March 4, 1999

DAR OPINION NO. 20-99

MEMORANDUM

TO               :      PARO JOSE Z. GRAGEDA
                           DAR Provincial Office
                           San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur

SUBJECT    :     Follow-up of Implementing Guidelines

This refers to your Memorandum dated 26 October 1998 relative to your request for the issuance of implementing guidelines on the following issues:

1)        Transfer Action under R.A. No. 6657 and Landed Estates

2)        Consolidation of Titles of Mortgaged Properties whose Redemption Period has lapsed;

3)        Judicial reconstitution of title.

You state that in Transfer Action under R.A. No. 6657 where collective CLOAs have been issued several years ago, you were able to generate individual titles for distribution to farmer beneficiaries; that there are cases where the FB included in the collective CLOA is no longer in possession, either because of death, abandonment or other reasons; and that while there are guidelines for transfer action under P.D. No. 27, there is none under R.A. 6657. Hence, you set aside collective CLOAs for individual titling with such problems.

On the other hand, in consolidation of titles of mortgaged properties whose redemption period had lapsed, there are instances where mortgagees are not interested in having the titles of mortgaged properties consolidated in their names to avoid payment of taxes. In this regard, you cannot register the CLOAs because the Register of Deeds (ROD) insists that the title should first be consolidated. Likewise, you wish to seek our assistance in resolving with the Department of Justice some issues regarding judicial reconstitution of title wherein Provincial Prosecutors in Camarines Sur are questioning DAR's personality to file Petition for Reconstitution of Titles and to require DAR to secure authorization from the landowners concerned.

Anent the first issue raised, we find the same to be somewhat vague for us to intelligently respond to it. We will appreciate it therefore if you could further clarify the issue. Nonetheless, as we understand it, it is submitted that in case a farmer beneficiary in a collective CLOA is no longer in possession by reason of his death or abandonment, the area awarded to him which does not exceed three (3) hectares should legally be allocated or titled in favor of any of his heirs who may be qualified to become a beneficiary himself and, provided, he is found to be directly working on the land. In other words, the order of priority provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 shall by implication of law be applied. It is, however, mandatory that said heir will judiciously use the land and make it as productive as possible. On the other hand, if the farmer beneficiary has no legal heir, his tillage might be transferred to another qualified beneficiary subject to the quasi-judicial process of listing and delisting to be properly undertaken through the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).

Anent the second issue, please be informed that the Policy and Strategic Research Service (PSRS), DAR Central Office is currently formulating a guideline relative thereto. Moreover, we have already sent a formal letter-request with the Department of Justice regarding the second issue as well as the third (copy herewith attached).

For your guidance and information.

(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning