by the informal settlers. Unfortunately, the
documents obtained were not complete and at times they were rather confusing
and too technical to understand. The study team also came across conflicting
statements from officials of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) regarding the
status of decreed properties in Riverside Barangay Santolan (Annex S and
Annex T). What was certain was that many applications that were made even as
early as the 1940s were still unresolved and tied up in court cases.
The study team followed the different claims made on the 29 parcels in the study
area. One method of research was key informant interviews with officials from
the LRA. Another method was the review of court cases, transfer certificates of
title (TCT), and tax declarations. It is interesting to note that in both instances, the
names of the claimants the study team encountered from both methods did not
match. A common piece of information though was the application made by the
heirs of Macario Omaña in 1972. Both the study team's key informants and the
documents they reviewed mentioned this application. The details of the research
are presented below.
3.1 Court Cases, TCTs, OCTs, and Tax Declarations
3.1.1 PSU-107981
Interviews regarding the land situation in Riverside Barangay Santolan start with
the case of Eufracio Lozada and Zosima T. Lozada et.al. (applicants) versus
22
Simeon Mejia et.al. (oppositors) in LRC Case No. 1489 on February 15, 1940. 5
The property in question consisted of twenty-nine (29) parcels of land with an
area of 23.925 hectares recorded under PSU-107981. Records of the case were
lost during World War II, but were later reconstituted. On July 12, 1966, a
decision in favor of the applicants was made. Shares of the 23.925-hectare
property were distributed among the applicants as follows:
39/64 to the Barrios of Rosario and Maybunga, 3/64 to the heirs of

Macario Bautista, 1/64 to Adela Bautista, 1/16 to Hilarion Ruiz, 1/16
Heirs of Lucio Sanchez, 1/16 to Angel Victoria, 1/64 to Maria
Victoria, 1/32 to the heirs of Pedro Buti, 1/16 to the heirs of Tomas
Ramos, and 1/16 to the heirs of Victor Reyes (Annex U).
According to the key informant, parcels 13, 14 and 29 were excluded from the
decision because these overlapped with the property owned by Ortigas and
Company. The study team could not obtain any information why the names of
Eufracio and Zosima Lozada, the original applicants (as well as Simeon Mejia,
the oppositors), were not mentioned in the sharing list in the July 12, 1966
decision. It could only be conjectured that the above-mentioned names were
heirs or beneficiaries of the Lozadas. The court decision also dismissed the case
filed by oppositors.
On April 27, 1972, the heirs of Macario Omaña applied for ownership of the 29
parcels.6 A notice of the application was posted in the official gazette and soon
after, several oppositors filed counter claims to the property (Annex J). It is
interesting to note that many of the oppositors' counter claims stated that they
had been living in portions of the property continuously for the last thirty (30) or
more years. On December 18, 1974, a partial decision was made awarding
certain parcels to the heirs of Macario Omaña and some of the oppositors.
After this, the sequences of events become unclear. A restraining order was
issued after the court decision because of the following reasons:
a. The shares of the applicants in the July 12, 1966 decision had to be
restructured after the December 18, 1974 decision whereby certain
parcels of the 23.925-hectare property were awarded to the heirs of
Macario Omaña and other oppositors.
b. The sharing in the July 12, 1966 decision was contested by some
awardees and therefore had to be restructured. In one of the documents
read to the study team, it was mentioned that the court “erroneously
awarded … to the heirs of Pedro Buti … .”
c. The July 12, 1966 awardees, in particular those from the Barrios of
Rosario and Maybunga, made a petition with the Court of Appeals
questioning the December 18, 1974 ruling.
5
Land application in the area starts much earlier than LRC Case No. 1489. The study team obtained a copy
of a TCT registered to Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership. According to this document, the property
was originally registered on August 21, 1907.
6
Details of the case are further explained in Section 3.3. The study team was unable to get information why
the heirs of Macario Omaña only filed to have their land titled in 1972. The study team surmised that the
original owner, Don Juan Omaña of Rosario, passed away around this time.
23
3.1.2 Victorio G. Ignacio
The study team first came across the name of Mr. Victorio G. Ignacio in the
December 18, 1974 court decision made on the application filed by the heirs of
Macario Omaña.
On September 23, 1974, oppositors Brigildo Francisco and Francisco Francisco,

through their counsel, transferred the rights over parcels 26 and 277 to Victorio
G. Ignacio.
The name of Mr. Ignacio was again mentioned in the compromise agreement
dated October 16, 1985 between himself and the Barangays of Rosario and
Maybunga. In the compromise agreement, Mr. Ignacio agreed to return six (6)
hectares of the land he earlier purchased for an amount of P800,000 to the two
(2) barangays.8
LRC Case No. 1489 still dragged on even after the court had awarded certain
parcels to the heirs of Macario Omaña and other claimants. The question as to
the rightful owners of parcels 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11~19, 22, 24, and 28 was still being
decided. Around March 10, 1988, Spouses Victorio G. Ignacio and Aurora
Ignacio came to represent the other claimants of the remaining properties.
Based on the key informant interview as well as copies of court decisions, the
study team learned that Mr. Victorio G. Ignacio became a key player as far as the
29 parcels of land were concerned. The study team came across court decisions
canceling certain TCTs earlier awarded to the Spouses Victorio G. Ignacio and
Aurora Ignacio (Annex M). Documents obtained by the study team showed that
some claims of Mr. Victorio Ignacio were declared null and void (Annex M). Yet,
despite these, Mr. Ignacio remains to be a major stakeholder in the area. The
former mayor, Vicente Eusebio, recognizes Mr. Ignacio's claim as the owner of
the property in Riverside Barangay Santolan. A letter of the SNFI (Annex C)
corroborates this. According to a key informant, sometime in June 2003, former
mayor Vicente Eusebio organized a meeting to formalize the CMP program in the
area. The meeting was attended by officers of the association and federation,
representatives of HUDCC, the mayor and former mayor, and Mr. Lito Ignacio
(son of Victorio Ignacio) as the owner of the property.
3.1.3 Heirs of Macario Omaña
Mr. Francisco Gabriel (Mang Tato) said in an interview that he and four (4) other
farmers used to pay Don Juan (Omaña) taxes and give him their harvest for
allowing them to farm his land. According to key informants, Don Juan had two
(2) heirs, Esteban and Macario. A claim for ownership over the 29 parcels was
made by the heirs of Macario Omaña on April 27, 1972.
On December 18, 1974, a court ruling was passed recognizing the claim of the
heirs of Macario Omaña to parcels 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 21, 23, and 25. In the same
7
In the court hearing, a compromise agreement was reached between the heirs of Macario Omaña and
Brigildo and Francisco Francisco turning over parcels 26 and 27 to the latter.
8
According to the key informant, Mr. Victorio G. Ignacio was able to buy the entire share of the two
barangays for P800,000 on March 19, 1982. On April 24, 1984, the two barangays filed for a declaration of
nullity and annulment of the agreement between it and Mr. Ignacio. The case ended in the compromise
agreement of October 16, 1985.
24
ruling, parcel 10 was given to Fermina C. Mersilon, parcels 26 and 27 to Victorio

G. Ignacio, and parcel 29 to Magdalena Cruz (Annex J). The study team was
furnished copies of OCTs recognizing the heirs of Macario Omaña as owners of
parcel 5, 20, 21, and 25.9 (Annex P)
3.1.4 More Court Cases
The study team learned that the legal counsel of Spouses Victorio G. Ignacio and
Aurora Ignacio requested the court to separate portions of the land that had
already been cleared for title from those still with contesting claims. These are
contained in Swo-13-000668. The document was received by RTC 151 on April
28, 1993.
Annex Q shows that parcels 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 28 have been further

subdivided into individual lots. Each lot is identified by its own subdivision
number and its status whether decreed, decided, or applied. Unapplied portions
of each parcel (free portion) are also mentioned. Annex Q likewise states to
whom each lot or lots have been awarded and the date of the decision. It is
interesting to note that, except for the heirs of Macario Omaña (page 6 of the
document), the other names that appear as awardees are not the same as those
mentioned in Section 3.1.1. Titles that have been cancelled, nullified or held in
abeyance are also mentioned.
3.1.5 Conflicting Statements
A land investigation was conducted by DPWH consultants to determine the real

owners of the vacant lands the DPWH intended to purchase for a near-site
resettlement option. They were, however, unable to pursue their investigation
because, according to them, it was difficult to secure documents from the LRA.
They also said that some of the documents they had secured were incomplete.
One even said that he saw how poorly master copies of titles were stored in a
vault at the Register of Deeds (RD). He said that titles were wet and partly torn
because of a leak inside the vault. Leaders of the nine (9) associations confirmed
this. According to them, they experienced difficulty in obtaining information
regarding the status of some properties in the study area and had to resort to
bribing some LRA officials.
Unable to ascertain the true owners of the properties they were interested in,
DPWH consultants asked the assistance of some LRA officials to research on
the status of the properties. A summary of the investigation is shown in Annex S.
According to the report, of the twenty-two (22) properties in the six (6) vacant
lots, only eight (8) had been issued decrees. Of these, only three (3) properties
were cleared for negotiation. These are properties with Decree Nos. N-139963
(PSU-231276, Lots 4 and 5) owned by Mr. Peak Ti Cua Sy and N-154478 ((LRC)
Swo-15198, Lot 5) owned by spouses Jose J. Lomotan and Miguela P. Lomotan.
The study team received a copy of a letter dated June 17, 2003 from Mr. Alberto
H. Lingayo (Chief of the Cadastral Decree Division of the LRA) to the office of
Senator Robert S. Jaworski (Annex T). The letter was prompted by requests
9
Officers of the nine (9) associations and one (1) federation used these documents to prove that the
Omañas are the rightful owners of the property in Riverside Barangay Santolan and not Victorio G.
Ignacio. The officers and their members are not aware of the other earlier claimants to the property.
25
made by the officers of the nine (9) associations to Senator Jaworski to assist
them in their inquiry regarding the status of the properties in Riverside Barangay
Santolan. Mr. Lingayo informed the senator that only lots 4, 20, 21, 23, 25, 5, 26,
27 and 29 of the 29 parcels were decreed while the rest were still not decreed
“due to some oppositors of the aforementioned lots.”
The study team compared the approved decrees in Mr. Lingayo’s letter with the
report submitted by the LRA officials who assisted the DPWH consultants and
found the decrees to be inconsistent. The letter of Mr. Lingayo also debunks all
previous court decisions discussed in the previous sections leading to the
conclusion by the study team that many of the applications filed in the past
remain unresolved to this present day.
3.2 The Santolan Neighborhood Federation Inc. (SNFI)
All persons interviewed said that they formed and/or joined the associations and
federation so that they could legally fight for ownership of the land.
3.2.1 Land Acquisition through the Area for Priority Development Program
Residents organized themselves on January 3, 1983 into the Samahan ng

Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc. (SBMSI). Their main objective was to
acquire land through the Area for Priority Development (APD) program (Annex
B). The following were the objectives of the SBMSI:
a. To have a lot of our own;

b. To have electricity;
c. To have potable drinking water; and
d. To have roads, and clean surroundings.
Former President Ferdinand Marcos enacted the APD program through

