1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 3

Findings On Why People Are Not Applying 4

Conclusion and Recommendations 6

Bibliography 8

Annexes

Annex A Republic Act No. 10023 9

Annex B Residential Free Patents Issued from 2003-2016 12

Annex C Stages in Residential Land Titling 13

Annex D Time and Costs in Title Application 14

Annex E Profile of Local Government Units 17

Annex F Profile of Participants 20

Annex G Lot Information 24

Annex H Survey Questionnaire in English 26

Annex I Survey Questionnaire in Filipino 27

Annex J Survey Questionnaire in Bisaya 29

Annex K Focus Group Discussion Guide and Questions 30

Annex L Consent Forms in English and Filipino 32

This report was produced under the Technology for Property Rights, a partnership of Omidyar Network, The Asia Foundation, and the Foundation for Economic Freedom. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Omidyar Network, The Asia Foundation or the Foundation for Economic Freedom. This report was made possible with the contributions of Angela Arnante, Ranna Maih Pintor, Loubert Tan, Diana Apistar, PhD, and Maria Isabel Almenteros.

3

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES: WHY CITIZENS DO NOT APPLY FOR LAND TITLES

Executive Summary

One of the puzzles of Philippine property rights is the existence of millions of occupied but untitled

public land parcels but seemingly limited demand for titling from occupants of these lands. According to

estimates, about 12 million lots are untitled, of which, about 8 million are residential. This report is an

initial, exploratory study on why, despite the passage of a law that created an administrative procedure to

title residential land, qualified lot occupants are not applying for land titles. Through a series of focus group

discussions (FGDs) in six provinces of the Philippines, the study identified two principal reasons. This first

is the perception that titling takes so much time and effort, and costs much. The second reason is the

relatively high cost of titling. Related, subsidiary or contributing to these are disputes among contending

parties and shortcomings in service delivery by the Government. This paper concludes that more work has

to be done in disseminating information about residential land titling—the process, benefits, and costs. It

also recommends certain interventions and activities that could make the titling process faster and more

efficient.

Introduction

There are an estimated 24 million lot parcels in the Philippines that are “Alienable and Disposable.”

Only half or 12 million are titled. Of the untitled parcels, eight million are residential lands and four million

are agricultural lands (as cited in Chikiamco and Fabella, 2011). In 2010, the Residential Free Patent Act

(see Annex A) was enacted. In the succeeding years, it contributed to an increase of title issuance for

residential lands. Prior to this, around 5,000 titles were issued per year but starting 2011 this number rose

to 50,000-60,000 residential titles annually (see Annex B).

According to a study of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF) that documented the

procedures for Residential Free Patent issuance1, there are five macro processes: 1) Adjudication; 2)

Subdivision Survey; 3) Community level review and approval; 4) Provincial level review and approval and 5)

Registration and Title Issuance (see Annex C).

In the application process, previous studies suggest that lot applicants face the following

challenges: 1) financial constraints; 2) lack of knowledge on the process; 3) lack of supporting papers, 4)

different types of conflicts over the land, 5) no subdivision survey; and 6) court cases on the land (Balagapo

et al, 2008; Bulayog, Predo, and Tausa, 2008; LAMP, 2004; World Bank, 2010). Others do not title their land

because of the perception that the process is costly and complex. Some said they are confident on the

security of informal rights and that access to the register is difficult (Burns, 2006).

1 Technology for Property Rights, July 2017. “Property Rights in the Philippines: A Time and Cost Study of Land Titling.”

4

This study furthermore explores the abovementioned reasons among 104 qualified2 residential

free patent title applicants (see ANNEX F) who have not applied for titles through a series of FGDs

conducted in chosen local government units (LGUs) in Batangas, Laguna, Cebu, Bohol, Agusan del Sur, and

Surigao del Sur (see ANNEX E).

Findings on Why People Are Not Applying

Lack of Information and Awareness

Lack of information and awareness on the titling process is the first major reason for not applying

for a title and it is manifested in several ways. FGD participants said they knew little or nothing about

requirements. While most of the participants said that they have tax declarations, approved subdivision

survey or Deed of Sale to support their application, a few said they have no documents at all. Some have

assumed that tax declarations or real property tax payments are enough proof of ownership so they did

not see the need to apply for a free patent (only when they were invited to the discussions they found out

that their lands are still untitled). Some did not know about the benefits of having a title, which is why they

have not bothered applying for one.

