Phoenix Mackenzie

University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

P. Del Rosario St., Cebu City 6000

AGRARIAN LAW and other SPECIAL LEGISLATION

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

Group 1 Members:

Charmaine Lynn B. Tan

Philip Adrian G. Nazario

Dinessa Angelique C. Corvera

Phoenix Mackenzie L. Gocuan

Gerald Paul S. Viernes

EH 406

LLB 2

Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas

Agrarian Law and Social Legislation Professor

There are many issues both major and collateral in that can be tackled in the issue of Agrarian Reform. It is true that after a long length of time since the presidency of Corazon C. Aquino, up to the present, Agrarian Reform has not yet been fully implemented throughout the country. It is a major piece of social legislation but its provisions are vast and The group would like to discuss and opine on some points regarding the Land Distribution (Chapter VII, Topic IV) of Republic Act 6657, as amended or commonly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. As a group, we find it important to discuss land distribution because it is the lions share of the law; it is what the law is about. Land for the Landless, as what the clich goes about by this law. We hope to give ideas and discussions, maybe to strengthen or give ideas and recommendations for amendments in the implementation of land distribution.

Sec. 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL, is the governing provision for those landless tenants who can be qualified beneficiaries of land redistribution reform. It states:

Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and (g) others directly working on the land. Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to himshall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution ofprivately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.

The law provides for the order of priority in the distribution of the land. Firstly, the children of the landowners must be given preference, if this would be the case, the actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. Secondly, it shall be distributed to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:

agricultural lessees and share tenants;

regular farmworkers;

seasonal farmworkers;

other farmworkers;

actual tillers or occupants of public lands;

collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and

others directly working on the land;

The law also enunciates the grounds for disqualification or forfeiting the right of ownership over a land, those are:

Beneficiaries under the Presidential Decree 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land

Those any beneficiary, upon the result of the monitoring power of DAR, is guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him.

The group sees that the provision entails the core objective of the law, that is, to cultivate the land, making emphasis on the basic qualification of a beneficiary that he/she must possess, these are - the willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and making the land productive. These qualities are applied to all beneficiaries. The children of the landowner who are given highest preference in the land distribution of the lands of their parents before it can be distributed to other prospective tenants are not an exemption to this rule. They too must actually tilling or directly managing the farm. In the occurrence where there is not enough land to accommodate other tenants, the provision provides that they are given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from public domain.

Although we are not in the position to interpret the laws, we can opine as to its boons and banes. It is already out of dispute that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the redistribution of public and private agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers who are landless regardless of any existing tenurial arrangement. Indeed, the law attaches the essence of comprehensive to its title. The word landless beneficiary, however, does not mean complete absence of any land ownership; it means, One who owns less than three hectares of agricultural land. It is explicitly provided under Sec. 23 of CARL that No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. Hence, a farmer or farmworker who already owns a land not more than three hectares can still be a qualified beneficiary over the land he/she is actually tilling or cultivating provided that he/she will not exceed the three hectares limit. Notwithstanding the enumerations provided, the law is silent as to the instances wherein there are several farmworkers to a land which has an equivalent land area not enough to cater its division for distribution. In this instance, there is no qualifications enumerated as to who among them are given preferential rights. Who has the power to adjudicate over the matter? Does the landowner have the right to choose among its farmworkers? In the absence thereof, it all rest on the power of DAR. We opine that this too must be systematic in order to achieve the purest objective of the law. Moreover, despite giving leeway to the interpretation of the concept landless, the law must give preferential rights to a farmer who owns naught land area and who is just dependent of the land he/she is actually tilling in choosing among the qualified beneficiary.

Sec. 24 is maybe understood in two parts. The first part of Section 24 of Republic Act 6657, as amended, is procedural in nature as it gives a specific period when DAR shall complete the granting of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the latter part of the law provides for the registration of the land under the beneficiarys name. It states:

Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

Qualified beneficiaries of CARP have rights and responsibilities which they acquire together with the ownership of the land granted to them. These rights and responsibilities, as mentioned in the section, start upon the receipt of ownership of beneficiary, which should be completed within one hundred eighty days.

Also, Section 24 mentioned of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) given to the qualified beneficiary to be recorded in the Register of Deeds as evidence of the grant given to him by the government. It expressly required that the restrictions and conditions on the ownership grant should be included in the Certificate.

Which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land.

