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

ii

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



iii

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



iv

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



v

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



vi

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



vii

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



viii

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



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



2

Figure 1. Aerial Photograph of Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project (PMRCIP)



3

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.



4

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. 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:

PUBLIC LAND

INFO

RM

AL

SETT

LER

S LA

ND

LESS

PEO

PLE

LAN

D O

WN

ERS W

ITH

TITLES / CLA

IMA

NTS

LEGISLATION / LAND AGENCIES /

LOCAL GOVERNMENT THRU LAND USE PLANS

NATIONAL GOV'T AGENCIES SUCH AS

DENR, DPWH, HUDCC, HLURB, NHA

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework



5

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.



6

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.

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

2

Figure 3. Map of Metro Manila



7

increasing population is now forcing development or redevelopment of residential areas into smaller plots/lots."

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”.

Figure 4. Pasig City Existing Land Use Map

Case Study:

Barangay Santolan (See Figure 6)

Figure 5. Pasig City Proposed Land Use Map



8

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



9

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



10

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).



11

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 Demolition, calamity) 10 0.92

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



12

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



13

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 Undergraduate 879 21.71

Elementary Graduate 363 8.97 High School Undergraduate 761 18.79

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 enrolled 190 4.69

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.



14

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



15

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 Coverage 115 8.12

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.



16

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, established in 1992;

d. Gabriel Extension Neighborhood Association (GENA), Gabriel Extension, established in 1992;



17

e. Damayan Neighborhood Association (DNA), Raymundo Compound, established in 2000;

f. Rafael Cruz Compound Association (RCCA), Rafael Cruz Compound, established in 1999;

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.



18

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



19

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.



20

The intricacies of the present situation in Riverside Barangay Santolan are summarized below following the diagram presented in Section 1.3. 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).

TWENTY- NINE

PARCELS

Figure 7. Overlapping Claims in Riverside Barangay Santolan



21

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.



22

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

3



23

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.



24

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.



25

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.



26

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)



27

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



28

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.



29

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.



30

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.



31

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).

4



32

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)



33

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.



34

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.



35

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.



36

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.



37

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.



38

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.

5



39

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.

Total Land

Public Domain Private Lands

Unappropriated lands

Alienable and Disposable Non-Disposable

Residential

Industrial Town

Commercial Institutional

National Parks Agricultural

Reserved for government or public

use

Privately owned but subject to eminent

domain

Held by state as private entity

Educational Mineral Forestry

Figure 8 LAND CLASSIFICATION



40

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.



41

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).

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.

ROD

Administrative

Courts

DAR

Direct Sale

LRA

Judicial

Figure 9. Approaches to Land Acquisition

DENR



42

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.



43

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 Transfer of Land Title

Deed of Sale is registered with the Registry of Deeds. RD cancels old title

and issues one in the name of the buyer

Owner and Buyer agree on sale of piece of land

New owner obtains a photocopy of the new title and requests tax declaration

from the Assessor’s Office

Through a lawyer, an Absolute Deed of Sale is created and notarized

Capital Gains Tax is paid to the BIR, 6% of the amount under consideration

Owner pays real estate tax to the City Treasurer’s Office

Assessor’s Office secures copy of Land Tax Declaration

Figure 11. Legal Procedures in Transfer of a Portion of Land Title

Owner and Buyer agree on sale of a portion of titled land

Buyer submits DENR-approved subdivision plan together with Deed

of Sale to the ROD

Buyer has the portion of land surveyed by a private geodetic

engineer

Geodetic engineer submits the subdivision plan to DENR-Regional

Office for approval


Capital Gains Tax is paid to the BIR, 6% of the amount under

consideration



ROD issues TCT



44

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)



45

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.

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.

LGUs Blighted Areas

MMPZonal Improvement Program

LTAP

LAD

Government lands

Other Agencies Expropriate

Slum Upgrading Program

Community Self-Help Approach

NHA pulls-out

Figure 12. Land Proclaimed as APDs

Negotiations Fail and Project not Necessity

Negotiate/Buy

Private Lands

Community Mortgage Program

NHA



46

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.



47

Figure 13. Land Proclamations

Informal settlers occupy vacant land

Vacant land is titled in the name of the republic

CA writes OP requesting that area occupied be proclaimed

in their favor.