Almost three-fourths of the participants did not know where to get and submit their applications.

Some think they should submit to the Community level office or formally known as the Community

Environment and Natural Resource Office (CENRO) while others think they should course it through their

municipal assessor. All but 19 (out of how many) participants had no idea how much would they spend for

titling (guesses ranged from PhP 500 to PhP 50,000.00).

Many were not aware they were qualified for residential free patents. Some were not aware that

their land had been re-zoned for Residential use.

Expensive and Time-Consuming

All participants said it is costly and time-consuming to apply for a title. Several participants said

they wanted to get a title but were not able to do so because of financial constraints. A critical expense is

the acquisition of an approved subdivision survey, estimated to cost an average cost of PhP 10,000 per

parcel (see Annex D).

Apart from the costs related to titling, logistical costs and circumstances which vary per

municipality are taken into consideration. In some places, traveling to and from the Community level office

of DENR is not difficult because the fare is cheap, there is proper transportation infrastructure, or it is not

2 First, he/she must be a Filipino citizen. Second, the area of the land applied for should be within the required parameters for each type of

municipality or city as mentioned in Republic Act 10023. Third, he/she must be occupying the land applied for not less than 10 years. Lastly, the land applied for is not needed for public service and/or public use.

5

far. However, there are some participants who said that traveling to the Community-level DENR office

would take them one or two hours each way. Some would need to spend around PhP 200.00 for a trip to

the Community office, and the same amount to get back home. The usual modes of transportation are the

jeep, bus, tricycle, habal-habal (tandem on a motorbike), or a combination of the four. Interestingly, two

participants even said they have to use the ferry boat to go from one island to the next just to reach the

Community level office. Of course, the application cannot be completed with one visit, and applicants have

to make several trips.

One participant said he would rather spend the money in for the education of his children. Another

said that if he purchased a land for PhP 15,000 and titling it would take almost the same amount, he would

rather buy another piece of land. When asked how much are they willing to spend to title their lands, less

than a third said that they can afford spending PhP 500-1,500 only while another third said they can only

spend less than PhP 500. Spending within the range of PhP 1,501.00-3,000.00 is agreeable to 15

participants and spending until PhP 5,000 is affordable by 10 participants. Shelling out PhP 5,001.00-

10,000.00 is alright with two participants; spending more than that amount can be afforded by only seven

participants.

Out of 104, 28 participants disclosed that they have an annual income of less than PhP 40,000.00.

To them, more than 10,000.00 Php for titling is a steep price3.

Many participants said they do not have the time to take care of their applications. Furthermore,

waiting for their siblings or relatives’ approval for titling can take a very long time.

Disputes

Although only five participants said they have encountered disputes among their neighbors or

within their families, their stories are worth noting. A female participant, 58 years old and unemployed,

from Cordova said that someone had claimed her lot (per annotation of her tax declaration). In Cavinti,

Laguna, a participant said that someone is living on her lot and she could not get them to leave. Another

participants said his lot has two recorded sizes. In Maribojoc, Bohol, a 54-year old seaman, said that

disagreement within his family hampered his application.

Government Shortcomings

Some administrative and procedural hurdles also discourage application. In Bohol and Laguna, the

Provincial level officers admitted that the lack of awareness of the citizens is due to the lack of human

resources to disseminate the information and do follow-ups on the status of the applications. Furthermore,

in the case of Consolacion, Cebu, a titling project was conducted where the staff from the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) would go to the houses of the lot occupants and do a survey.

However, this did not have any follow-up work and the applicants were abandoned. A few more

3 An FEF study on the costs and duration of titling estimates that the typical cost of getting a Residential Free Patent is near PhP 16,350 ($327.00).

6

participants said that it would take a long time to apply for a title because of too much bureaucratic process,

being passed to various people and offices unnecessarily.

Another participant from Maribojoc, Bohol shared that when he was about to submit his

application, instead of the Community level officer receiving it, he was told to return some other time

because the office has already reached the quota of applications for that year.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The biggest reason why participants in our FGDs did not apply for a title is that they think it will

take much time and effort, and cost too much. This perception is partly wrong and partly correct. On one

hand, respondents were insufficiently aware about the free patent titling process for residential lands, and

on other hand they were correct about some complexity in gathering required supporting documents and

the cost of acquiring an approved subdivision survey.