This specification in the law is a good way to mandate DAR to promptly distribute the land and most especially to ensure that the acquired lands would be distributed by DAR. Since government officials in the Philippines are known to be not immune to temptations, the time-frame given would direct these officials to distribute the lands within the period. Thus, such phrase in the provision would not only ensure the beneficiarys timely receipt of the ownership of the land but its distribution per se.

Beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award.

Having a title over the land which they till, plant and harvest will give the farmers pride, honour and assurance. In the Philippines, people look up to the landed because acquisition of a land is expensive. So through the Certificate of Title which would be registered under the name of the beneficiary and giving such to them would assure them of their right over the land awarded to them. Holding a Cerificate over the land which a farmer would possess could motivate him in developing such and improve the productivity of land. Such improvement would create a domino effect to alleviating the economic status of the country.

Section 26 of RA No. 6657 provides for the amortization period given to CARP beneficiaries and the consequence of non-payment of amortizations. It states:

Section 26.Payment by Beneficiaries. Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC: provided, that the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligations to make the repayment affordable.

The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land, as provided herein, has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.

Beneficiaries of CARP are given 30 years to pay for the land which they were granted with. The payment of such is by way of amortization which shall be:

a. Thirty (30) annual amortizations (First 3 years may be at reduced amounts);

b. Six percent (6%) interest per annum; and

c. First five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross production.

The intended beneficiary shall state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the amortization for the compensation of the land. (Caliwan,.Agrarian Law Reviewer. 1st ed. academia.edu.ph, 2014. Web. 1 Aug. 2015.)

The second part of the section mentioned the effect of non-payment of beneficiary for three aggregate annual amortizations--- the foreclosure of the land and their disqualification from becoming a beneficiary.

..shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations

Thirty years to pay for the land granted in the law is just. Granting fewer years for the period of payment would result to the disqualification of more grantees or beneficiaries and granting more years would possibly result to either an increase of interest which the beneficiaries would pay or a loss on the part of the government.

If the payment of grantees for the lands awarded to them will be lessened, the amount they would need to pay will increase. Say for example, the total amount of the land is P1, 500, 000.00 (without interest), which if divided into 30 years would be equal to P 50, 000.00. This P 50, 000.00 would be the annual payment the beneficiary need to deposit with LBP. So if the number of years would be decreased, say for example it would be decreased to 15 years, the grantee would need to pay P100, 000.00 annually instead. The difference between the two periods, which in this illustration is P50, 000.00, would already be a great liability for the farmers. Thus, granting fewer periods for payment would result in the non-payment and later the foreclosure and disqualification of the grantees.

On the other hand, if the government would impose more years for the amortization period, the government would be forced to put additional interest to that of the existing percentage to cover possible losses of waiting for the payment it is entitled. Consequently, if the government would choose to impose more interest, a heavier burden would be levied on the beneficiaries and would later result to more grantees being disqualified of the award of lands. be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.

Economic statuses of the regions in the Philippines are varying. In fact, in a survey posted in the listph.com, most progressive provinces are those in the urbanwhich income comes from industrial sectors, not agricultural. (Top 11 List of Richest Cities/Provinces in the Philippines. Listph.com. http://www.listph.com/2015/01/top-11-list-of-richest-cities-provinces-in-philippines-page-2.html (July 31, 2015).) The survey shows that though agriculture is one of the top sources of livelihood in the country, it does not give as much financial compensation compared to those of industrial sectors in the economy.

Also, products produced by every region are comparatively different than other regions and there are regions whose products are valued more compared to those of other regions. Such difference in value of produce is determinative of the gap which farmers from various regions. Through these, it could be deduced that farmers based on the regions where products are less valued and are harder to sell or distribute would earn less which could result in the non-payment of amortization required by the law resulting to the foreclosure of their land and their disqualification as beneficiaries of CARP.

Therefore, this phrase in the law is tantamount to discrimination.

Disqualification for delinquency of payment is not equitable.

The government also needs to ask for the value of the land to prevent it from incurring losses and to further implement their programs. However, permanent disqualification for non-payment of three years is not a good way to prevent government loss nor is it a good provision to penalize the grantees.

Most grantees come from the middle class citizens or lower, so if their permanent disqualification from becoming a beneficiary of this Act would be tantamount to the grantees great loss of income. So instead of permanently disqualifying them for non-payment of aggregate of three annual amortizations, the government can impose either of these:

Disqualification of the grantees for a certain period of time to become beneficiary of the Act;

Amending the provision from three annual amortizations to five annual amortizations, to grant the beneficiaries more time to pay for their delinquency; or

Taking the possession of 1/10 (or estimate equivalent of unpaid three annual amortizations) portion of the lot from the beneficiary, and give them two more years to redeem possession.Section 27.Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.