Presidential Decree 2016. Section 5 of the law states that the National Housing
Authority shall officially inform owners of the land (if it is privately owned) of the
proclamation of the property as an Area for Priority Development or Urban Land
Reform Zone and initiate discussions on the programmed acquisition of the land
in accordance with existing laws. Section 6 gave provisions for each qualified
occupant family to pay the owners of the land a reasonable amount as
occupancy fee.
The SBMSI failed to have their area included in the list of APDs. Their application
was overtaken by events that led to the overthrow of former President Marcos in
1986. During the administration of former President Aquino, all programs
pertaining to land under the Marcos administration were stopped.
3.2.2 Land Acquisition through the Community Mortgage Program
In 1997, the North CENRO Land Management Sector received instructions to

conduct investigations on the Santolan property based "on a petition by residents
of the project area to be awarded the land they had been occupying for the past
several years." (Annex G)
26
To obtain specific data about the land, the North CENRO Land Management
Sector instructed SNFI to have a verification survey conducted. Government
agencies concerned with socialized housing such as the Presidential
Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), National Housing Authority (NHA), and
the Local Government Unit (LGU) were supposed to receive copies of the
verification survey so that "they could take action on the possibility of allocating
and disposing to the actual occupants said areas of land."
The application with the Land Management Sector was part of an attempt in
1994 by Ms. Teresita Marquez, a former president of SNFI, to acquire their land
through the Community Mortgage Program (CMP). Officers of SNFI first
approached the former Director of the LMB in Escolta. After this, they were
instructed to apply for land ownership at the PCUP and have their organization
accredited by HUDCC. An inter-agency committee (IAC) composed of PCUP,
LMB, HUDCC, and the LGU was formed to oversee the acquisition of the land
through the CMP.
The SNFI was advised to have their land surveyed to determine if the title they
had was authentic. Other reasons for the land survey were (1) to verify if the titles
possessed by others claiming ownership of the land were authentic, and (2) to
obtain the technical descriptions of each plot occupied by every family in
anticipation of the proclamation of the land as a site for socialized housing. SNFI
commissioned Engr. Priscillano S. Aguinaldo, a geodetic engineer, to do the
verification survey.
In the contract, Engr. Aguinaldo charged P1,000 per plot. During this time, the
Federation had more than one thousand members. According to key informants,
nothing happened because not all members were receptive to the survey and the
idea of paying P1,000. According to the same informant, Engr. Aguinaldo did not
also produce all the technical data as stipulated in the contract.
The SNFI is still trying to acquire the land through the CMP. A seminar was
conducted on December 1, 2001 where the objectives and the requirements of
the CMP were explained. (Annex H). The main obstacle hindering SNFI's
success is the need to identify the real landowners. Over the years, officers of
the nine (9) associations and one federation have compiled volumes of court
cases and subdivision plans of the many claimants to the properties. However,
even if they have all this information, they are still at a loss as to who the real
owners are.
3.2.3 Land Acquisition through Direct Purchase
In a letter dated November 9, 2002, officers of the federation and the nine (9)
associations wrote Mayor Soledad Eusebio to mediate on their behalf with all
claimants of the 18-hectare property their houses were built on.
Another letter, dated November 13, 2002, was sent to Messrs. Jeffrey Santos
and Emir Cruz, Barangay Captains of Barangay Rosario and Maybunga
respectively, to purchase the 4 hectares in Riverside Barangay Santolan which
the barangays owned at P500 per square meter (Annex I).
Section 3.1 mentions that Barrios (or Barangay) Rosario and Maybunga were
recipients of a sizable share (39/64) of the 29 parcels of land in the court decision
27
made on July 12, 1966.10 The same section and Section 3.3 state that a
compromise agreement was reached between the barangay chairs of Barrios
Rosario and Maybunga and Victorio Ignacio on October 16, 1985 (Annex U)
whereby the latter would return six (6) hectares to the 2 barangays from a larger
area he had earlier purchased for an amount of P800,000. 11
3.2.4 Land Acquisition through Presidential Proclamation
The officers of the SNFI also tried to have their land proclaimed as a site for
socialized housing. In February 2002, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo visited
the site to make the proclamation. The activity was canceled when she learned
that the area was no longer public land.
In their land investigation, the consultants of the DPWH, with the assistance of
officials from the LRA, learned in June 2003 that not all properties applied for
titling in the Riverside Barangay Santolan were issued decrees (Annex S). The
DPWH consultants said they approached officials of the LMS to inquire if the
properties without decrees could be proclaimed as sites for socialized housing
under a Presidential Proclamation. LMS officials however said that if an
application for titling has already been filed on the property, it is already
considered as private property and can no longer be proclaimed as a site for
socialized housing.
Undaunted by President Arroyo's inaction regarding their request to have their

property proclaimed as an area for socialized housing, SNFI officers approached
other politicians for assistance. Through a letter from Senator Robert S. Jaworski
dated May 21, 2003 (Annex V), SNFI was able to secure a letter verification from
Mr. Alberto H. Lingayo, Chief of the Cadastral Decree Division of the LRA, stating
that only a few properties of the 29 parcels were issued decrees (Annex T). The
study team learned from officers of the SNFI that the properties that were not
decreed would be proclaimed as sites for socialized housing. According to a key
informant, a meeting will be held on September 12, 2003 among the DENR,
LMB, LRA, PCUP, HUDCC, DPWH, representatives from the office of Senator
Jaworski, and officers and members of the nine associations and the SNFI to
discuss the issue further.
3.3 The Case of Myla A. Cruz
In the course of the research, the study team documented three processes in
securing a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). The first was taken from the
brochures distributed by the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. The second was that which the study
team obtained through interviews with officials of the Land Registration Authority
(LRA) and the LMB. The third was based on the actual experience of one of its
members, Ms. Myla A. Cruz (Annex R).
10
The study team was not able to determine how Barangays Rosario and Maybunga became beneficiaries
of the sharing scheme recommended for the 29 parcels of land. A document mentioning that the land used
to belong to 16 cabezas was obtained … "The ownership and possession of the sixteen (16) Cabezas of the
29 lots dates back to 1879." (CA-G.R. SP No. 27577) (Annex Q).
11
The information regarding the land holdings of Barangays Rosario and Maybunga was not clear. In the
court decision of July 12, 1966, the recipients only received shares of the 29 parcels. Exact locations of the
shares were not specified. The study team was therefore not certain if the land SNFI wanted to purchase
was still owned by Barangays Rosario and Maybunga or by Victorio G. Ignacio.
28
Ms. Cruz is the current president of the Samahang Kapitkamay ng mga Taga-
Victorino Riverside Sto. Tomas Inc. (SKTVRST), one of the nine (9) associations
in Riverside Barangay Santolan. Two years ago, Ms. Cruz purchased part of
OCT No. 155 (Decree No. N-164534, Plan PSU-239091) situated along Paseo
de Animales from Reynaria Ludovico Rayos del Sol (married to Dingin B. Rayos
del Sol), one of the heirs of the original owners. As indicated in the Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) and subdivision plan, the property contains two lots
(Annex R). Lot 1 has an area of four hundred sixty-eight (468) square meters and
Lot 2, thirty-one (31) square meters. The total area of the two properties is four
hundred ninety-nine (499) square meters. Ms. Cruz purchased two hundred
nineteen (219) square meters of Lot 1. The other, two hundred and nineteen
(219) square meters was purchased by Mr. Epifanio Bautista. After purchasing
the lot, Ms. Cruz realized that the property she had purchased was actually two
hundred forty-nine (249) square meters. She then proceeded to have the land
area indicated in the Tax Declaration changed from 219 square meters to 249
square meters. She also applied to have the property she purchased titled in her
name.
When she purchased the 219 square meter property, the former owners of the
land furnished Ms. Cruz with the following documents:
Sworn Statement (Salaysay na Pinanumpaan) stating how the property of

the late Macario Ramos and Juana Abila was subdivided;
Original Certificate of Title (The OCT indicated that ownership of the land
of the late Macario Ramos and Juana Abila had already been transferred
to their children, Maximo Ramos, Heirs of Rita Ramos, and Juanita
Ramos on September 20, 1974. Accordingly, each of the heirs owned 1/3
of the property. Individual Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) were not
secured);
Tax Declarations dated December 15, 1973, December 15, 1978,
September 27, 1984 and March 26, 1996. (Tax Declarations paid by
Reynaria and Dingin Rayos del Sol showed that their property was 219
square meters); and,
Deed of Absolute Sale.
According to Ms. Cruz, the clerk at the Register of Deeds told her that they would
change the land area indicated in the tax declaration once she was able to
secure an approved plan survey from the LMB indicating the land area of the
property.
The procedure below traces the steps followed by Ms. Cruz to secure an
approved survey plan as well as have the property she purchased transferred to
her name:
a. Informed landowners, Renayria and Dingin Rayos del Sol, that she was
interested in purchasing the property.
b. Landowner Reynaria and Dingin Rayos del Sol furnished Ms. Cruz with a
xerox copy of the Title, Tax Declaration, and Survey Plan.
c. Ms. Cruz researched on whether Spouses Reynaria and Dingin Rayos del
Sol were the original owners and whether the documents furnished were
authentic.
29
d. Once satisfied, a Deed of Sale was prepared.

e. Documents such as theTax Clearance were prepared in City Hall
(Munisipyo).
f. Capital Gains Tax and Tax Return were settled at the BIR.
g. The BIR inspected the property and approved the documents.
h. The Office of the City Assessor inspected the property and approved the
documents.
i. The Register of Deeds inspected the property and approved the
documents.
j. Ms. Cruz then filed for a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) at the LMB.
k. The clerk at the LMB offered his services and charged Ms. Cruz 20,000
pesos.
When Ms. Cruz went to the DENR NCR office to obtain an approved survey plan,
the clerk (a certain Luisito Manzanilla) told her she should first have her land
surveyed. Thinking that the application process would be expedited if the
surveyor came from the DENR-NCR office, Ms. Cruz said she agreed to pay the
fee of P20,000.
On March 23, 2002, Ms. Cruz said that Mr. Manzanilla went to her lot and
measured (surveyed) her half only. Then on June 15, 2002, Mr. Manzanilla
returned to measure both her half and the other one owned by Mr. Epifanio
Bautista. On November 16, 2002, Mr. Manzanilla returned again this time to
measure the lots surrounding Ms. Cruz's lot. On June 17, 2003, Mr. Arnold
Lopez, Chief of the Pasig Cadastral survey and a friend of Mr. Manzanilla, told
Ms. Cruz that the lot fronting hers should be put on plan and that Ms. Cruz
should apply for an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) instead of a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) because the latter would take a longer time to process
and cost more money. Ms. Cruz was informed that for her to obtain a TCT, the
persons she bought the land from, Renayria and Dingin Rayos del Sol, should
first have their OCT transferred in their name into a TCT. This would then be
transferred to Ms. Cruz.
More than a year has lapsed since the time Ms. Cruz approached Mr.
Manzanilla. Ms. Cruz also wondered why the DENR-NCR people measured the
219 square meter lot so many times. Ms. Cruz said that the monuments in the lot
were in place. All Mr. Manzanilla had to do was verify the area of the property.
30
4
INFORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
4.1 The Farmers
The research on informal land acquisition processes in Riverside Barangay

Santolan begins with the farmers, the first persons who laid claim to the property
(informally) by virtue of having farmed it. According to key informant interviews
and documents obtained by the study team, the farmers began selling off parcels
of land after the owner to whom they were giving part of their harvest, passed
away. The following sections document interviews with the farmers.
4.1.1 Interview with Francisco Gabriel or "Mang Tato" 12
"Before, according to the old folk, the banks of the Marikina River were at Paseo
de Animales Road. When the water of the river receded to its present level, the
land where their houses are presently built was exposed. It was called 'Bacood,
anak ilog at lupang payatas' “(Bacood and lupang payatas are local terms that
mean farmlands).
"Mang Tato, Mang Bestre, Mang Juan, Mang Berting, and Tandang Oweng
farmed this land. These farmers used to pay tax and give their harvest to Don
Juan Omaña who hailed from Rosario. When Don Juan passed away, the
farmers stopped paying taxes and giving their harvest. They also became the
owners of the land they were cultivating by claiming ownership. In 1973, Mang
Juan and Tandang Oweng began selling the land they were farming because
they were too old to farm the land. They also experienced losses each time the
river would overflow. They sold the land between 50-150 pesos per square
meter. When the other three (3) farmers learned that many people had bought
land from Mang Juan and Tandang Oweng, they too started selling the land they
were farming."
"In 1979, Tandang Oweng and his wife, together with Mang Pianong, started
charging settlers 50 pesos rent each month. In 1980, a certain Nieva Balagapo
had the courage to question Tandang Oweng and Mang Pianong regarding their
right to collect rental money. The matter reached the court and in 1982, the court
ruled in favor of Balagapo (Annex D) and the people no longer had to pay the 50
peso monthly rent. It was duiring this time that the informal settlers noticed that
nobody claimed ownership to the land. They then decided to put up an
organization to fight for the acquisition of the land their houses were built on." 13
12
Mr. Francisco Gabriel or Mang Tato passed away a days after the interview.
13
This date coincides with the year the Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc was established
(January 1983).
31
4.1.2 Interview with Nanay Idang (wife of Mang Tato) 14
The study team learned that a few weeks before he passed away, Mang Tato
sold a portion of his land to Mr. Juan Janeo, a resident in the area and owner of
the shoe brand "Janilyn". A meeting with Nanay Idang, Mang Tato's wife, was set
to get more information regarding documents surrounding the sale of the
property. Nanay Idang however was reluctant to give any information. She only
disclosed that they had indeed sold land to Mr. Janeo. She refused to show any
document regarding the sale of the property. She also refused to say how much
the property was sold for. She however said that both parties signed an
agreement in writing (may kasulatan silang pinirmahan).
Nanay Idang provided the study team with details regarding their application with
the LRA. They are presently applying to have the property they are occupying
titled. This land covers part of Santo Tomas until part of Doroteo (refer to Figure
6, Chapter 2). This information is consistent with the survey form filled by Mang
Tato (Annex E). According to this interview, Mang Tato had his land measured by
DENR upon the instruction of his godchild, a geodetic engineer. Mang Tato used
this document to apply for ownership of two (2) hectares of land.
According to Nanay Idang, a certain Celia, a friend from LRA, is assisting with
their application. She also claimed that the chief of the Map/Plan Section of LRA
himself is handling (nagaayos) the preparation of their map/plan.
4.1.3 Interview with Mr. Silvestre Ramirez or "Mang Bestre"
Mr. Silvestre Ramirez was one of the five (5) original tenants who farmed the
land in 1937. Mr. Ramirez's property is in Doroteo (refer to Figure 6, Chapter 2. A
portion of Doroteo has been named Ramirez Compound).
Mr. Ramirez said he sold parts of his land for the following reasons:
a. Some people approached him and asked (nakiusap) if they could build their
house on the land he was farming.
b. His father, Mr. Urbano Ramirez had fallen ill.
c. They were experiencing difficulty at that time because they did not have any
jobs.
Mr. Ramirez said he sold the land for P1,200 per 100 square meters in 1980. In
1982, he tried to have his land titled with the LMB (DENR) but was unable to do
so because he had no money.
Mr. Ramirez said he was able to mortgage his property with the China Banking
Corporation15 through Atty. Bartolome, the owner of Bartville Subdivision. Mr.
Ramirez said he talked to Mr. Sanchez, the branch manager of China Banking
Corporation in Binondo. Atty. Bartolome acted as his guarantor.
14
Interview with Nanay Idang was made two weeks after Mang Tato had passed away.
15
This claim by Mr. Ramirez was confirmed by the study team. Documents obtained from DPWH indeed
show China Banking Corporation as the owner of a number of properties in the area (refer to Fig. 1.1)
32
Mr. Ramirez said that in 1980, when one had money and wanted to have his
property titled, all one had to do was point at the property and give the
measurement (ituro mo lamang at sabihin kung ano ang sukat). 16
According to Mr. Ramirez, the Ortigas Property near Sergeant De Leon is

presently valued at P1,300 per square meter. 17 A certain Lope Cruz is farming
the area. Mr. Ramirez said that the Ortigas company allows Mr. Cruz to farm the
land while the company is not using it.
4.2 The Residents
Residents in Riverside Barangay Santolan began staying in the area as early as