Insufficient awareness, in our respondents and in in related literature, is manifested in several

circumstances. First, the participant does not know what the requirements are, where and how to get these

documents, and where to submit them (with this is either having wrong or no knowledge about the costs

of titling). Second, the respondent does not know that he/she is qualified to apply for a tile.

Respondents said an approved subdivision could cost PhP 10,000.00. Adding on the cost of other

requirements, applying could seem - and actually be - expensive.

The perception that there are so many requirements to comply with, that this will consume much

time and require overcoming bureaucratic hurdles - all these have discouraged qualified lot occupants.

Also, disputes with other family members or neighbors over the land can slows down, if not stops, the lot

occupant from moving on with the application.

Insufficient efforts on the part of Government to disseminate information on lot disposition status,

the requirements and procedures of titling, is one reason why lot occupants are not getting enough

information needed for titling. Data mismatch in some documents of the same land leads to confusion and

begs for more time to fix them. For example, a 60-year old participants from Cordova, Cebu said that the

size of his lot in the technical description is 400 sqm but in his tax declaration, it is only 167 sqm.

Despite all these, participants expressed the need and desire for a title for their lands. They clamor

for a) more information on the titling process and b) lower cost of titling.

One possible way to encourage lot occupants to apply for titles is for Government to take the lead.

When a mass systematic titling is implemented, people are compelled to comply with the requirements

and to follow through on the status of their applications. Government employees, at the other end, are

obliged to fulfill their task. Thus one is expected to comply while the other is expected to deliver.

7

With this, this study the recommends the following:

a. DENR should implement a mass titling program all over the country so that even those living in

far-flung areas, who currently have no access to the public land titling services, can be covered;

b. DENR and LGUs should conduct an awareness campaign on the RA 10023 by producing

information, communication, and educational materials, TV or radio ads or any means of

information dissemination. The content of the campaign should include the “Why”, “What”

and “How” of the titling process - benefits and costs of getting a title;

c. DENR and LGUs should capacitate their staff and personnel in processing land title applications

and issuing titles.

d. FEF should conduct an in-depth study on the benefits of getting a residential title among the

beneficiaries of RA 10023;

e. DENR and LGUs should explore and initiate reforms that could lower the costs of titling

(specially the cost of getting a subdivision survey) and make the titling process faster and more

efficient.

While this study only covered 10 municipalities all over the Philippines, it cannot be denied that

more work has to be done in titling lands. Proper information dissemination and exploring ways to lower

titling costs are some keys to encourage people to apply for a land title especially if they are qualified.

While the goal is not to make the lands titled for it to be tradeable and bankable, it is important to know

that with a title, a piece of land has more uses for the lot owner. One has a tangible proof that he owns the

land and that he cannot be evicted, unless the government deems to use it for the good of the public. One

has something to use when he/she loans from the bank for various reasons. One has security of tenure.

One has something to pass on to his/her hers.

8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agusan del Sur Provincial Board of Investment (2014). The Economy. Retrieved from http://pbi.agusandel

sur.gov.ph/index.php?option =com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9

Balagapo, A.A., Petilos, G.P., Espina, M.R., Conde, M.A., Monge, M.M., & Oñate, L.G. (2008). Costs and

Time to Secure and Issue Titles Under Systematic snd Sporadic Land Titling Procedures. Tacloban:

Leyte Normal University.

Bulayog, M.S.B., Presio, C.D., & Tausa, E. (2008). Impacts of Land Titling on Resource Productivity and Land

Values of Smallholder Farms in Leyte, Philippines Report G14. Manila: DENR-LAMP

Burns, T. (2006). Land Administration Reform: Indicators of Success, Future Challenges. Washington D.C.:

World Bank.

CALABARZON Department of Interior and Local Government (2014a). Cavinti. Retrieved

http://calabarzon.dilg.gov.ph/91-lgus/laguna?start=8

-----------(2014b). Pangil. Retrieved from http://calabarzon.dilg.gov.ph/91-lgus/laguna?start=20.

-----------(2016). Cuenca. Retrieved from http://www.calabarzon.dilg.gov.ph/cuencabatangas

Chikiamco, C. & Fabella, R.V, (2011). Property Rights Reform in the Philippines: The Residential Free Patent

Act. Built on Dreams Grounded in Reality. Makati: The Asia Foundation.