If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.

In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land.

Section 27 imposes limitations on the transfer of ownership of the land awarded by DAR to qualified beneficiaries. It provides that the land shall not be transferred within ten years from the receipt of ownership thereof. But this rule admits an exemption, which is the transfer of such land to either of the following:

Heirs,

Government,

LBP, or

Other qualified beneficiaries.

It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerated four exceptions: (1) through hereditary succession; (2) to the government; (3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. In short, during the prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws. (Lebrudo v. Loyola, GR No. 181370, March 9, 2011)Moreover, Section 27 of RA No. 6657 also answers the question: can ownership of the agricultural land be transferred or sold?

Transferability of ownership can be allowed, provided the agricultural land has been fully paid and provided further that the transferee thereof is qualified under the CARP and does not own more than 5 hectares of agricultural land. (Caliwan,.Agrarian Law Reviewer. 1st ed. academia.edu.ph, 2014. Web. 1 Aug. 2015.) If the land has not been fully paid, transfer can still prosper provided that such transfer will be upon approval of DAR and that the land will be conveyed to the heirs of the beneficiary who will step into his shoes with regard to the rights and responsibilities of a CARP land grantee.

The purpose of the non-transferability clause of the law is to ensure that the grantees would cultivate the land awarded to them and to ensure that these lands will not be acquired by other non-qualified individuals or entities in a certain period.

This provision is equitable and just to both the government and grantee. Since the transfer or conveyance may not be done without prior payment in full of the land awarded to the grantee, the government will be assured of receiving the just payment they need to not incur any loss with the transaction. The ten-year prohibition period on the other hand, gives beneficiaries ample time to cultivate their land, and when such cultivation will not be effective for them, as such would not grant them the opportunity to earn a sustainable income, then they would be allowed to transfer ownership through sale which proceeds can be used for another business or trade compatible to the grantee.

However, the problem will only occur when the land would be conveyed to entities who, even if also qualified as CARP beneficiary, will not be able to cultivate the land and fail to comply all responsibilities by a CARP grantee. Because this failure would result to the disqualification of the person or to another conveyance.

DAR is implementing various programs for farmers and are conducting different seminars. These activities by DAR aim to enhance the quality and quantity of products of farmers and more importantly, of CARP grantees. However, despite such seminars, there are still a number of grantees who fail to comply with their responsibilities on the award given to them by the government. A DAR-GERMAN (GTZ) study says, DAR has concentrated mainly on land redistribution, without considering viability and support services. (HOW CARPS FAILURE IMPACTS ON SOCIAL SERVICES AND AGRARIAN-REFORM BENEFICIARIES: A FIRSTHANDACCOUNT,midfield.wordpress.com, https://midfield.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/how-carp%E2%80%99s-failure-impacts-on-social-services-and-agrarian-reform-beneficiaries-a-firsthand-account-2/, August 2, 2015.)Therefore, to further promote the goals of CARP, the government must provide more seminars which would focus on sustainability of grantees on the production and distribution of their crops.

RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) does not contain a specific provision in the law which expressly provides for the defeasibility of titles, or corollarily its indefeasibility. Nowhere in the law can the word indefeasibility be found, or its synonym. Unsurprisingly, it has spawned several opposing contentions by parties that are left to settle such matter. However, in the case of Estribillo, et al. V. DAR, et al., the Supreme Court has finally laid to rest this gray area. But before going to a summary of the facts of the case, let us first define certain principles.

Indefeasible is defined by Wests Encyclopedia of American Law as, that cannot be altered or voided, usually in reference to an interest in real property. Similarly, in a landmark case decided by the Supreme Courty, it has clearly enunciated the principle of indefeasibilty of a title. Under the Torrens System of registration, the Torrens title becomes indefeasible na dincontrovertible ne year from its final decree. A torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. A strong presumption exists that the title was regularly issue and that it is valid. It is incontrovertible as against any information possessoria or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title.

Chapter V of RA 6657 entitled Land Acquisition provides for specific procedure in the acquisition and distribution of lands. In fact, it specifically provided in Sec. 16 par. (e) that:

Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. (emphasis ours)

Similarly, the law states that ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidence by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

Moving on to the case of Estribillo, the facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners are recipients of Emancipation Patents over parcels of land located in Agusan del Sur. These lands were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded by respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Petitioners, occupied these lands believing that the same were public lands. Eventually, HMI acquired these lands through a Sales Patent from the Government.

