July 1, 1998
DAR OPINION NO. 77-98
Director Horacio C. Ramos
Chairman, CLRF Steering Committee
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
North Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Director Ramos:
This refers to your letter of 18 May 1998 requesting for clarification whether or not holders of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) are already the real owners of awarded lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27.
Your request is prompted in relation to the awarding of compensation for damages to tenants and landowners from Sipalay, Negros Occidental involving lands covered by P.D. No. 27 pursuant to DENR Administrative Order (D.A.O.) No. 96-40, the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995).
You state that under Section 200 of the said D.A.O., seventy five percent (75%) of the compensation shall be paid to the lessee and twenty five percent (25%) shall be paid to the landowner. Accordingly, the 75% share of the compensation were paid to the lessees/tenants, while, although some of the 25% share were already released and paid to the landowners, still some are being held in abeyance due to the fact that ownerships of the lands, which were subject to Operation Land Transfer (OLT), are in question. Some of the tenants are Emancipation Patent (EP) holders, while a number are Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) holders. You believe that this request for clarification is needed in order to expedite the release of the 25% share being held in abeyance.
We wish to state that an Emancipation Patent (EP) is awarded pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 dated 21 October 1972. Under said Decree, the farmer is deemed full owner of the land awarded to him as evidenced by the EP thus issued which, as such, is considered as full and legal title to the land. Accordingly, the award can only be cancelled for cause as provided for by law.
As regards a Certificate of Land Transfer, it is not per se an evidence of ownership of the land. Hence, the mere issuance thereof does not vest in the farmer-grantee, ownership of the land described therein. It merely provides evidence of the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory requirements for acquisition under P.D. No. 27. Failure of the farmer-beneficiary to comply with the requirements will result in the cancellation of said CLT. However, in the absence of proof and determination by legitimate authority that he has not complied with the requirements and thereof not a bona fide beneficiary, the presumption is that he is DEEMED OWNER of the land awarded to him pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 27, and anyone who wishes to contest said presumption and the rights of a CLT holder has the burden of proving that he is not a qualified and legal holder thereof.
Thank you for communicating with us and we hope to have clarified the matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
OSEC
Doc. No. 98060044