1973 (based on the interview with Mang Tato). The results from the household
survey confirm this. Ninety-two (92) households or 8.47% said they have been
living in the area for more than 22 years. Key informant interviews as well as
documents secured from the residents show that these occupants bought "rights"
from the farmers to be able to construct their houses.
In addition to the farmers, eight (8) residents were interviewed regarding the
manner they acquired rights to settle in Riverside Barangay Santolan. The initial
objective of the study team was to interview families based on their length of stay
in the area and the location of their plots vis-à-vis the river.
When the project proposal was prepared, the study team hypothesized that
earlier settlers went through a different process in acquiring their land than those
who settled at a later date. It was also hypothesized that those who settled at
higher elevations (farther from the river) went through a different process than
those who had no other choice but to build near the river bank.
In the course of the key informant interviews, the study team realized that neither
of the two variables had any bearing on the land acquisition process. Residents
acquired their land in almost the same way, i.e., from farmers or from previous
residents by paying for occupancy "rights". What is remarkable is the value
people (belonging to this income group) place on a person's word or the value
placed on documents where one affixes his signature (kasulatan o katibayan).
Another matter that is noteworthy is the trust people place on local officials or
lawyers. Documents signed in the presence of barangay officials, especially the
barangay captain, as well as those notarized by lawyers were regarded as
absolutely binding.
4.2.1 Interview with Betty Español
Ms. Betty Español settled in the area (Annex E) near Paseo de Animales Road in
1982 (Figure 6). According to her, she bought 120 square meters of land 18 from
Mr. Manuel Victorino or "Tandang Oweng" for P2,000.
16
Its probable Mang Berting was referring to the Sales Patent program of the DENR.
17
The study team likewise verified this claim by Mr. Ramirez. The documents obtained from DPWH as
well as those in the possession of LRA show that some properties in the location mentioned (near the
Santolan cockpit) are in the name of the Ortigas Group.
18
Ms. Betty Español said she acquired 120 square meters but estimates by the study team indicate the land
is larger than 120 square meters. Further investigations revealed the farmers had their own way of
measuring land.
33
According to Ms. Español, she obtained a Barangay Clearance as proof of

having acquired the "right to build their house of semi-permanent materials". The
document Ms. Español gave the study team states that the applicant "is hereby
granted permit to build her house pursuant to the provisions of Barangay
Ordinance No. 1, s-82 (Annex F). Zenona Mejia-Labuguen, the barangay
chairperson at that time, signed the document.
The document presented by Ms. Español provides proof of the barangay having
given itself the authority to allow persons to settle in areas under its jurisdiction.19
Ms. Betty Español said that she could pass on rights to the property to her
children (pamana) just like any titled property.
When asked what steps she has taken to legally acquire the title to her land, Ms.
Español said that they formed an Association to work for this. She said she
entrusted everything to their president, Ms. Myla Cruz, because she was
confident the latter would fight for them.
4.2.2 Interview with Victoria Quitoles
Victoria Quitoles settled in the area near Paseo de Animales in 1984 after buying
the rights to do so from her uncle, Mr. Jose Candido. According to her, she did
not receive any document as proof that the rights were transferred to her
because she "trusted" her uncle. Ms. Quitoles said she could mortgage or sell
the property.
Regarding steps to secure legal possession of the land, Ms. Quitoles said that
she joined the Association and trusts that the officers will represent their
concerns.
4.2.3 Interview with Ederlina Paul
Ederlina Paul bought the right to settle in the area in 1985 from Ricardo Ramos,
another resident. According to Ms. Paul, she had the Transfer of Rights
document notarized to make it legal. Ms. Paul's property is near Paseo de
Animales Road. Ms. Paul said she could pass on the rights of the property to her
two children.
Asked about securing legal title to the land, Ms. Paul said she joined the
Association and trusts the Association will fight for her concerns.
4.2.4 Interview with Josephine Romantiko
Josephine Romantiko settled in the area in 1986. According to her, she asked
permission from Mang Pianong if she could settle in the area. Her land is less
than 80 meters from the river. According to her she used to pay P550 per month
but finally stopped after paying Mang Tato P1,000.
19
The mandate of the barangay as stated in the Local Government Code was researched by the study team.
This is presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.
34
Asked what documents she submitted to occupy the land, she said she did not
submit anything because the land was vacant and she asked permission
anyway. She also said that Mang Tato and Mang Pianong told her that she was
already the rightful owner of the land.
When asked if she could sell the rights, Ms. Romantiko proudly said that she
already had the property mortgaged in 1997 for P30,000.
4.2.5 Interview with Teresita Babila
Teresita Babila bought the rights to her 25 square meter plot from Mang Tato for
P6,000 in 1987. Her plot is situated less than 10 meters from the river. According
to her she did not submit or receive any document when she paid for her land.
However, she said she got a barangay clearance to settle in the area. Ms. Babila
said she could either have her land mortgaged or sell it.
Regarding matters on securing legal title to the land, Ms. Babila said she joined
the Association and trusts its leadership.
4.2.6 Interview with Arnold Curibang
Arnold Curibang settled in the area in 1994. The land he acquired is between the
river and Paseo de Animales Road. According to him he bought the rights from
Manny. As proof of purchase, he got a barangay clearance and Deed of Sale of
Rights. He said the documents were signed in the barangay hall. Arnold
Curibang bought his 25 square meter lot for P60,000.
Regarding matters on securing the legal title of the land, Arnold said this is the
reason he joined the Association.
4.2.7 Interview with Josue Paul
Josue Paul settled in the area in 1995. The land he bought is less than 80 meters
from the river (his house will be affected by the DPWH project). According to Mr.
Paul, he bought the rights to settle in his 25 square meter property from Bernardo
Terrado, a resident in the area, for P30,000. As proof of ownership, Mr. Paul
showed a receipt and certification stating he was the new owner of the area.
Regarding transfer of ownership, Mr. Paul said he could transfer said property to
whoever wants to rent it.
4.2.8 Interview with Amado B. de Leon Jr.
Amado de Leon settled in the area in 1999. The property he bought is near
Paseo de Animales Road. According to him, he bought the rights to the 25
square meter property from Anita Donaire Tigolo for P80,000. He said that a
Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights and Priveleges was signed in the presence of a
lawyer and notarized. Mr. de Leon said he paid the lawyer 10% of the value of
the land. Regarding transfer of rights, Mr. de Leon said he could transfer
ownership or sell the property.
35
Regarding matters on securing the legal title of the land, Arnold said this is the
reason he joined the Association.
4.3 Spurious Transactions
It is inconceivable how businessmen or even banking and finance institutions

would fall prey to transactions involving spurious documents. But in the course of
the research, the study team came across two such cases. The first involved a
transaction between Francisco Gabriel (Mang Tato) and Mr. Juan Janeo, the
owner of the shoe brand "Janilyn". The second was between Sylvestre Ramirez
(Mang Bestre) and the China Banking Corporation, a reputable banking and
finance institution.
4.3.1 The Maker of Janilyn Shoes
Based on the interview with Nanay Idang and accounts of other informal settlers,
Mang Tato (Francisco Gabriel) sold a sizable portion of the land he claimed to
Mr. Juan Janeo. Unfortunately, the study team was unable to secure documents
pertaining to the sale of the property except for the word of Nanay Idang that
some papers were signed.
The study team can only hypothesize that the seller, Mang Tato, probably
furnished Mr. Janeo with tax declarations as well as receipts for other payments
made on the property as proof that he owned the land. In the interview with
Mang Tato (Annex E), he said his godchild advised him to have the land he was
claiming surveyed and that he submitted the subdivision plan to DENR. Mang
Tato also said that he had been paying taxes at City Hall for the two (2) hectares
he had been tilling.
Applying for land ownership in this manner is consistent with information the
study team obtained from interviews with officials of the LRA and NCR-LMS
(Annex U) for cases where the land is still public domain and the seller does not
possess a title. According to these officials, the seller of the land must have both
a tax declaration and proof that he or she has been living on the land for the past
thirty (30) or so years. The seller can obtain proof of his or her residence from
testimonies of neighbors or a certificate of occupancy from the barangay. In
cases such as this, the seller is said to have an “imperfect title.”
The study team could not determine for certain whether both Mang Tato and Mr.
Janeo think the property in Riverside Barangay Santolan is still public land.
Interviews with informal settlers however suggest this, i.e. many of the residents
in the area are under the impression that the land (formed when the waters of the
river receded) they occupy is still public land. The interview with Nanay Idang
somehow affirms this notion. In her interview, Nanay Idang reiterated what Mang
Tato said, that they had the land surveyed prior to filing an application for
ownership.
The documents obtained from LRA and RTC 151, however show that all 29
parcels have already been applied for or claimed by private individuals (Annex Q)
way before Mang Tato settled in the area in 1968.
36
4.3.2 The China Banking Corporation
Mr. Sylvestre Ramirez (Mang Bestre) said that he mortgaged his property with
the China Banking Corporation. Just like Nanay Idang, Mang Bestre did not
provide any document showing how he had his property mortgaged. It should be
pointed out that in his interview, Mang Bestre admitted that he tried to obtain a
title for his property in 1982 but was unable to do so because he did not have
money at that time (Section 4.1.3).
In most cases, banking or financial institutions would scrutinize documents prior

to releasing loans. The study team was baffled as to how Mang Bestre was able
to mortgage his property with a banking institution without a title. Towards the
end of the interview, Mang Bestre said he had already paid the mortgage. The
study team also learned from other informal settlers that Mang Bestre had started
selling off portions of his claim.
The study team was able to secure a copy of the land title, TCT-40605 and Tax
Declaration, E-024-01159 (Annexes K and L) identifying the China Banking
Corporation as the owner of the property being claimed by Mang Bestre. The title
was registered on August 8, 1962 while the tax declaration was dated March 26,
1996. The study team was likewise able to obtain information from the
consultants of DPWH and the LRA that the said title was "spurious". According to
them, a decree number was not indicated in the title and that they could not
"trace back" the title's history in LRC Record No. N-21630 (which was indicated
in the title). The DPWH consultants and officials of LRA said the title had "no
relation" to LRC Record No. N-21630 (Annex S).
4.3.3 Other Claimants
Sometime in May 2003, the study team obtained a copy of a letter from a Victoria
M. Rodriguez addressed to the presidents of the various associations in the
project study area (Annex N). Ms. Rodriguez claimed to be the heiress of yet
another original owner of part of the land, a Hermogenes Rodriguez. The
letterhead of her letter read "Hermogenes Rodriguez Estate, Titulo de Propiedad
de Terrenos, Royal Decree 01-4 Protocol, Año 1826, 1861, 1891, 1894, 1994,
1995. According to Victoria Rodriguez, her initiative was prompted by a court
ruling to fix the land contained in the inheritance she received from Hermogenes
Rodriguez, being his only grandchild.
Ms. Rodriguez offered her assistance to help remedy the situation of the informal
settlers in the area. According to key informants, they have not heard from Ms.
Rodriguez again after she sent her letter dated May 7, 2003. The study team did
not come across any legal claims made by Hermogenes Rodriguez nor any of his
heirs among the various claimants to the 29 parcels in Riverside Barangay
Santolan.
37
5
GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES
Land acquisition processes documented by the study team included direct and
indirect means. Direct means involved applications filed with government
agencies primarily responsible with land transactions. Indirect means, on the
other hand, involved acquisition through government housing programs. Direct
land acquisition can be done through judicial, administrative, or direct sale
approaches. Documented cases of direct land acquisition in Riverside Barangay
Santolan are presented in Chapter 3. Land applications were coursed through
the courts or handled by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). Indirect land acquisitions were applied for through shelter programs of
government housing agencies such as the National Housing Authority (NHA)
through the Areas for Priority Development (APD) Program and the Community
Mortgage Program (CMP), and the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council (HUDCC) through a Presidential Proclamation.
The roles and functions of these government offices are presented in the
sections that follow. Flow charts illustrating various land acquisition procedures of
the different agencies are likewise shown.
Most of the case studies documented in Chapter 4 (informal process) involved