However, PD 27 issued on October of 1972 was issued which mandated that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the operation of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. HMI then requested that its parcels of land be placed under the OLT. After receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners to cultivate the lands so that the same may be included in the OLT.

In 1982, a final survet was conducted and the corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire parcels of land were issued to the petitioners. HMI filed with RARAD seeking to declare erroneous coverage under PD 27 of its landholdings. HMI claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. After the petitioners failed to comply with the technicalities regarding the case, their TCTs and EPs were subsequently ordered cancelled.

The Court of Appeals, ruling on the technicalities of the case rather than the merits similarly dismissed their petition and affirmed DARABs decision which affirmed RARADs decision.

The Supreme Court after brushing aside the issue of technicality, ruled in favor of the petitioners. SC dismissed the contention of DARAB which ruled that the EP is a title issued through the agrarian reform program of the government. Its issuance, correction and cancellation is governed by the rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Hence, it is not the same as or in the same category of a Torrens title.

In the case of Ybanez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the SC has held that certificates of title issue in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings:

It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law.

Further, there is no specific provision in the Public Land Law or the Land Registration Act fixing the one year period within which the public land patent is open to review on the ground of actual fraud as in Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Sec. 32 of PD 1529, and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the pertinent pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Sec. 38 of Land Registration Act was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director of Lands. The date of issuance of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases. This, to our mind, is in consonance with the intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. Conservation of a family home, and to encourage the settlement, residence and cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public domain.

Prof. Antonio Noblejas commented on the silence of PD 27 as to the indefeasibility of titles is the same as that in the Public Land Act:

Inasmuchas there is no positive statement of the Public Land Law, regarding the titled granted thereunder, such silence should be construed and interpreted in favor of the homesteader who come into the possession of his homestead after complying with the requirements thereof. (emphasis ours)

In the same case, the SC has held that once the tenant-farmers have complied with PD 27, the TCTs issued pursuant to their EPs, acquire the same protect accorded to other TCTs. The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x x x. (emphasis ours)

Cited in the case was Lahora v. Dayanghirang, Jr. which states that where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issue to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Sec. 38 of the said Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.

It cannot therefore be overstated that the EPs, like the CLOAs in RA 6657, are enrolled in the Torrens of system of registration.

In sum, we are of the opinion that if the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the statutory requirements and have been duly issued CLOAs, then the former is to be construed as to have the nature and characteristics of a title issued under those issued in a registration proceeding. Absent a specific provision in RA 6657 regarding the indefeasibility of titles does not render it an exception to the operation of the general law, rather, it serves to operate as to put it under the controlling law which is the Land Registration Act.

We conclude that there are many solutions to the problems and issues facing agrarian reform. But we do know of the fact that the government as a whole is ill- equipped and rather lacking in political will to solve the problems of agrarian reform.

Among the recommendations of the group is to concretize the continued support to the beneficiaries. We cannot turn a blind eye that in truth giving farmers land to till, but having no means to till the land is still rendering agrarian reform futile.

We can see that the objective of the law is very significant to the development of our nation as a whole. For it to be strengthened, it rests on the proper and active implementation of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the Executive Branch of Government. The monitoring power of DAR on the appropriate use of the land delegated to the bona fide beneficiary is an important factor to its implementation. One must not put into oblivion that these lands are being distributed for free, the farmers pay for it. Hence, it is just proper that the Government in turn must continue to assist on how can these lands be properly develop in order for it to be fruitful and productive. In turn, the farmers can earn profit from it and will able to set aside payment for the land and at the same time, will have the means to provide for their family. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. "indefeasible." Retrieved August 2 2015 fromHYPERLINK "http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indefeasible" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indefeasible

Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR No. L-27594, Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177; Republic v. Nillas, GR No. 159595, Jan. 23, 2007, 512 SCRA 286.

Section 24 of R.A. 6657 AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

G.R. No. 159674, 30 June 2006

REGISTRATION OF LAND, TITLES AND DEEDS, Antonio H. Noblejas, p. 431 (1992 revised ed.)

Amado D. Aquino, Land registration and related Proceedings, Chapter XII "Land Patents", p. 139; citing Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-77770, 15 December 1988, 168 SCRA 503, 511; Duran v. Oliva, 113 Phil. 144, 148-149 (1961).

147 Phil. 301, 304 (1971).