DENR-RO conducts investigation

Clearance from DPWH

Comments from LMB

OP endorses to DENR Secretary

Clearance from land Administrator

Clearance from DOH

DENR Secretary endorses to OP

OP Issues Land

DENR Regional Secretary endorses CSW to DENR

Secretary

Informal settlers organize into a Community Associtaion

DENR-Secretary endorses to DENR-RO

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.

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

26Presidential Decree 1517 ( June 11, 1978) institutes a nationwide urban land reform program and provides for the identification and proclamation of Urban Land Reform Zone.



48

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.

27Role of the Barangay, Sec. 384 of the Local Government Code.



49

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."

6



50

The second occasion was related to why the Lomotans 28 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.



51

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.



52

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. Cruz was that the land area indicated in the tax declaration was 219 square meters and not 249. The study team interviewed the Regional Technical Director of the DENR-NCR office about this. (Annex U). According to him, cases like the one of Ms. Cruz happen, i.e., situations where land areas are not reflected properly on tax declarations. He said that the instructions Ms. Cruz received from the Register of Deeds were correct. That is, the property will be surveyed on the basis of the property's technical descriptions. Once the DENR-NCR office approves the survey, the subdivision plan together with the Deeds of Sale will be re-submitted to the Registry of Deeds so the corrected land area and technical description can be reflected in 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 the information to change the tax 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

Figure 14. Legal Procedure for Direct Purchase of Land

Deed of Sale is registered with the Registry of Deeds. RD cancels old title

and issues one in the name of the buyer

Owner and Buyer agree on sale of piece of land

New owner obtains a photocopy of the new title and requests tax declaration

from the Assessor’s Office


Capital Gains Tax is paid to the BIR, 6% of the amount under consideration





53

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).



54

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.



55

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



56

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.

Housing Agencies acquire land (public or

private) for distribution to beneficiaries

Application for Subdivision of Land with

DENR-NCR Office to ascertain there are no

overlapping boundaries

Application filed with MTC/RTC to ascertain there are no problems / other claimants to the

property

MTC/RTC issue order to LRA Administrator to

issue decree in favor of applicant if there are no problems/claims made

on the property

Two copies are prepared. The Register of Deeds files master

copy. Duplicate copy is given to the applicant.

FORMAL PROCESS

IND

IREC

T P

RO

CE

SS

D

IRE

CT

PR

OC

ES

S

Detailed procedures of land acquisition processes through the APD, CMP, and Presidential Proclamation are discussed in Section 5.3.2 and presented in Figures 12and 13 and Annex W. The main problem encountered is difficulty in identifying landowners

Detailed procedures of land acquisition are discussed in Section 5.2 and presented in Figures 9, 10 and 11. Problems identified are conflicting procedures given by officials of land agencies and corruption among some.

Problems identified are confusion of cases heard in court due to the improper filing or recording of previous court decisions. Instances of persons filing applications to land being heard in court were documented as well as invasion by other parties. Some court cases filed in the 1940s remain unresolved to this day.

The study team came across an instance when a Judge of a RTC was subpoenaed by the Court of Appeals to explain an earlier decision on PSU-107981. The situation illustrates the confusion caused by court decisions.

The study team documented cases in which decrees or titles were nullified and cancelled.



57

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.

Farmers / Previous Residents sell "rights" to

newcomers

Newcomers / Migrants acquire land rights

through signed agreements. A few have

the agreements notarized

INFORMAL PROCESS

Informal Processes were documented in Chapters 4 and 6. Most transactions among informal 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 give such transactions a sense of "legality" making these absolute and binding.

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

- HS 1 -

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. Name ______________________________ Age _______

b. Address ________________________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________

g. When did you settle in the area? ____________________

h. Distance from the river _______________________________

i. How did you settle in the area:

Whose permission did you ask? _________________________________

Describe the process? _________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

What documents did you fill up/submit? _____________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Problems encountered? __________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

j. Area of the land you occupy (square meters)? __________________________

k. Floor area of your house? __________________________________________

l. How much did you pay? ___________________________________________

m. How was the location of your house decided? __________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Francisco "Tato" Gabriel 67

Paseo de Animales cor. Doroteo St., Santolan, Pasig City

Six (6) Families

Farmer

1968

Right at Paseo de Animales Road

My father

I've been tilling the land ever since this part

of the river became land. I gave my harvest to Don Juan of Rosario

None. But every time I would

400 square meters

Nothing. For as long as I gave Don Juan the harvest.