the barangay as adjudicator or witness in land transactions. The role of the
barangay and the local government unit it belongs to with respect to land
acquisition was researched by the study team. The findings are presented at the
end of the chapter to clarify the roles and responsibilities of these entities as
mandated by the Local Government Code.
5.1 Land Classification
The present system for land classification in the country separates private lands
from those of the public domain. The former includes properties that are privately
owned (though are still subjected to eminent domain) and those that are owned
and used by the state.
Public domain lands include those reserved for government (or public) use and
unappropriated land. Lands classified as unappropriated are further divided into
alienable and disposable (which includes lands used for residential, commercial,
institutional, and similar purposes) and the non-disposable (natural parks,
mineral and forestry lands). Refer to Figure 8.
This report focuses on the procurement of lands that are classified as alienable
and disposable, those reserved for government use, and those that are privately
owned.
38
Figure 8 LAND CLASSIFICATION
Total Land
Public Domain Private Lands
Unappropriated lands Reserved for Privately owned but Held by state as

government or public subject to eminent private entity
use domain
Alienable and Disposable Non-Disposable
Residential Institutional Educational Commercial Mineral Forestry
Agricultural Industrial Town National Parks
Land Classification based on the 1987 Constitution.
5.2 Direct Land Acquisition Procedures
Direct land acquisition procedures are those done through government agencies
handling transactions involving land and its acquisition. This report discusses
selected government agencies - their institutional status, roles and functions in
relation to land acquisition.
5.2.1 Government Agencies
5.2.1.1 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
The DENR is the primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the country’s environment and
natural resources, … and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and
regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to
ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the
present and future generation of Filipinos. (Executive Order 192)
Attached agencies of the DENR are:
a. DENR-Regional Offices (i.e. DENR-NCR, PENROs and CENROs)
The staff, through the DENR Regional Offices, delivers land management
services at the regional level. The role of the land management service
(LMS) staff of the DENR-ROs is to recommend and implement programs
and projects for land management and disposal.
39
The LMS is also responsible for the actual administration, survey and
disposal of alienable and disposable lands and other government-owned
lands not under the administration of other government agencies but still
within their territorial jurisdiction. The LMS also takes charge of the disposal
and re-classification of land in areas under their jurisdiction.
b. Land Management Bureau (LMB)
The LMB serves as the policy-making body of the DENR regarding the
efficient and effective administration and management of alienable and
disposable lands that are not under the jurisdiction of other government
agencies. The LMB deals with matters pertaining to the rational land
classification, management and disposal.
The LMB is also responsible for issuing titles to friar lands and properties in
the municipality of Taguig as covered by Proclamation 172. Although these
functions do not generally fall under the Bureau's scope of duties, the LMB
is undertaking them by virtue of a MOA with the DENR.
5.2.1.2 Land Registration Authority (LRA) and the Register of Deeds (RD)
The LRA is an agency attached to the Department of Justice. Its role is to issue
decrees of registration and certificates of title and to register documents,
patents, and other land transactions for the benefit of landowners and other
stakeholders. It is the responsibility of the LRA to secure a stable and
trustworthy record of land ownership and recorded interests therein to promote
social and economic well-being and contribute to national development.
The LRA supervises and controls all Registers of Deeds. Although there are only
around 162 RDs, the legislation prescribes that there should be at least one RD
for each province and each city. Each RD is the physical repository of all
Certificates of Title and their supporting documents.
5.2.2 Land Acquisition Procedures
There are three (3) basic approaches to the acquisition of land. First is through
the judiciary in which applications are processed by the Supreme Court together
with the Land Registration Authority (LRA). This results in the issuance of a
Decree (based on PD 1529, Act 496 and Act 2259). The second is through
administrative processes through the DENR (resulting in land patents) and the
DAR (with the Certificate of Land Ownership Award). The third is through direct
sale. Refer to Figure 9.
All three approaches however, require that the land acquisition is registered with
the LRA and a copy of the title they acquire is duly furnished through the Register
of Deeds.
40
5.2.1.1 Judicial Approach
The judicial approach is used for the confirmation of existing rights to have a land
titled based on evidence of ownership.20 It is applied as a means to settle land
disputes such as overlapping titles, multiple claimant cases, etc.
The Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over

all applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions. 21
Once an application for such judicial settlement has been filed in court, survey
and records verification procedures are undertaken by LRA/DENR. The gathered
evidence is presented in court hearings and adjudication is made by the Regional
Trial Court.
The RTC/MTC issues a Decree regarding its decision then forwards it to the LRA
and the Register of Deeds where titles are issued, nullified or revised (based on
the pronouncements of the said Decree).
Figure 9. Approaches to Land Acquisition
Judicial Administrative Direct Sale
Courts
DAR DENR
LRA
ROD
5.2.1.2 Administrative Approach
Administrative confirmation deals with applications for land acquisition that are
directed to specific government agencies.
20
The power of Judicial confirmation is based on PD 129 otherwise known as the Property Registration
Decree.
21
Id., sec.2.
41
Another approach to land acquisition using the administrative approach (though

outside the scope of the present study) is by securing a Certification of
Indigenous People’s Rights through the National Commission on Indigenous
People (NCIP) as provided in RA 8371.
a. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP (RA 6657), processes

the distribution of land ownership to otherwise landless farmers through the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The program centers primarily on agricultural
land.
Applications are submitted to the DENR which conducts surveys and records
verification after DAR conducts its own investigation. The gathered facts are
then used by DAR as a basis for an administrative decision. If the application is
approved, the DAR issues a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). The
CLOA is presented to the LRA and the Register of Deeds for the release of the
farmer’s title.
b. Alienable and Disposable Lands of Public Domain to Private Ownership
Applications for the disposal of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain are processed at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The DENR offers five (5) modes of acquisition each with their specific
requirements regarding application and restrictions in ownership rights. These
include the following:
b.1 Free Patent is the mode of acquiring untitled alienable and

disposable lands of the public domain for agricultural purposes
through an “administrative confirmation” which is given to ownership
claimants by possession.
b.2 Homestead Patent is a mode of acquiring alienable and disposable

lands of the public domain for agricultural purposes that rests upon
the condition of actual cultivation and residence. It is approved
through the issuance of an order or appeal.
b.3 Miscellaneous Sales Patent permits the sale of alienable and

disposable lands of the public domain for residential purpose without
public auction.
b.4 Sales Patent issues the right to purchase agricultural land from
government lands through administrative adjudication, subject to
conditions.
b.5 Special Patent is issued to grant, cede and convey in full ownership
alienable and disposable lands of the government upon
promulgation of a special law or act of Congress or a proclamation
by the President of the Republic, authorizing the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources to issue such patent.
42
Details of the patents and its application processes may be found in Annex O of
the Research Data Report.
5.2.1.3 Direct Sale
Land acquisition through direct sale involves a private transaction between buyer
and seller with an agreed price for the land and whose sale is legally presented,
notarized and registered.
When land is acquired through direct sale, a lawyer prepares and notarizes an
Absolute Deed of Sale. In cases where only a portion of the seller’s originally-
titled land is bought, the buyer has to hire a geodetic engineer to survey the land
and prepare a subdivision plan which will be submitted to the DENR for approval.
Once the DENR approves the subdivision plan, the buyer may register it with the
Register of Deeds for the release of a TCT. The buyer also could present the
approved plan to the Assessor’s Office as basis for land tax declaration then pay
for the real estate tax (City/Municipal Treasurer’s Office) and the capital gains tax
to the BIR. Refer to Figures 10 and 11.
Figure 10. Legal Procedures in

Figure 11. Legal Procedures in
Transfer of Land Title
Transfer of a Portion of Land Title
Owner and Buyer agree on sale of

Owner and Buyer agree on sale of a
piece of land
portion of titled land
Through a lawyer, an Absolute Deed of Through a lawyer, an Absolute Deed

Sale is created and notarized of Sale is created and notarized
Buyer has the portion of land

Assessor’s Office secures copy of
surveyed by a private geodetic
Land Tax Declaration
engineer
Owner pays real estate tax to the City Geodetic engineer submits the
Treasurer’s Office subdivision plan to DENR-Regional
Office for approval
Capital Gains Tax is paid to the BIR,

Buyer submits DENR-approved
6% of the amount under consideration
subdivision plan together with Deed
of Sale to the ROD
Deed of Sale is registered with the
Registry of Deeds. RD cancels old title ROD issues TCT
and issues one in the name of the
buyer
Assessor’s Office secures copy of
Land Tax Declaration
New owner obtains a photocopy of the
new title and requests tax declaration Owner pays real estate tax to the
from the Assessor’s Office City Treasurer’s Office

6% of the amount under
consideration
43
5.3 Indirect Land Acquisition Procedures
Unlike the direct land acquisition procedures, indirect land acquisition procedures
are coursed through government agencies that serve as intermediaries in
acquiring land that is eventually distributed among beneficiaries as “serviced
plots.” Housing agencies, notably the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and the National Housing Authority (NHA), are
involved in such activities. Housing agencies however, go through the same land
acquisition procedures mentioned in Section 5.2. For example, in acquiring
privately owned lands for resettlement, there are instances that NHA gets
embroiled in court litigations.
5.3.1 Government Agencies
The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council was created on

December 17, 1986 through Executive Order No. 90. The HUDCC serves as an
umbrella agency for shelter charged with the main function of coordinating the
activities of five government agencies one of which is the National Housing
Authority. Under E.O.90, the NHA is mandated to serve as the sole government
agency engaged in direct shelter production.
One of the primary objectives of HUDCC and the NHA is making land accessible
to low-income groups. For instance, under the resettlement program, large tracts
of raw land are acquired for site development to generate serviced lots for
families “displaced from areas earmarked for government infrastructure projects
and those occupying danger zones.” Other programs include assisting low-
income families in acquiring land they were or are occupying. These include the
Areas for Priority Development, Sites and Services Development, Slum
Upgrading Programs, Zonal Improvement Program, and the Community
Mortgage Program. Descriptions of these programs and application process are
discussed below.
5.3.2 Land Acquisition Procedures
5.3.2.1 Areas for Priority Development (APD)
On January 3, 1983, residents formed the Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng

Santolan, Inc. (SBMSI) in an attempt to acquire the land they were occupying
through the Area for Priority Development (APD) program. The SBMSI, however,
failed to have their area enlisted as one of the 244 sites identified under this
program. The study team conducted research to determine the reasons why the
SBMSI failed as well as the details surrounding the APD program.
Presidential Decree 1517 (June 11, 1978) instituted a nationwide urban land
reform program and provided for the identification and proclamation of an Urban
Land Reform Zone. All cities and municipalities within Metro Manila were required
to propose blighted areas22 within their jurisdiction for urban development.
Hence, Proclamation No. 1967 (May 14, 1980) specified 244 sites in Metro
Manila as Areas for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones. (The
study area was not within this Proclamation.)
22
Blighted areas refer to areas where the structures are dilapidated, obsolete and unsanitary, tending to
depreciate the value of the land and prevent normal development and use of the area. (RA 7279)
44
Neither consultations23 nor background checks were done before the areas were
proclaimed. Whether the lands were titled, private, or government-owned also
was not considered. Because of these gaps, the need to purchase private lands
or expropriate others arose. (Refer to Figure 12)
It is noteworthy that under PD 1517, APDs were exempted from paying property
taxes. As a consequence, these areas were deemed by financial institutions as
having zero value (i.e. for mortgage). Another implication of the law is the Right
to First Refusal24 which states that owners of areas identified as APD are
required to offer their land for sale to the existing occupants before any other
possible buyer. If the occupants refuse to buy the land then the land owner can
open his lot to the market.
LGUs Blighted Areas
Figure 12. Land Proclaimed as

APDs
Government lands Private Lands
Other Agencies NHA Expropriate Negotiate/Buy
Negotiations Fail and

Project not Necessity
NHA pulls-out
Zonal Improvement Slum Upgrading Community Self- MMP LAD

Program Program Help Approach
Community LTAP
Mortgage Program
Figure 12 shows that Areas for Priority Development are purchased/expropriated

so they will fall under the administration of the NHA. Once the properties have
been acquired, they will fall under the different programs of the agency. One of
these programs is the CMP.
The following are NHA Programs that followed the proclamation of Areas for
Priority Development.
5.3.2.2 Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP)
During the Marcos administration, the World Bank gave a loan that funded the
development of the ZIP. This program aimed to develop and rehabilitate the
APDs although the land tenure problem was outside its concern. The program's
methods were based on the principles of maximum retention and minimum
movement of lots and residents with the aim of improving the area to meet
23
Consultation refers to the constitutionally mandated process whereby the public on their own or through
people’s organizations, is provided an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making
process on matters involving the protection and promotion of its legitimate collective interests, which shall
include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanism.
24
PD 2016.
45
BP 220 25 standards. When the Aquino administration came in, the World Bank
loan ended and the ZIP was terminated. The government came up with a very
similar program called Slum Upgrading Program, which was in operation until the
early 90’s.
5.3.2.2 Community Self-Help Approach and Community Mortgage

Program (CMP)
The Community Self-Help Approach, which was later renamed the CMP is the
land acquisition/tenure program of the NHA. Unlike the Community Self-Help
Approach, the CMP is not limited to the NHA. The CMP could be applied for
through accredited NGOs, LGUs and the HGC. The accredited offices, if applying
under the National Home Mortgage Financing Corporation (NHMFC), should
follow the processes and requirements of the NHMFC.
The Community Mortgage Program is a land and housing program initiated by

the government that gives legitimate urban poor families the opportunity to buy
the land their houses are built on or to buy idle lands to enable them to build their
own houses at affordable rates. Land may be bought through loans made
available to qualified urban poor families.
A seminar explaining the CMP was held in Riverside Barangay Santolan on

December 1, 2001. During the seminar, the requirements for application in the
program were explained to the residents. (Annex H)
The CMP facilitates land acquisition and the community takes care of paying for
their land and the improvements thereon through financial loans. The title of the
land is unitized and stays with the community organization until all payments
have been made. Refer to Annex W for the steps in applying for CMP.
5.3.2.3 Land Transfer and Acquisition Program (LTAP)
The LTAP was very similar to CMP, but exclusively NHA-financed. Under this
program, only 10 to 20% of the land acquisition costs were shouldered by the
recipients while the remaining 80-90% were paid by NHA. Unfortunately, this
program was short-lived because of obvious financial constraints.
5.3.2.4 Land Proclamation
Residents of Riverside Barangay Santolan became familiar with land

proclamations made by the President in the course of their research. It is with
this knowledge that the officers of the associations approached politicians for
assistance.
The Office of the President does issue land proclamations, but not before a long
process takes place. First, the informal settlers occupying a vacant land should
organize themselves and write a formal request to the Office of the President for
the proclamation of a certain area (the land they have been occupying) to be
named in their favor. The Office of the President then endorses the request to the
DENR Secretary, who forwards it to the appropriate DENR-Regional Office. The
25
Batasang Pambansa 220 sets the standards for socialized housing.
46
DENR-RO conducts a Complete Staff Work (CSW) comprised of investigations

and clearances from different government agencies. The CSW is presented to
the Land Management Bureau (LMB) for comments then forwarded to the DENR
Regional Secretary for approval. The DENR Regional Secretary submits the
findings to the DENR Secretary who then recommends to the Office of the
President whether an Executive Order containing the land proclamation should
be issued. Refer to Figure 13.
It is noteworthy to mention that applications for Land Proclamations are valid only
in areas that are government-owned and free from any private claims.
Figure 13. Land Proclamations
Informal settlers occupy OP endorses to DENR

vacant land Secretary
Vacant land is titled in the DENR-Secretary endorses to

name of the republic DENR-RO
Informal settlers organize into DENR-RO conducts

a Community Associtaion investigation
Clearance from DPWH
CA writes OP requesting that

area occupied be proclaimed
Clearance from DOH
in their favor.
Clearance from land

OP Issues Land Administrator
Comments from LMB

DENR Regional Secretary
DENR Secretary endorses to
endorses CSW to DENR
OP
Secretary
5.4 The Local Government Unit and Barangay
Despite the fact that local government units, do not have jurisdiction on land
acquisition, they have influence on land matters through planning and
implementation (i.e. Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Ordinance).
Under PD 1517, no urban land can be disposed, used or constructed on, unless
its disposal or use conforms with the development plans.26
In addition, the LGU, through its Assessor’s Office and with approval from the
Sanggunian, decides on the value of land within its jurisdiction. This power has
direct consequence on the lands for sale.
Key informants in Riverside Barangay Santolan informed the study team that
barangay officials of Santolan took on the power to resettle informal dwellers
from the Manggahan floodway to their area of jurisdiction. In one case, the
26
Presidential Decree 1517 ( June 11, 1978) institutes a nationwide urban land reform program and provides
for the identification and proclamation of Urban Land Reform Zone.
47
barangay even issued an ordinance authorizing the stay of a family in the area
(case of Betty Español, Annex E). The study team explored the legalities of this
process and found the following stipulated in Republic Act 7160, The Local
Government Code of 1991:
The barangay serves as the primary planning and

implementing unit of government agencies, plans, programs,
projects and activities in the community and as a forum
wherein the collective views of the people may be
expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes
may be amicably settled.27
with powers (related to land) limited to:
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in

different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;
Sec. 409. Venue.
(a) Disputes between persons residing in the same barangay

shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of
said barangay.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein

shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or
the larger portion thereof is situated.
In other words, the barangay, unless otherwise authorized by government

agencies (i.e. MOA with the NHA) or approved by a court, may not assume the
powers of different offices, agencies and bureaus.
27
Role of the Barangay, Sec. 384 of the Local Government Code.
48
6
PROCESS ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Mr. Francisco Gabriel (Mang Tato) said in his interview that according to old folk,
the project study area was only formed when the water of the Marikina River
(which used to be at Paseo de Animales Road) receded to its present level. In
local terms, the place is referred to as "anak ilog". Yet despite this, so many,
private individuals, groups and corporate entities, have managed to make so
many claims (legal and illegal, formal and informal) of ownership and/or
stewardship over it. Shrewd businessmen and politicians have also used this
piece of land to their advantage by coercing, defrauding, and abusing unknowing
victims.
6.1 Introduction
The objective of the study is to compare actual land procurement and/or

utilization practices with those prescribed by government land agencies. This
comparison will determine which processes adopted by each group follow the
procedure specified in the law and which deviate from it.
Actual land acquisition processes were documented in Chapters 3 and 4.

Chapter 3 looked into formal land acquisition processes (applications made
through government agencies) while Chapter 4 looked at the informal processes
(transactions made without proper government authority). Chapter 5 identified
land acquisition processes utilized by various government agencies.
The present chapter discusses the different issues that the study team found in
the course of their investigation. At this point the findings from the formal land
acquisition process are compared with the actual processes utilized by the
respondents in the case studies.
6.2 Formal Processes
6.2.1 Direct Land Acquisition Processes
6.2.1.1 Judicial and Administrative Processes
In the course of reviewing the court cases and interview notes, the study team
noted that several people were able to "move into and occupy" the properties
while cases (between applicants vs. oppositors) were being deliberated in courts.
Actually, one key informant in the LRA used the phrase "pumasok sila" (Annex
U). One occasion was right before the decision of July 12, 1966:
"Nawala yung records ng application so nag-file ng reconstitution of

records. Ito na nga yon. Hanggang sa … ang unang decision dito
yung July 12, 1966. Yung naka-pending na ganoon, habang naghi-
hearing, may mga pumasok. Yun nga na-occupy nila ang lots 7, 9,
11 … at tsaka yung lot 1. Yung lot 1 malaking portion ang nakuha
na Sta. Lucia Reality."
49
28
The second occasion was related to why the Lomotans are not mentioned in
the court cases.
"Si Lomotan kasi… yun ang mga claimants na pumasok sa loob

kaya nga nagkaroon ng ammended decision… ng ammended plan."
The key informant added that the Lomotans bought the property from Jose San
Pedro. According to the key informant, Mr. San Pedro probably had an "imperfect
title" (i.e., a tax declaration for the property29). Mrs. Lomotan was able to "perfect"
the title by having it issued by the LRC.
The study team also noted that in the cases it reviewed, many of the oppositors
claimed in their affidavits that they had lived in the area continuously for the last
30 years thus making them the bona fide owners of the property. In the
application (Annex J) filed by the heirs of Macario Omaña in 1972, affidavits
submitted by oppositors read as follows:
"That the Heirs of …… have been in actual possession of Lot ….. ,

PSU 107981 with an area of …… square meters, more or less
openly, continuously, adversely and in concept of owner for more
than 30 years through themselves and their predecessors-in-
interest, declared it for taxation purposes, paying the taxes thereon,
caused the land to be planted with root crops through their tenants
and have improved the same."
Based on the documents it reviewed, the study team concluded that the legal
system regarding land ownership somehow allows several persons, groups or
corporate entities to make simultaneous claims on the same property by virtue of
a formal application (going through legal land acquisition processes) or by "mere
occupation" of a piece of land. In an interview, a key informant from LRA said
that there is such a thing as land acquisition by occupation.
"Deposition from Spanish time….. great grandfathers …. by mere

possession …… state granted ownership to the one physically
possessing land. If by possession and transferred by succession to
heirs, then what government requires is for you to declare it for
taxation purposes. Once you have declared it for taxation, pay the
corresponding real estate taxes. You are issued a tax declaration as
proof you are the declared owner of the property then the state
recognizes you as the rightful owner although your title to the
property is still imperfect. Once you have the tax declaration, you
can have the title surveyed if it is unsurveyed."
" …… Once you have the survey, you have it approved by the Land
Management Services of the DENR. You can file for application with
the trial court, whether municipal or regional. This is called
acquisition by occupation."
28
Spouses Jose J. Lomotan and Miguela P. Lomotan were the first to signify their intention to sell their
properties in Riverside Barangay Santolan. The DPWH consultants and LRA officials confirmed the
authenticity of the titles and tax declarations the Lomotans presented.
29
An imperfect title means the occupant is paying taxes and is the recognized owner of the land. The
occupant's claim should be corroborated by testimonies of his neighbors and a barangay certificate.
50
The study team believes that the confusion about multiple claimants and
overlapping titles may be traced to the following:
1. The existence of several modes of land acquisition (judicial and numerous

administrative approaches in the form of patents); and,
2. The presence of many government agencies (i.e., DENR-NCR, LMB, DAR,

DOJ, MTC/RTC, LRA, RD, etc.) that handle similar applications for land
acquisition and titling. The situation is compounded by the fact that
applications made through one office are neither communicated to nor
coordinated with the other offices. For example, in the course of the research,
the study team found out that the LRA like DENR-NCR could also approve
land surveys as long as the property does not exceed ten (10) lots.
Situations such as this inadvertently allow the possibility of titles to overlap,

complicating record keeping and confusing the entire land application process.
To make matters worse, there may be claimants who are aware of the situation
among land agencies and take advantage of it. It can not be discounted that
there are applicants/claimants of land titles who treat the confusion that ensues
as an opportunity to re-apply a denied application from one agency with another
hoping that by some shortfall in investigation, the land title will be granted.
Other problems in the land acquisition process that the study team noted from
the case studies it documented include:
1. Officials from the same agency issue conflicting statements regarding the
status of the same property. For example, the letter of Mr. Alberto H. Lingayo
to Senator Robert S. Jaworski (Section 3.1.5) regarding the status of the 29
parcels in PSU-107981 conflicted with a report made by another LRA official
to the DPWH consultants. The letter of Mr. Lingayo also conflicted with court
records. The study team believes that the problem may be attributed to the
manner the LRA stores records. DPWH consultants said that the master
copies of titles kept in the vault of the Register of Deeds were soggy and torn
because of a leak in the vault.
2. The study team also noted the difficulty of requesting information on the
status of certain properties from the LRA (titles, owners, and so on). The
officers of the nine (9) associations of Riverside Barangay Santolan told the
study team that they had to bribe officials at the LRA to be able to secure
information. Consultants of the DPWH had the same experience. It was only
through a letter from Senator Jaworski (after almost a decade) that officers of
the nine (9) associations were able to secure any information on the status of
land ownership in the area. It should however be noted that the information
obtained by the officers of the nine (9) associations is fragmented and does
not provide them with a complete picture of the entire situation.
The study team observed that the difficulty of securing information from the LRA,
as well as the numerous cases that have been filed against present claimants,
has bred suspicions especially among the informal settlers regarding the status
of land ownership in the area. In the reviewed cases, the team noted that many
of the oppositors said in their affidavits that the land was still public domain. This
frame of thinking probably explains the fact why there are still so many attempts
by claimants to file for ownership of the property to this present day.
51
6.2.1.2 Direct Purchase
In addition to the problems observed in government agencies handling land

issues, the research study team also came across cases of some employees
blatantly taking advantage of ignorant title applicants by misleading them about
the process. One particular case involved a member of the study team, Ms. Myla
A. Cruz (Section 3.3). To be able to record actual and government prescribed
procedures, some members of the study team went through the actual process of
applying for a title. The others on the other hand, introduced themselves as PA-
LAMP researchers and interviewed officials from the LRA and DENR-NCR office.
The prescribed process is presented below.
The slight difference in the case of Ms.