Cordova (2016). About Cordova. Retrieved from http://cordova.gov.ph/index.php/about-

cordova/economic-sector

Department of Agrarian Reform (2005). Case study on lease rental arrangement: NGPI and NGEI

multipurpose cooperatives and Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation, Inc. in San Francisco and Rosario,

Agusan del Sur. Retrieved from http://www.dar.gov.ph/downloads/category/93-

Case%20Study%20on%20Agribusiness%20Ventures%20Arrangements%20(AVAs)?download=898

:ava-ngepi-ngei-agusan-del-sur.

Land Administration and Management Project (2004). Project Completion Report Volume 1.

National Competitiveness Council (2016d). Municipality of Cordova. Retrieved from

http://www.competitive.org.ph/cmcindex/ pages/historical/?lgu=Cordova

Philippine Statistics Authority (2012). City and Municipal-Level Small Area Poverty Estimates. Quezon City:

Philippine Statistics Authority.

----------(2017). Philippine Standard Geographic Code. Quezon City: Philippine Statistics Authority.

Provincial Government of Bohol (2016a). Municipality of Clarin. Retrieved from

http://bohol.gov.ph/municipalities/2nd-district/clarin/

----------(2016b). Municipality of Maribojoc. Retrieved from http://bohol.gov.ph/municipalities/1st-

district/maribojoc/

Province of Surigao del Sur (2015). Surigao del Sur Abaca Investment Plan. Retrieved from

http://drive.daprdp.net/iplan/pcip/PCIP+of+Surigao+del+Sur+(Abaca).pdf

World Bank. 2010. Study on gender impacts of land titling in post-tsunami Aceh, Indonesia. Washington,

DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/12638146 8285613599/Study-on-

gender-impacts-of-land-titling-in-post-tsunami-Aceh-Indonesia

9

ANNEX A

Residential Free Patent Act or RA 10023

10

11

12

4057 2448 2571 3125 3282 3977 46096647

58486 59717

51850

6090258064

53242

0

17500

35000

52500

70000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

No

. o

f ti

tles

issu

ed

Year Source: DENR Records

ANNEX B

Figure 1. Residential Free Patents Issued, 2003-201

13

ANNEX C

Table 2. Stages in Residential Land Titling4

Stage Description

Adjudication A lot occupant applies for a free patent. Availability of the applied lot for titling is verified. A local inspector, advises the applicant on the grounds for his claim. He also identifies the documents needed to support that claim. Two Kinds: Sporadic adjudication A lot occupant approaches the government where he asks the local inspector to check if the lot applied for can be titled. The local inspector interviews the applicant and conducts field inspection. He/she then helps the applicant to understand the basis of his/her claim and identifies the documents that have to be submitted to support the claim. Systematic adjudication The government approaches the lot occupants. The local inspector checks the records, identifies which lots can be titled, inspects these lots, and interviews the occupants to validate the information at hand.

Subdivision Survey Many free patent applicants live on lots that have been covered in cadastral surveys as “mother lots.” There can be more than one applicant living on one mother lot. DENR requires a separate technical description for each parcel within the mother lot. This is why subdivision surveys are needed. Surveyors or Geodetic Engineers (GE) have to get authorization to conduct surveys. Subdivision survey in Sporadic Adjudication is limited to one lot while systematic adjudication covers several adjacent or contiguous lots. Surveys are done faster in sporadic adjudication, but are more efficient (and cost-effective) for systematic adjudication.

Community level review and approval (Community Environment and Natural

Resources Office/CENRO)

Validation activities are conducted such as double-checking the availability of the lot and confirming the lot description.

Provincial level review and approval (Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources Office/PENRO)

A Provincial level officer signs the free patent and endorses it to the local registrar.

Registration and Title Issuance The local registrar issues and releases the original title to the applicant.

4 Technology for Property Rights, July 2017. “Property Rights in the Philippines: A Time and Cost Study of Land Titling.”

14

ANNEX D

Table 1. Official and Unofficial Expenses for a Residential Free Patent Application

Stage Item Cost (PhP) Percent (%)

Adjudication Application fee and documentary stamp

250.00 1.53

“Package Deal” 2,000.00 12.23

Fees for supporting documents 2,000.00 12.23

Subdivision Survey 10,000.00 61.16

Community Level Review and Approval (CENRO)

Provincial Level Review and Approval (PENRO)

Registration and Title Issuance Registration Fee 50.00 0.31

ICT Fee 1,950.00 11.93

Cadastral fee 50.00 0.31

Documentary Stamp 50.00 0.31

TOTAL 16,350.00 100.00

Source:

Technology for Property Rights, July 2017. “Property Rights in the Philippines: A Time and Cost Study of Land Titling.”

15

Table 2. Timeline for Residential Free Patent Issuance, Sporadic

STAGE NUMBER OF PROCESSING DAYS NOTES

Sporadic Adjudication 70 10 days for investigation 60 days for compliance with requirements

Subdivision Survey 60 Includes applying for survey authority, securing the survey data, actual survey, approval. Assumes that the clients are able to pay for the survey right away.

Community Level Review and Approval (CENRO)

120 Single application processing can be fast (compared to batch processing for Systematic Adjudication) and can be finished in 40 days if application requirements are complete

Provincial Level Review and Approval (PENRO)

5

Registration and Title Issuance 60 Can take up to 2 months

Total 315

Source:

Technology for Property Rights, July 2017. “Property Rights in the Philippines: A Time and Cost Study of Land Titling.”

Table 3. Timeline for Residential Free Patent Issuance, Systematic

STAGE NUMBER OF PROCESSING DAYS NOTES

Systematic Adjudication 320 130 days for preparation of lot information 60 days for RLTA 10 days for Barangay Assembly 60 days for actual adjudication 60 days for compliance with requirements

16

Subdivision Survey 60 Can be longer if there are more lots to be surveyed

Community Level Review and Approval (CENRO)

120 Batch processing

Provincial Level Review and Approval (PENRO)

5 Mostly re-validation and ministerial

Registration and Title Issuance 60 Can be longer

Total 565

Source:

Technology for Property Rights, July 2017. “Property Rights in the Philippines: A Time and Cost Study of Land Titling.”

17

ANNEX E

PROFILES OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

Pangil, Laguna

Pangil is a Fourth Class municipality in Laguna with a population of 24,274 living in a total of eight

(8) barangays (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017). It is a rural area with upland, lowland, and shoreline

communities. Its major income sources are agriculture, retail merchandising, and services (CALABARZON

DILG, 2014b). It has waterfalls, rivers, nature trails, and forests making it an ecotourism hub. It is home to

the Pangil River Eco-Park, a popular tourist destination. Pangil has a poverty incidence5 of 16.2% (PSA,

2012).

Pangil’s partnership with DENR on land titling was established through Ordinance 12, series of

2012. It is 47.5 km far from the CENRO located in Los Baňos, Laguna. It is 55 km and 45 km from its assigned

DENR regional office in Calamba City and provincial office in Los Baňos, Laguna, respectively.

Cavinti, Laguna

Cavinti is a Third Class and rural municipality in Laguna with a population of approximately 21,702

living in a total of 19 barangays (PSA, 2017). Located between the foothills of Sierra Madre Mountain Range

and Laguna lake, its topography is a longitudinal traversing of many minor ridges and drainage basins. Its

major sources of income are agriculture and tourism (CALABARZON DILG, 2014a). It is famous for resorts

such as the Calirana Resort and Caliraya Springs Golf and Marina Resort. It has poverty incidence of 14.0%

(PSA, 2012).

Cavinti’s distance from its CENRO in Los Banos Laguna is 40.4 km. It is 48 km and 42 km from its

assigned DENR regional office in Calamba City and provincial office in Los Baňos, Laguna, respectively.

Cuenca, Batangas

Cuenca is a Fourth Class and rural municipality in Batangas with a population of 32,783 living in a

total of 21 barangays (PSA, 2017). As an agro-based economy, its main sources of income are agriculture

and fishery. It also has commercial and service centers. It is known for Mt. Maculot and bounded on the

north by Lake Taal (CALABARZON DILG, 2016). It has a poverty incidence 8.6% (PSA, 2012). Cuenca’s

partnership with DENR on land titling was established through Executive Order (EO) No. 1 Series of 2012.

Cuenca’s distance from its assigned CENRO in Lipa City is 12.3 km. It is 43 km and 25 km away from

its DENR regional office in Calamba City and provincial office in Lipa City, respectively.