I chose this location because

the land here is relatively high. The flood here is not so high.

because he was the Barangay Captain there.

harvest, I would give these to Don Juan.

- HS 2 -

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

have over your property? ___________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

p. Can you transfer ownership (If yes, in what way, e.g. inheritance, etc.)?

_______________________________________________________________

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.)? ______

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

t. Have you attempted to acquire legal ownership of your land? If yes,

What steps have you done so far? ________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Who did you approach? Why? ____________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

My right as the caretaker of this land.

Yes, I sold the land to the people who live there now.

I followed what the Barangay Captains told me.

I had a surveyor measure (survey)

the land I was tilling before.

I approached my god-child who is a

surveyor. He told me to do this so I could acquire the land.

- HS 3 -

What documents did you submit? _________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

What problems are you encountering? _____________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Until now, there are no results

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.

I submitted the subdivision plan

for this land by DENR.

- HS 4 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Betty Español 58

A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City

Victorino Association

Two (2) Families

Housewife

P 9,000.00 per month by sub-leasing a space in our house

1982

Near Paseo de Animales Road

Manuel "Tandang Oweng" Victorino

I bought the right to settle in the area from

Mr. Manuel Victorino.

Barangay Clearance

120 square meters

P 2,000.00

My husband selected the

location of our house because of its proximity to the road.

- HS 5 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

o. What rights (type of use, limitations on size of house, setbacks, etc.) do you have

over your property? ___________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Barangay Clearance

issued by Barangay Captain Zenona Mesia-Labuguen

or "Tiya Nonay".

Barangay Clearance

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

I approached Myla Cruz because I

know she will fight for us here so we can acquire this property

legally.

this matter.

- HS 6 -


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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 7 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Victoria Quitoles 53

#172-J Sto. Tomas Street, Santolan, Pasig City

Sto. Tomas Association

Two (2) Families

P 6,000.00 per month, sometimes less

1984


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

Nothing. I took my uncle's

25 square meters

P 10,000.00

word that no one would claim the rights.

5m x 5m

Nothing.

Self-employed (Sari-sari Store Owner, Carpenter)

We bought the rights.

live in the province.

- HS 8 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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.

The Association with the help of the Barangay Captain and other

I became a member of an Association.

The Association took charge of this concern.

candidates running for election.

Association Certification

- HS 9 -


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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 10 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Josue Paul 52

Victorino Street cor. Paseo de Animales


One (1) Family with son and daughter

Self-employed, buy and sell

No specific amount but more than P 5,000.00 per month

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 11 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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 12 -


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

- HS 13 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Josephine Romantiko 45

#168J A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City


One (1) Family (5 children)

Garments Employee

P 1,200.00 a week

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.

25 square meters

P 30,000.00

I asked if I could build a house.

25 square meters (5m x 5m)

- HS 14 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


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 15 -

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

- HS 16 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Teresita Babila 48

#166F A. Victorino Street, Santolan, Pasig City


Two (2) Families (4 children)

No fix 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

P 6,000.00

My husband and I decided.

There was no other vacant land except this one.

25 square meters (5m x 5m)

- HS 17 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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

We joined the Association. We're

hoping the Association might be able to do something so this land

can become ours.

a deep well. We pay P 1.00 per pail. For electricity, we pay P 50.00 per head.

- HS 18 -


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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 19 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Arnold Curibang 30

#44 Gabriel Street, Santolan, Pasig City

Gabriel Association

P 8,400.00 per month

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

25 square meters

P 60,000.00

Deed of Sale of Rights.