Figure 14. Legal Procedure for Cruz was that the land area indicated in
Direct Purchase of Land the tax declaration was 219 square
meters and not 249. The study team
Owner and Buyer agree on sale of interviewed the Regional Technical
piece of land Director of the DENR-NCR office about
this. (Annex U). According to him, cases
Through a lawyer, an Absolute Deed of like the one of Ms. Cruz happen, i.e.,
Sale is created and notarized
situations where land areas are not
reflected properly on tax declarations. He
Assessor’s Office secures copy of Land
Tax Declaration
said that the instructions Ms. Cruz
received from the Register of Deeds were
correct. That is, the property will be
Owner pays real estate tax to the City
Treasurer’s Office surveyed on the basis of the property's
technical descriptions. Once the DENR-
NCR office approves the survey, the
6% of the amount under consideration subdivision plan together with the Deeds
of Sale will be re-submitted to the Registry
Deed of Sale is registered with the of Deeds so the corrected land area and
Registry of Deeds. RD cancels old title technical description can be reflected in
and issues one in the name of the
buyer their record. This will also be the basis for
the Register of Deeds to issue a new
TCT. The City Assessor's Office will use
New owner obtains a photocopy of the
new title and requests tax declaration the information to change the tax
from the Assessor’s Office declaration of the property.
The process explained by the Director

was forthright and simple. This is unlike the experience of Ms. Cruz where the
clerk at the records office of the DENR-NCR office measured the her lot three (3)
times. After this, he said that the chief of the Pasig Cadastral Survey said that
Ms. Cruz's lot should be measured again reflecting the property in front. He also
said that Ms. Cruz should apply for an OCT and not a TCT because the latter
would be too expensive and would have to be decided in court. In all visits to her
lot, the clerk at the records office asked Ms. Cruz to pay a certain sum of money.
6.2.2 Indirect Land Acquisition Process
6.2.2.1 Areas for Priority Development
The officers of the Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc. (SBMSI)

said they applied to have their area included as one of the sites of the Area for
Priority Development (APD) under PD 2016. The APD program authorized the
52
NHA to acquire land once it had been declared as an APD and through a census,
determine the priority of distribution of homelots to occupant families (Section 7
of PD 2016, Annex B). According to interviews with key informants, the SBMSI
was unable to have their area declared as an APD. Based on research made by
the study team, the original proclamation of areas for APDs were, more than
anything else, politically motivated. According to a key informant at the NHA
(Annex U), local government units were tasked to recommend which areas would
be declared as APD sites. The only criteria used by LGUs at that time was if the
area was blighted. No other criteria were set. Implementing rules and regulations
for APD sites were also not prepared.
A useful feature of the APD is that if a site (public or private) were declared as an
APD, the occupants of the land were given right of first refusal in the event the
owner decided to sell the land. Another feature is that the property had zero (0)
value. This would have protected occupants against speculation. A negative
feature though, according to a key informant, is that land that had been
proclaimed as an APD could not be un-proclaimed. The study team learned that
some areas that were not blighted were declared as APD sites. According to key
informants, banks shy away from such property because of the zero (0) value of
the property.
6.2.2.2 Community Mortgage Program
In 1994, the Santolan Neighborhood Federation Inc. (SNFI) tried to acquire the
property through the Community Mortgage Program (CMP). In the CMP, loans
are made available for land acquisition. Informal settlers organize themselves
into a community-based organization (CBO) and register their CBO as an
association of homeowners (HA). The CMP system implemented by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) required that the loan be
originated on behalf of the informal settlers' HA by any of the following: NGO,
LGU, NHA, sociocivic organization or private banking institution. However, for the
CMP to take place, the owner of the property should be identified and he or she
should be willing to sell.
For almost a decade now, the officers of the nine (9) associations and the
federation together with the HUDCC have been trying to identify the true owners
of the property in Riverside Barangay Santolan. Based on their experience,
information from the LRA is not readily available. Key informants confided that
they had to bribe officials from the LRA to release data regarding the status of
the lands in the area. Another problem, as discussed earlier, is that information
released by LRA regarding the status of the properties (PSU-107981) is not
consistent.
6.2.2.3 Direct Purchase
The officers of the nine (9) associations and the SNFI sent letters to Messrs.
Jeffrey Santos and Emir Cruz, barangay captains of Barangay Rosario and
Maybunga respectively, on November 13, 2002. The objective of the officers was
to request the barangay captains to sell to them the 4 hectares owned by their
barangays for an amount of P500 per square meter (Annex I).
53
The research conducted by the study team shows that the 2 barangays still own
property in the area. The latest document stating this is the compromise
agreement between Victorio Ignacio and the captains of the 2 barangays on
October 16, 1985. In the compromise agreement, Mr. Ignacio returned six (6)
hectares to the 2 barangays. Key informants informed the study team that Mr.
Ignacio retained 80% of the property and the 2 barangays, 20%.
The letter from Mr. Lingayo (Annex T) to Senator Jaworski however debunks
previous court decisions made on the property. If the letter of Mr. Lingayo is
correct, then a large portion of the property "has not been issued decrees of
registration due to some oppositors" on most of the 29 parcels.
6.2.2.4 Presidential Proclamations
The officers of the nine (9) associations and the federation approached
politicians in a bid to have the land they occupied proclaimed as a site for
socialized housing. In an interview with Regional Technical Director of the
DENR-NCR office, the study team learned that extensive research is undertaken
on a piece of property before it can be proclaimed. An interview with an official in
charge with land proclamations in the DENR-NCR office said that only
government-owned lands and those free from private claims may be proclaimed.
Most of the property in Riverside Barangay Santolan has already been awarded
to private individuals. The few that remain are being claimed also by private
individuals (Annexes J~M and Annex Q). A report furnished DPWH consultants
by LRA officials (Annex S) stated the same, i.e., the properties DPWH was
eyeing for its near-site resettlement program were either decreed and issued
titles or were being applied for or claimed by private individuals.
Again, the letter from Mr. Lingayo (Annex T) to Senator Jaworski may have
changed the situation. According to officers of the nine (9) associations, the
DENR-NCR office said that the property may be proclaimed as a site for
socialized housing because most of the properties have not been issued decrees
and were being contested. The study team learned that a meeting will be held on
September 12, 2003 to discuss this issue. The meeting according to key
informants from the informal settlers will consist of representatives from LRA,
DENR-NCR, HUDCC, DPWH, and officers of the nine (9) associations and the
SNFI.
6.3 Informal Processes
6.3.1 The Farmers
During the interviews with Mang Tato (Francisco Gabriel) and Mang Bestre
(Sylvestre Ramirez) (two of the original five farmers), they said that they applied
to have their land titled. Mang Tato said he had his land surveyed (nagpasukat)
and submitted the documents to DENR. Mang Tato said his application was for
two (2) hectares of land. Mang Tato also said that he had been paying taxes for
his land (Annex E). Mang Bestre, on the other hand, said he intended to apply
for a title in 1982 but did not have money at that time.
54
The study team could not determine if Mang Tato applied for ownership through
the Homestead Patent or Sales Patent of the DENR. It could not also be verified
if Mang Tato still thought that the property was still public domain. What the study
team could only ascertain was that Mang Tato made an application by virtue of
having lived and cultivated the land continuously for 30 years, thus, probably
hoping to acquire the property by occupation. This probably was also the reason
why Mr. Juan Janeo recently bought property from Mang Tato.
6.3.2 The Residents
Based on key informant interviews, the study team learned that most, if not all, of
the residents in Riverside Barangay Santolan acquired their plots by buying
"rights" to settle in the area from the farmers or previous residents. As proof of
ownership, the residents presented copies of deeds of sale and signed
agreements. Some of the documents presented were sealed in the barangay hall
or in the presence of the barangay captain. Other documents were notarized. A
key informant confided that the notary public charged 10% (P8,000) of the
payment made for the property. In the case of another, Ms. Betty Español, the
barangay issued an ordinance, consenting to her settling in the area.
The study team observed that informal settlers place a profound trust on local
officials (barangay and community leaders) as well as on lawyers. The people
think that documents signed in the presence of these persons are absolute and
binding.
The study team was perplexed as to why barangay and local government
officials and even lawyers allowed such questionable or illegal transactions to
take place. The study team could only surmise that in the event the area is
proclaimed as a site for socialized housing, the documents possessed by the
informal settlers would be used as proof of their ownership to the plot they
occupy.
6.3.3 Spurious Titles
Mang Tato sold part of the property he claimed to Mr. Juan Janeo while Mang
Bestre said he mortgaged his property to the China Banking Corporation. Both
farmers could not show any document proving they were the legal owners of the
properties. They also refused to show documents surrounding the sale and
mortgage of their properties. Given this, it is surprising that these transactions
were never questioned.
In the case of Mr. Janeo, the study team surmised that Mr. Janeo thought that
Mang Tato has a fair chance of acquiring ownership of the property by virtue of
having occupied it for more than 30 years. According to a key informant, the
document signed between Nanay Idang and Mr. Janeo was just like any of the
documents possessed by the informal settlers in the area. A piece of paper
containing details about the property, signed by the seller and buyer, and
notarized by a lawyer.
In the case of the China Banking Corporation (Annex S), the study team received
confirmation from LRA officials that the title in the hands of the China Banking
Corporation was spurious. The study team did not ask the manager of the
Binondo branch how he obtained the title. According to a key informant, their law
55
firm handles many cases involving fake titles used as collateral for bank loans. In
many cases, according to him, bank officials are involved in fraudulent cases
involving mortgaged properties. This is one of the reasons why banks collapse.
6.4 Summary of Findings
Two types of land acquisition processes, formal and informal, were documented
by the study team in Riverside Barangay Santolan. Based on the case studies,
the formal process may be direct or indirect. Formal land acquisition processes
are considered direct if a buyer acquires land by dealing directly with agencies
charged with land applications such as the DENR-NCR office, city assessor's
office, Register of Deeds, BIR, municipal trial court, and the LRA. Indirect
processes on the other hand, are cases where persons acquire land through
government housing programs such as the APD, CMP, or through a Presidential
Proclamation. In the latter case, housing agencies such as the NHA, go through
similar application processes as individual buyers in acquiring land. It is thus
understandable why housing agencies prefer public land over private land for
their housing programs. They are easier and, in most cases, cheaper to acquire.
FORMAL PROCESS
Housing Agencies Detailed procedures of land acquisition processes

PROCESS
INDIRECT
acquire land (public or through the APD, CMP, and Presidential

private) for distribution to Proclamation are discussed in Section 5.3.2 and
beneficiaries presented in Figures 12and 13 and Annex W. The
main problem encountered is difficulty in identifying
landowners
Detailed procedures of land acquisition are

Application for
discussed in Section 5.2 and presented in Figures
Subdivision of Land with
9, 10 and 11. Problems identified are conflicting
DENR-NCR Office to
procedures given by officials of land agencies and
ascertain there are no
corruption among some.
overlapping boundaries
Problems identified are confusion of cases heard in

Application filed with court due to the improper filing or recording of
DIRECT PROCESS
MTC/RTC to ascertain previous court decisions. Instances of persons filing

there are no problems / applications to land being heard in court were
other claimants to the documented as well as invasion by other parties.
property Some court cases filed in the 1940s remain
unresolved to this day.
The study team came across an instance when a

MTC/RTC issue order to
Judge of a RTC was subpoenaed by the Court of
LRA Administrator to
Appeals to explain an earlier decision on PSU-
issue decree in favor of
107981. The situation illustrates the confusion
applicant if there are no
caused by court decisions.
problems/claims made
on the property
The study team documented cases in which

Two copies are
decrees or titles were nullified and cancelled.
prepared. The Register
of Deeds files master
copy. Duplicate copy is
given to the applicant.
56
The diagram above summarizes the formal land acquisition procedures

documented by the study team.
The case studies show that problems in the formal land acquisition process are
not procedural but mainly result from the inefficiency of land agency personnel in
performing their functions. This may be seen in the inability of land agency
personnel to properly keep and disburse land records (titles). Another problem is
the inconsistency among land agency personnel in explaining land acquisition
procedures and in a few cases, the tendency of some personnel to take
advantage of applicants.
Informal land acquisition processes documented by the study team involved

transactions between persons who claimed ownership to the land by virtue of
having lived on it for so many years and persons who settled on the land after the
claimants. The study team observed that although not allowed by law, these
transactions were sanctioned by the barangay. This seemingly semblance of
approval or confirmation obtained from the barangay somehow made the
agreement between seller and buyer legal and binding.
The diagram below summarizes the informal land acquisition procedures

documented by the study team.
INFORMAL PROCESS
Farmers / Previous Informal Processes were documented in Chapters

Residents sell "rights" to 4 and 6. Most transactions among informal
newcomers settlers were sealed in the barangay hall in the
presence of the barangay captain and other
officials. A few agreements were notarized.
Transactions conducted in the presence of these
officials -- perceived by urban poor groups to be
representatives of the government -- somehow
Newcomers / Migrants give such transactions a sense of "legality"
acquire land rights making these absolute and binding.
through signed
agreements. A few have
the agreements
notarized
57
ANNEX A
BY-LAWS OF SAMAHAN NG BAGONG MAMAMAYAN

NG SANTOLAN, INC.
(no soft file)

ANNEX B
AREAS FOR PRIORITY

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(no soft file)

ANNEX C
HISTORY OF SANTOLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD FEDERATION, INC.
(no soft file)

ANNEX D
COURT DECISION FAVORING NIEVA BALAGAPO
(no soft file)

ANNEX E
SURVEY FORMS
PHILIPPINE-AUSTRALIAN LAND ADMINISTRATION
AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW FORM
Note: Person to be interviewed should be the same person who originally acquired
the rights to occupy the area
a. Francisco "Tato" Gabriel

Name ______________________________ 67
Age _______
b. Paseo de Animales cor. Doroteo St., Santolan, Pasig City

Address ________________________________________________________
c. Organization ____________________________________
d. Six (6) Families

Household Size _________________________________
e. Farmer
Employment ____________________________________
f. Income _____________________________________________________
g. 1968
When did you settle in the area? ____________________
h. Right at Paseo de Animales Road

Distance from the river _______________________________
i. How did you settle in the area:
My father
Whose permission did you ask? _________________________________
I've been tilling the land ever since this part

Describe the process? _________________________________________
of the river became land. I gave my harvest to Don Juan of Rosario

_____________________________________________________________
because he was the Barangay Captain there.
_____________________________________________________________
None. But every time I would

What documents did you fill up/submit? _____________________________
harvest, I would give these to Don Juan.

_____________________________________________________________
Problems encountered? __________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
j. 400 square meters

Area of the land you occupy (square meters)? __________________________
k. Floor area of your house? __________________________________________
l. How much did you pay? Nothing. For as long as I gave Don Juan the harvest.
___________________________________________
I chose this location because
m. How was the location of your house decided? __________________________
the land here is relatively high. The flood here is not so high.
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 1 -
n. Proof of ownership of / right to occupy the area you are occupying (documents,
which agency/group issued the document). ___________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
o. What rights (type of use, limitations on size of house, setbacks, etc.) do you
My right as the caretaker of this land.

have over your property? ___________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
p. Can you transfer ownership (If yes, in what way, e.g. inheritance, etc.)?
Yes, I sold the land to the people who live there now.
_______________________________________________________________
q. Can you sell the rights? ____________________________________________
r. Did you inform the barangay/city hall upon occupancy of the area?
If yes, what documents were you made to submit? ____________________
____________________________________________________________
If no, which agency did you approach? What documents did you submit?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
s. Who developed the area (roads, pathways, water supply, lighting, etc.)? ______
I followed what the Barangay Captains told me.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
t. Have you attempted to acquire legal ownership of your land? If yes,
I had a surveyor measure (survey)

What steps have you done so far? ________________________________
the land I was tilling before.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
I approached my god-child who is a

Who did you approach? Why? ____________________________________
surveyor. He told me to do this so I could acquire the land.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 2 -
I submitted the subdivision plan
What documents did you submit? _________________________________
for this land by DENR.

____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Until now, there are no results

What problems are you encountering? _____________________________
regarding my application. I have subdivision plans for more than
____________________________________________________________
two (2) hectares of land. I pay taxes (for this) at the Pasig City Hall.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 3 -
Betty Español
a. Name ______________________________ 58
Age _______
A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
Victorino Association
c. Organization ____________________________________
Two (2) Families

d. Household Size _________________________________
Housewife
e. Employment ____________________________________
P 9,000.00 per month by sub-leasing a space in our house
f. Income _____________________________________________________
1982
g. When did you settle in the area? ____________________
Near Paseo de Animales Road
h. Distance from the river _______________________________
Manuel "Tandang Oweng" Victorino

I bought the right to settle in the area from

Mr. Manuel Victorino.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Barangay Clearance
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
120 square meters

j. Area of the land you occupy (square meters)? __________________________
P 2,000.00
l. How much did you pay? ___________________________________________
My husband selected the
location of our house because of its proximity to the road.

_______________________________________________________________
- HS 4 -
Barangay Clearance
issued by Barangay Captain Zenona Mesia-Labuguen
______________________________________________________________
or "Tiya Nonay".
______________________________________________________________
o. What rights (type of use, limitations on size of house, setbacks, etc.) do you have
Barangay Clearance
over your property? ___________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, by inheritance to my sons and daughter.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, but I don't intend to sell.
Yes, I had a
Barangay Clearance made.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
The Barangay Captain and politicians
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Last March 2002, we set up

another association again. Our President is presently working on
____________________________________________________________
this matter.
____________________________________________________________
I approached Myla Cruz because I

know she will fight for us here so we can acquire this property
____________________________________________________________
legally.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 5 -
Association form with I.D. and
Barangay Clearance
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
We are being given the

run-around by government agencies like HUDCC, LMB, LRA, PCUP
____________________________________________________________
as well as by our Barangay Captain and Mayor. We have already
____________________________________________________________
given many documents to them but until now they have not been
____________________________________________________________
able to help us acquire this land built on by our houses. There are
____________________________________________________________
times we hear from the municipality that we will soon be evicted but
____________________________________________________________
when we go to PCUP, they tell us there is no such order.

____________________________________________________________
Then we hear of eviction orders from PCUP but the Barangay or

____________________________________________________________
Municipality say there are no such orders.
____________________________________________________________
- HS 6 -
Victoria Quitoles
a. Name ______________________________ 53
Age _______
#172-J Sto. Tomas Street, Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
Sto. Tomas Association
c. Organization ____________________________________
Two (2) Families

d. Household Size _________________________________
Self-employed (Sari-sari Store Owner, Carpenter)

e. Employment ____________________________________
P 6,000.00 per month, sometimes less
f. Income _____________________________________________________
1984
i. How did you settle in the area: We bought the rights.
The owner, Mr. Jose Candido.

Mr. Jose Candido, my uncle, sold me the

rights to the land as well as the house because he decided to

_____________________________________________________________
live in the province.
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing. I took my uncle's
word that no one would claim the rights.
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing.
_____________________________________________________________
25 square meters
5m x 5m
P 10,000.00
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 7 -
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, if I don't have money, I can mortgage my house to whoever wants it.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes.
Proof of billing,
voter's I.D., and Barangay Clearance.
____________________________________________________________
Association Certification
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
The Association with the help of the Barangay Captain and other
_______________________________________________________________
candidates running for election.
_______________________________________________________________
I became a member of an Association.

The Association took charge of this concern.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 8 -
Association forms with I.D.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Many Associations were

formed to address this problem but up until now, we still don't own
____________________________________________________________
the land.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 9 -
Josue Paul
a. Name ______________________________ 52
Age _______
Victorino Street cor. Paseo de Animales
b. Address ________________________________________
c. Organization ____________________________________
One (1) Family with son and daughter

d. Household Size _________________________________
Self-employed, buy and sell

e. Employment ____________________________________
No specific amount but more than P 5,000.00 per month
f. Income _____________________________________________________
February 28, 1985

Right at Paseo de Animales Road
Ricardo Ramos
I bought the right to settle in the area from

Ricardo Ramos. I had our agreement notarized.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Transfer of Rights
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
100 square meters

P 12,000.00
The location was near the
road.
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 10 -
Transfer of Rights
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Notarized Transfer of Rights

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, I will pass on this property to my two children.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, but I don't intend to sell.
Transfer of Rights
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 11 -
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 12 -
Josephine Romantiko
a. Name ______________________________ 45
Age _______
#168J A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
c. Organization ____________________________________
One (1) Family (5 children)

d. Household Size _________________________________
Garments Employee
e. Employment ____________________________________
P 1,200.00 a week
f. Income _____________________________________________________
1986
Less than 80 meters from river
We asked Mang Pianong

I paid P 550 every month. Then I built my

house. After a few months, Mang Tato asked me to pay P 1,000.00.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing. It was a vacant lot.

I asked if I could build a house.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
25 square meters
25 square meters (5m x 5m)
P 30,000.00
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 13 -
Receipt and Certification
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Receipt and Certification

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, I can transfer ownership to the renter of the property.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, but I don't yet have plans of selling.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 14 -
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 15 -
Teresita Babila
a. Name ______________________________ 48
Age _______
#166F A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
c. Organization ____________________________________
Two (2) Families (4 children)

d. Household Size _________________________________
e. Employment ____________________________________
No fix income
f. Income _____________________________________________________
1987
Less than 10 meters from river
Mang Tato
We paid Mang Tato P 6,000.00 for the rights

to build our house over a 25 square meter piece of land.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Nothing.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
25 square meters
25 square meters (5m x 5m)
P 6,000.00
My husband and I decided.
There was no other vacant land except this one.

_______________________________________________________________
- HS 16 -
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes. I can either have it mortgaged or sell it.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes.
Barangay Clearance
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
When we moved here, there were roads already. For water, we rely on
_______________________________________________________________
a deep well. We pay P 1.00 per pail. For electricity, we pay P 50.00 per
_______________________________________________________________
head.
We joined the Association. We're

hoping the Association might be able to do something so this land
____________________________________________________________
can become ours.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 17 -
I.D. picture, membership fee and
monthly dues.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
We trust the leadership of

the Association. This is the reason we don't have so many problems.
____________________________________________________________
Our house is within the alignment of the proposed dike of the DPWH.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 18 -
Arnold Curibang
a. Name ______________________________ 30
Age _______
#44 Gabriel Street, Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
Gabriel Association
c. Organization ____________________________________
d. Household Size _________________________________
e. Employment ____________________________________
P 8,400.00 per month
f. Income _____________________________________________________
1994
Right between the river and Paseo de Animales Road
From Manny
I bought the rights from Manny so I could

build a house.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Barangay Clearance and

Deed of Sale of Rights.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
25 square meters
P 60,000.00
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 19 -
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes, I can sell by preparing a Deed of Sale.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes.
Manny and I met in

the Barangay Hall and settled all payments for his land.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 20 -
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 21 -
Amado B. de Leon Jr.

a. Name ______________________________ 52
Age _______
#3 Ramirez Compound, Doroteo Ext., Santolan, Pasig City
b. Address ________________________________________
Doroteo Association
c. Organization ____________________________________
One (1) Family (1 son)

d. Household Size _________________________________
Cook
e. Employment ____________________________________
P 6,000.00 per month
f. Income _____________________________________________________
December 15, 1999

Anita Donaire Tigolo

Anita Donaire Tigolo sold her rights to me.

We prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights and Privileges.

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Deed of Absolute Sale of

Rights and Privileges
_____________________________________________________________
I spent an additional P 45,000.00 to have this
house repaired.
_____________________________________________________________
25 square meters
P 80,000.00
_______________________________________________________________
- HS 22 -
The documents were signed
in the presence of a lawyer.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
All the rights a person has over ownership

of anything.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Yes.
_______________________________________________________________
Yes.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 23 -
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
- HS 24 -
ANNEX F
DEEDS OF SALE
(no soft file)

ANNEX G
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE
(no soft file)

ANNEX H
COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM

ORIENTATION ON COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM ( CMP)
DATE: DECEMBER 01, 2001 AT 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM

VENUE: DOROTEO OPEN COURT
COMMUNITY MORTGAGE PROGRAM ( CMP) – ay programang palupa’t

pabahay ng pamahalaan na nagbibigay pagkakataon sa mga lihetimong
samahang maralita para mabili ang lupang tinitirikan o makabili ng lupang
tiwangwang para mapaglipatan at makapagtayo ng sariling tahanan sa abot
kayang halaga. Ito ay sa pamamagitan ng pagpapautang.
Qualifications:
Person:
1. 18 yrs old- 50 yrs old of age.
2. Outstanding member of the Association.
3. Member of SSS, GSIS, HDMF ( PAG-IBIG ).
4. Self-employed.
5. Walang sariling lupa’t bahay
6. Di pa nakautang sa alinmang pabahay
Lupa:
1. Titulado ( Torrens System ) walang problem,malinis.
2. Sang-ayon on intent to sell ( MOA )
3. Kailangan ang classification is residential
4. Not in danger area.
5. Road right of way.
Magkano Ang Mauutang?
P60,000/member-beneficiary
EQUITY-6% per annum- 25 yrs to pay
APPLICATION PROCESS:
1. Project Comment Line (PCL) Application
a. Deed of Sale; Intend to sale or MOA

b. Certified True Copies of OCT or TCT
c. Tax Clearance
d. Plan & Subdivision Survey
e. Bio-data
2. PCL Application
a. Title ( CTC)
b. Back Title (OTC)
c. Tax Clearance receipt
d. Tax Declaration ( new) ( CTC)
e. Intent sale/MOA
f. Master list of Beneficiaries with Loan Application
g. Lot Plan (CTC)
h. Schematic/subdivision Plan w/ vicinity map
i. Proof of RROW
j. Certificate of Registration (HCURB)
k. Certificate of Incorporation (SEC Registration )
l. Code of By-Laws
m. MAO (Association)
n. Project Basic Information
o. Project Profile
3. Letter of guarantee ( LOG )

4. Take-out
5. Individual of Title
6. Utilization of Loan
ANNEX I
LETTERS OF APPEAL TO MAYOR SOLEDAD EUSEBIO

AND COUNCILOR EMIR CRUZ
(no soft file)

ANNEX J
COURT RULING ON OMAŇA PROPERTY
(no soft file)

ANNEX K
TAX DECLARATIONS
(no soft file)

ANNEX L
TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
(no soft file)

ANNEX M
COURT RULING NULLIFYING IGNACIO CLAIM
(no soft file)

ANNEX N
OTHER CLAIMANTS
(no soft file)

ANNEX O
DENR FLOW CHART AND MATRIX

FOR LAND PATENT APPLICATIONS
Workplan on the Processing of Friar Lands Application
CENRO RMD LAUD Director’s Office LAUD

-Filing of -Filing, indexing, -Examine and process -Approval of -Inform applicant
application tracking, etc. applications appraisal report to pay purchase
price and execute
-Investigate and -Prepare
sales contract
prepare recommendations for
appraisal report approval of appraisal
-Prepare CSW
Assistant Legal Division Geodetic LAUD CENRO

Director Surveys
-Review and -Processing of -Publication in
Division
-Signature of initial Sales Contract if newspaper of general
Sales Contract -Checking and fully paid circulation (municipal/
and initial Deed verification of barangay)
-Preparation of
of Conveyance TD
Deed of -Notice of Sale
Conveyance
-Bidding
-Execution of Sales
Director’s Office RMD DENR RMD Register of Deeds

Secretary
-Approval of -Numbering of Sales -Numbering of -Registration and
Sales Contract Contract -Final Deed of issuance of TCT
and initial of approval of Conveyance
-Furnish CENRO,
Deed on the Deed of
application and LAUD -Prepare
Conveyance Conveyance
a copy of Sales transmittal and
Contract mailing ROD
-Prepare transmittal of
Deed of Conveyance
and forward to OSEC
Streamlined Workflow on the Processing of Permits (Provisional and Temporary)
RMD Director’s Office LAUD Legal Division Assistant

Director’s Office
-Filing of -Tracking, -Investigation, -Review of initial
application further appraisal, draft permit and -Initial of draft
instruction processing draft letter to permit and draft
-Check previous
permittee letter to
records (30 mins) -Clearance from
permittee
DPWH, DOH, (2 days)
(1.5 hrs)
DOT, PPA (2 days)
(3 weeks)
Assistant Director’s Office RMD Director’s Office

Director’s Office -Signature and
-Signature and -Deliver folder to
-Initial on the approval the Office of the approval of
Memorandum Secretary, permit and letter
(1 week) to permittee
for the DENR
Secretary, (1 day)
(1 day)
DENR
(2 days)
LAUD
mailing of
-Recording notice to
-Preparation of permittee
Memorandum (1 day)
for Secretary,
DENR for final
approval
(1 day)
Flow Chart in Processing Land Application for Leases
-Filing of MSA (RA No. 730) -Letters of -Recommending -Collection of

application Clearance from approval of publication
-Affidavit of
LMD District/City Engr, appraisal and expenses of ore
-Investigate applicant
Local PPA, DPWH, authority to sell than P240.00
requesting direct
-Record sheet Dept of Tourism or lease land
sale -Prepare notice of
approval
sale or lease
-Investigation
report
-Preparation -Report of biding -Bidding

-Prepare -Order of -Final
of order / (sealed or oral)
lease Issuance of Investigation -Proof of
award
contract Lease publication
Contract
-Posting
-Payments
ARED for -Approval

Technical of RED USEC SEC
-Refer to LMD-Letter
Services appraisal furnishing the
-Approval -Initial -Approval
applicant of
of Lease of
approved Lease
appraisal Contract contract
Contract
Work Flow (Preliminary Processing) for MSA/IGPSA Land Applications
Land Records Receiving/Releasing Examiners Researchers

Information and Clerk
Statistics -processing -preparation
-receives, records of public of V-37
OIC Land Projections
-receives/ and releases land
Management Division -verification
releases public folders to applications
land applications personnel/offici -assessment of land 8 of V-37
als concerned examiner
-types transmittal 7 9
1 25 -review and 10
13 11
evaluation and initial
3 stamping of notice of
4 6
posting/publication
14 16 18 20 23
5 24 Typist /
17 19 Encoder
Field Focal Person ARED -types diff
Investigation docs relative
Contract -evaluation -final to the public
Compliance and review eval’n lands
Monitoring of documents application
Section attached in and
the public 21 appraisal,
-conducts lands letters to diff
preliminary applications agencies and
investigation RED applicants
transmittal
15 -comments
2 and/or 12
signs
22
ANNEX P
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE OF OMAÑA

PROPERTY
ANNEX Q
SWO-13-000668,
AMMENDMENTS TO PSU-107981 PROPERTY
ANNEX R
LEGAL DOCUMENTS/RECEIPTS
SUBMITTED BY MYLA A. CRUZ
ANNEX S
STATUS REPORT OF PROPERTIES FOR DPWH

NEAR SITE RESETTLEMENT
Status of Identified Vacant Lands in Barangay Santolan per Verification Survey conducted last June 20, 2003.
VACANT PLAN NO. AREA LATEST

DECREE NO. TAX DEC.NO. REGISTERED OWNER ADDRESS REMARKS
LOT NO. LOT NO. (SQ.M.) TITLE NO.
I PSU-97458 6,482 N-78010 557 - DR. EMMANUEL FOR OCULAR

LOT 2 GATCHALIAN JR. INSPECTION
II PSU-178037 7,456 N-165140 E-024-02519 - OLIMPIO REYES & 50 EVANGELISTA ST. FOR OCULAR
DOROTEO DELEON SANTOLAN, PASIG INSPECTION
PSU-110617 3,121 N-165086 E-024-02508 - MACARIO P. DE LEON 3RD 1 DE LEON EXT. FOR OCULAR
LOT 2 SANTOLAN, PASIG CITY INSPECTION
PSU-124281 5,482 NOT - - - - PORTION OF LOT 29
Amd LOT 2 DECREED PSU-107981
PSU-124281 1,283 NOT - - - - -
Amd LOT 1 DECREED
PSU-124281 9,527 N-92072 E-024-04473 PT-83854 BEARING CENTER & 151 WILSON STREET, PORTION OF LOT 29
Amd LOT 4 MACHINERY SAN JUAN PSU-107981
PSU 107981 15,009 N-154905 E-024-01138 10579 MAGDALENA DE PASIG CITY PORTION OF LOT 4
LOT 29 GUZMAN PSU-124281 Amd
PSU-124281 1,631 NOT - - - - -
Amd LOT 3 DECREED
PSU-107981
III (LRC) PSU-91 623 NOT - - - - PORTION OF LOT

LOT 13 DECREED 49-C-2-A-12-C-2-E-2
(LRC) PSU-91 1,095 NOT - - - - PSD-9767 ORTIGAS
LOT 12 DECREED & CO.
(LRC) PSU-91 809 NOT - - - - -
LOT 19 DECREED
(LRC) PSU-91 1,062 NOT - - - - -
LOT 11 DECREED
VACANT PLAN NO. AREA DECREE NO. TAX DEC.NO. LATEST REGISTERED OWNER ADDRESS REMARKS
LOT NO. LOT NO. (SQ.M.) TITLE NO.
IV (LRC) PCS-7168 3,940 NOT - 40605 CHINA BANKING CORP. DASMARINAS,MLA. SPURIOUS TITLE
LOT 1 INDICATED NO. RELATION TO
LRC REC. NO.
N-21630
LOT 5 1,528 NOT - - TEODORA GABRIEL & - APPLIED AND
PSU-235380 DECREED DOMINGA GABRIEL DECIDED ON LRC
REC. NO. N-46319
LOT 4 703 NOT - - TEODORA GABRIEL & - APPLIED AND
PSU-235380 DECREED DOMINGA GABRIEL DECIDED ON LRC
REC. NO. N-46319
LOT 6 1,578 NOT - - HEIRS OF PAULA - APPLIED AND
PSU-235386 DECREED GABRIEL DECIDED ON LRC
REC. NO. N-46207
LOT 5 907 NOT - - HEIRS OF PAULA - APPLIED AND
PSU-235386 DECREED GABRIEL DECIDED ON LRC
REC. NO. N-46207
LOT 7 969 NOT - - MARCELA REYES VDA. - APPLIED IN LRC
PSU-235388 DECREED DE BORJA REC. NO.N-60568
LOT 6 927 NOT - - MARCELA REYES VDA. - APPLIED IN LRC
PSU-235388 DECREED DE BORJA REC. NO.N-60568
V PSU-231276 4,008 N-139963 E-024-00348 64480 PEAKTI CUA SY 445 ZARAGOSA OK FOR
LOT 4 ST.TONDO,MANILA NEGOTIATION
PSU-231276 482 N-139963 E-024-00348 64480 PEAKTI CUA SY 445 ZARAGOSA OK FOR
LOT 5 ST.TONDO,MANILA NEGOTIATION
VI (LRC) 4,689 N-154478 E-024-02855, PT-103606, SPS. JOSE J. LOMOTAN 14 SCOUT BORROMEO OK FOR
SWO-15198 etc. etc. & MIGUELA P. ST., QUEZON CITY NEGOTIATION, 60
LOT 5 LOMOTAN INDIVIDUAL TITLES
ISSUED
ANNEX T
LETTER OF A.H. LINGAYO TO SEN. JAWORSKI

ANNEX U
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
ANNEX V
LETTER OF SEN. JAWORSKI

TO LRA OIC-DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
ANNEX W
CMP APPLICATION PROCESS

Plan222 - Yap 2003 - Quest For Land Ownership

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Plan222 - Yap 2003 - Quest For Land Ownership

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FOUR PRESIDENTS AND THE QUEST FOR LAND OWNERSHIP

FORMAL AND INFORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES

PHILIPPINE – AUSTRALIAN LAND ADMINISTRATION

DAVID LEONIDES T. YAP

UP SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT APPRECIATION

1.1 Project Description 1

CHAPTER 2 PROJECT AREA

2.1 Pasig City 6

CHAPTER 3 FORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES

3.1 Court Cases, TCTs, OCTs, and Tax Declarations 22

CHAPTER 4 INFORMAL LAND ACQUISITION PROCESSES

4.1 The Farmers 31

CHAPTER 5 GOVERNMENT OFFICES

5.1 Land Classification 38

CHAPTER 6 PROCESS ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A By-laws of Samahan ng Bagong Mamamayan ng Santolan, Inc.

C History of Santolan Neighborhood Federation, Inc.

1. Aerial Photograph showing DPWH Dike Alignment 2

1. Tenurial Status of Censused Households 9

A and D Alienable and Disposable (lands)

OCT Original Certificate of Title

This research is funded by the ongoing Philippine-Australian Land Administration

Various individuals and groups assisted in providing documents and granting

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

"Nakaapat na presidente na kami, si Cory, si Ramos, si Erap, at

A component of the PMRCIP is right-of-way acquisition. Presently, rights-of-way

In Barangay Santolan, "near-site" resettlement is being explored as an option to

Figure 1. Aerial Photograph of Pasig-Marikina

1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT

The proposed project will involve a leader of the Santolan Neighborhood

The objective of the study is to compare actual land procurement and/or

The objective of this activity is to determine which processes adopted by each

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

With regard to location, the following criteria will be considered:

a. Families who till (nagsasaka) tracts of land in Barangay Santolan (2 ~ 4)

2.1 Pasig City

Figure 3. Map of Metro Manila

Pasig City lies within the

Pasig is generally flat,

It is traversed by the Pasig

increasing population is now forcing development or redevelopment of residential

Figure 4. Pasig City Existing Land Use Map

Figure 5. Pasig City Proposed Land Use Map

The second development

2.2 Barangay Santolan

In a city with a population of 471,075, only 30,881 (6.6%) reside in Barangay

Figure 6. Project Area

2.3 Riverside Barangay Santolan

2.3.1 Socio-Economic Profile

2.3.1.1 Tenurial Status of Surveyed Households

The remainder of the households are classified as rent-free occupants (probably

Table 1. Tenurial Status of Censused Households

2.3.1.2 Length of Residence in the Area

Table 2. Length of Residence in the Area

2.3.1.3 Reason for Establishing Residence in the Area

Table 3. Reason for Establishing Residence in the Area

2.3.1.4 Type of Structure

Six hundred ninety-eight (93.57%) of the 746 affected structures in Riverside

Table 4. Type of Structure

2.3.1.5 Type of Housing Materials

Table 5. Type of Housing Materials

2.3.1.6 Number of Households per Residential Structure

Sworn Statement (Salaysay na Pinanumpaan) stating how the property of