- HS 20 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

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 21 -


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

- HS 22 -



b. Address ________________________________________

c. Organization ____________________________________

d. Household Size _________________________________

e. Employment ____________________________________

f. Income _____________________________________________________






_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________





_______________________________________________________________

Amado B. de Leon Jr. 52

#3 Ramirez Compound, Doroteo Ext., Santolan, Pasig City

Doroteo Association

One (1) Family (1 son)

Cook

P 6,000.00 per month

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

25 square meters

P 80,000.00

Rights and Privileges

I spent an additional P 45,000.00 to have this

house repaired.

- HS 23 -



______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________



_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________




____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

The documents were signed

in the presence of a lawyer.

All the rights a person has over ownership

Yes.

Yes.

of anything.

- 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

-Filing of application

-Investigate and prepare appraisal report

RMD

-Filing, indexing, tracking, etc.

LAUD

-Examine and process applications

-Prepare recommendations for approval of appraisal

-Prepare CSW

Director’s Office

-Approval of appraisal report

LAUD

-Inform applicant to pay purchase price and execute sales contract

CENRO

-Publication in newspaper of general circulation (municipal/ barangay)

-Notice of Sale

-Bidding

-Execution of Sales

LAUD

-Processing of Sales Contract if fully paid

-Preparation of Deed of Conveyance

Geodetic Surveys Division

-Checking and verification of TD

Legal Division

-Review and initial

Assistant Director

-Signature of Sales Contract and initial Deed of Conveyance

RMD

-Numbering of Sales Contract

-Furnish CENRO, application and LAUD a copy of Sales Contract

-Prepare transmittal of Deed of Conveyance and forward to OSEC

DENR Secretary

-Final approval of the Deed of Conveyance

RMD

-Numbering of Deed of Conveyance

-Prepare transmittal and mailing ROD

Director’s Office

-Approval of Sales Contract and initial of Deed on Conveyance

Register of Deeds

-Registration and issuance of TCT

Streamlined Workflow on the Processing of Permits (Provisional and Temporary)

RMD


-Check previous records

(1.5 hrs)

Director’s Office

-Tracking, further instruction

(30 mins)

LAUD

-Investigation, appraisal, processing

-Clearance from DPWH, DOH, DOT, PPA

(3 weeks)

Legal Division

-Review of initial draft permit and draft letter to permittee

(2 days)

Assistant Director’s Office

-Initial of draft permit and draft letter to permittee

(2 days)

Director’s Office

-Signature and approval of permit and letter to permittee

(1 day)

LAUD

-Recording

-Preparation of Memorandum for Secretary, DENR for final approval

(1 day)

Assistant Director’s Office

-Initial on the Memorandum for the Secretary, DENR

(2 days)

Director’s Office

-Signature and approval

(1 week)

RMD

-Deliver folder to the Office of the Secretary, DENR

(1 day)

mailing of notice to

permittee

(1 day)

Flow Chart in Processing Land Application for Leases


-Investigate

-Record sheet approval

MSA (RA No. 730)

-Affidavit of applicant requesting direct sale

-Investigation report

-Letters of Clearance from District/City Engr, Local PPA, DPWH, Dept of Tourism

-Recommending approval of appraisal and authority to sell or lease land

-Collection of publication expenses of ore than P240.00

-Prepare notice of sale or lease

-Bidding (sealed or oral)

-Report of biding

-Proof of publication

-Posting

-Payments

-Preparation of order / award

-Final Investigation

-Order of Issuance of Lease Contract

-Approval of appraisal

-Prepare lease contract

-Refer to LMD-Letter furnishing the applicant of approved Lease Contract

LMD

ARED for Technical Services

RED

-Approval of appraisal

USEC

-Initial Lease Contract

SEC

-Approval of contract

Work Flow (Preliminary Processing) for MSA/IGPSA Land Applications

Land Records Information and

Statistics

-receives/ releases public land applications

1 25

3

Receiving/Releasing Clerk

-receives, records and releases folders to personnel/officials concerned

-types transmittal

4 6

14 16 18 20 23

OIC Land Management Division

-assessment of land examiner

-review and evaluation and initial stamping of notice of posting/publication

5 24 17 19

Examiners

-processing of public land applications

7 9 13 11

Researchers

-preparation of V-37

8

Projections

-verification of V-37

10

Field Investigation

Contract Compliance Monitoring

Section

-conducts preliminary investigation

2

Focal Person

-evaluation and review of documents attached in the public lands applications

15

ARED

-final eval’n

21

Typist / Encoder

-types diff docs relative to the public lands application and appraisal, letters to diff agencies and applicants transmittal

12

RED

-comments and/or 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 LOT NO.

PLAN NO. LOT NO.

AREA (SQ.M.) DECREE NO. TAX DEC.NO. LATEST

TITLE NO. REGISTERED OWNER ADDRESS REMARKS

I

PSU-97458

LOT 2

6,482

N-78010

557

-

DR. EMMANUEL GATCHALIAN JR.

FOR OCULAR INSPECTION

PSU-178037

7,456

N-165140

E-024-02519

-

OLIMPIO REYES & DOROTEO DELEON

50 EVANGELISTA ST. SANTOLAN, PASIG


PSU-110617 LOT 2

3,121 N-165086 E-024-02508 - MACARIO P. DE LEON 3RD 1 DE LEON EXT. SANTOLAN, PASIG CITY


PSU-124281 Amd LOT 2

5,482 NOT DECREED

- - - - PORTION OF LOT 29 PSU-107981


1,283 NOT DECREED

- - - - -


9,527 N-92072 E-024-04473 PT-83854 BEARING CENTER & MACHINERY

151 WILSON STREET, SAN JUAN

PORTION OF LOT 29 PSU-107981

PSU 107981 LOT 29

15,009 N-154905 E-024-01138 10579 MAGDALENA DE GUZMAN

PASIG CITY PORTION OF LOT 4 PSU-124281 Amd

II

PSU-124281 Amd LOT 3 PSU-107981

1,631 NOT DECREED

- - - - -

(LRC) PSU-91

LOT 13

623

NOT

DECREED

-

-

-

-

PORTION OF LOT 49-C-2-A-12-C-2-E-2

(LRC) PSU-91 LOT 12

1,095 NOT DECREED

- - - - PSD-9767 ORTIGAS & CO.

(LRC) PSU-91 LOT 19

809 NOT DECREED

- - - - -

III

(LRC) PSU-91 LOT 11

1,062 NOT DECREED

- - - - -

VACANT LOT NO.

PLAN NO. LOT NO.

AREA (SQ.M.)

DECREE NO. TAX DEC.NO. LATEST TITLE NO.

REGISTERED OWNER ADDRESS REMARKS

(LRC) PCS-7168

LOT 1

3,940

NOT

INDICATED

-

40605

CHINA BANKING CORP.

DASMARINAS,MLA.

SPURIOUS TITLE NO. RELATION TO LRC REC. NO. N-21630

LOT 5 PSU-235380

1,528 NOT DECREED

- - TEODORA GABRIEL & DOMINGA GABRIEL

- APPLIED AND DECIDED ON LRC REC. NO. N-46319

LOT 4 PSU-235380

703 NOT DECREED

- - TEODORA GABRIEL & DOMINGA GABRIEL


LOT 6 PSU-235386

1,578 NOT DECREED

- - HEIRS OF PAULA GABRIEL


LOT 5 PSU-235386

907 NOT DECREED

- - HEIRS OF PAULA GABRIEL


LOT 7 PSU-235388

969 NOT DECREED

- - MARCELA REYES VDA. DE BORJA

- APPLIED IN LRC REC. NO.N-60568

IV

LOT 6 PSU-235388

927 NOT DECREED

- - MARCELA REYES VDA. DE BORJA

- APPLIED IN LRC REC. NO.N-60568

PSU-231276

LOT 4

4,008

N-139963

E-024-00348

64480

PEAKTI CUA SY

445 ZARAGOSA ST.TONDO,MANILA

OK FOR NEGOTIATION

V

PSU-231276 LOT 5

482 N-139963 E-024-00348 64480 PEAKTI CUA SY 445 ZARAGOSA ST.TONDO,MANILA

OK FOR NEGOTIATION

VI

(LRC)

SWO-15198 LOT 5

4,689

N-154478

E-024-02855,

etc.

PT-103606,

etc.

SPS. JOSE J. LOMOTAN & MIGUELA P. LOMOTAN

14 SCOUT BORROMEO ST., QUEZON CITY

OK FOR NEGOTIATION, 60 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