Cordova, Cebu

Cordova is a Third Class and rural municipality in Cebu Province, the second of only two LGUs in

Mactan Island. Cordova has 59,712 residents in 13 barangays (PSA, 2017). It has a rocky soil suitable for

urban development. Its main economic activities are fishing, stone extracting, shell gleaning and gathering,

guso farming, service/labour and ecotourism (Cordova, 2016). Its infrastructure includes a seaport (a third

5 Poverty incidence is the proportion of people below the poverty line to the total population.

18

Cebu-Mactan bridge is planned to land in Cordova). It is only 12 km away from the Mactan International

Airport (NCC, 2016). It has a poverty incidence of 14.3% (PSA, 2012).

The DENR-LGU partnership on land titling in Cordova started in 2011 through a Memorandum of

Partnership Agreement (MOPA) between the Municipality of Cordova and DENR and through Executive

Order (EO) No. 17. Cordova’s active participation in the partnership brought about the titling of most of its

lands. Public land titling helped increase its collection of real estate taxes in the municipality where there

was an increase of about 95% from 2011 to 2013. Cordova also has its own Cadastral Council. Cordova is

16.6 km away from is assigned CENRO in Cebu City. It is 19 km and 20 km from its assigned DENR regional

office in Mandaue City and provincial office in Cebu City, respectively.

Consolacion, Cebu

Consolacion is a First Class and partly urban municipality in Cebu Province. It has an estimated

131,528 inhabitants living in a total of 21 barangays (PSA, 2017). It has a SM shopping mall in its boundary.

Consolacion has a poverty incidence of 9.3% (PSA, 2012).

Consolacion has a partnership with DENR on residential titling through a MOPA and EO. Its distance

from the CENRO in Cebu City is 19.7 km. It is 15 km and 19 km from the DENR regional office in Mandaue

City and provincial office in Cebu City, respectively.

Clarin, Bohol

Clarin is a Fifth Class and rural municipality in Bohol. It has a population of 37,548 living in a total

of 24 barangays (PSA, 2017). More than a quarter of its population, 26.4%, lives below the poverty line. It

is located next to the sea in the north-east of Bohol and is 61 km located away from the provincial capital

of Tagbilaran (Provincial Government of Bohol, 2016). Major economic activities in the municipality include

farming and fishing.

The municipality entered into a partnership with DENR on land titling through a MOPA signed in

2012. Clarin is 53.6 km away from its assigned CENRO in Tagbilaran City. A boat ride is needed to get to its

DENR regional office in Mandaue City that is 60 km away. It is also 41 km far from the provincial office in

Cebu City.

Maribojoc, Bohol

Maribojoc is a Fourth Class and rural municipality in Bohol. Maribojoc has 20,688 inhabitants living

in a total of 22 barangays. (PSA, 2017). It has a poverty incidence of 17.3% (PSA, 2012). It has access to the

sea and is located in the south-east of Bohol, only 13 km away of the provincial capital of Tagbilaran (with

the sea- and airport nearby). Major industries in Maribojoc include cottage Industries, furniture and hollow-

block making and homemade pastries (Provincial Government of Bohol, 2016b).

Maribojoc entered into a partnership with DENR on land titling through a MOPA signed in 2012.

Maribojoc is 13.3 km away from its assigned CENRO located in Tagbilaran City. Like Clarin, a boat ride is

needed to get to its assigned regional office in Mandaue City which is 84 km away. The assigned provincial

office is 7 km far that is in Tagbilaran City.

19

San Miguel, Surigao del Sur

San Miguel is a First Class and urban municipality in Surigao del Sur. San Miguel has a population

of 17,464 living in a total of 18 barangays (PSA, 2017). More than a third of its population, 37.5%, is living

below the poverty line (PSA, 2012). It has the biggest share of land area in Region 13. It has vast rice lands

and its economy is dominated by rice farmers (Province of Surigao del Sur, 2015). San Miguel ventured into

a partnership with DENR on land titling through a Memorandum of Agreement in 2013.

San Miguel’s distance from its assigned CENRO in Tandag is 47.6 km. It is also 199km far from the

DENR CARAGA regional office and 195km far from its provincial office that are both in Butuan City.

Marihatag, Surigao del Sur

Marihatag is a Third Class and rural municipality in Surigao del Sur. Marihatag has a population of

18,518 living in a total of 12 barangays (PSA, 2017). It has the third biggest forestland in the region deveoted

for abaca production (Province of Surigao del Sur, 2015). Similar with San Miguel, Marihatag has a poverty

incidence of 38% (PSA, 2012). The municipality, furthermore, has direct access to the sea and economic

activities in the municipality include rice, coconut, and abaca production (Department of Agriculture, 2010).

Marihatag also entered into a partnership with DENR on land titling through a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) in 2013.

Marihatag is 27.2 km away from its assigned CENRO in Lianga. It is also 116 km far from the DENR

CARAGA regional office and 116 km far from its provincial office that are both in Butuan City.

San Francisco, Agusan del Sur

San Francisco is a First Class municipality in Agusan del Sur. San Francisco has 71,000 inhabitants

living in a total of 27 barangays (PSA, 2017). Almost a third of its population, 30.8%, lives below the poverty

line. It is the center of economic activities in the province and the leading producer of palm oil in the region

(Department of Agrarian Reform, 2005). Other industries such as fine jewelry, furniture, and woodcrafts

can also be found here. Some areas in San Francisco has mining as a booming industry (Agusan del Sur

Provincial Board of Investment, 2014).

Land titling activities in San Francisco started in 2009, in partnership with DENR, when it established

a one-stop shop in conducting free surveys. With the enactment of RA 10023 a year after, the municipality

has worked on titling residential lots. In 2015, San Francisco officially partnered with DENR through a MOA

to strengthen their work on titling.

San Francisco is 58.4 km away from its assigned CENRO located in Bunawan, Agusan del

Sur. It is also 89 km far from the DENR CARAGA regional office in Butuan City and 22 km far from its

provincial office in Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur.

20

Luzon34%

Visayas44%

Mindanao22%

ANNEX F

PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS

Pangil29%

Cavinti37%

Cuenca34%

Clarin26%

Maribojoc19%

Consolacion20%

Cordova35%

San Miguel26%

Marihatag26%

San Francisco

48%

There is a total of 104 participants for this study. Of

which, 35 (33%) came from Luzon, 46 (44%) from Visayas, and

23 (22%). In Luzon, of the 35 participants, 12 (34%) were from

Cuenca, Batangas, 10 (29%) from Pangil, Laguna, and 13 (37%)

from Cavinti, Laguna. For Visayas, of the 46 participants, 16

(35%) came from Cordova, Cebu, 9 (20%) from Consolacion,

Cebu, 12 (26%) from Clarin, Bohol, and 9 (19%) from

Maribojoc, Bohol. In Mindanao, of the 22 participants, 10

(46%) came from San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, 6 (27%) from

San Miguel, Surigao del Sur, and 6 (27%) from Marihatag,

Surigao del Sur.

Originally, two municipalities were picked per

Province but only one municipality was able to join from

Agusan del Sur and Batangas due to natural calamity and

sudden unavailability of the local officials, respectively.

Figure 2. Overall Number of Participants

Figure 5. Mindanao Participants

Figure 4. Visayas Participants

Figure 3. Luzon Participants

21

Out of 104 participants, 51 (49%) are

landowners and two of them have lands that are owned

by more than one person. For those who answered No,

49 (47%), are related to the landowners. Of which, 15

(31%) are the landowner’s spouse, 12 are either a son or

daughter (24%), and 20 (47%) are relatives—in-laws,

nephews, niece, grandchild, grandparents, or parents. Of

the 104 participants, 40 (38%) are male while 64 (62%)

are female.

For the age, majority of the

participants came from the age range of 36-71

years old. Of which, 39 (37.5%) participants

are within the age range of 48-59 years old, 21

(20.2%) are 36-47 years old, and 19 (18.3%)

are 60-71 years old. There are nine (8.6%)

participants whose ages are between 24-35

years old and another nine (8.6%) for the 72-

83 years old age group while the rest (6.7%)

did not give an answer.

Figure 8. Age

Yes49%No

47%

No Answer

4%

Spouse31%

Son/Daughter24%

Relative41%

Others4%

Relationship to the Lot Owner

Figure 6. Lot occupancy

Are you the lot owner?

M, 40, 38%

F, 64, 62%

Figure 7. Sex

7

9

21

39

19

9

0 10 20 30 40 50

No Answer

24-35

36-47

48-59

60-71

72-83

Number of Participants

Age

Ran

ge

22

Figure 11. Jobs

As for the civil status of the participants, 81 (78%) are

married, 10 (9%) are single, three (3%) are widows, while

the rest did not give an answer.

For the highest educational attainment, 38 (36.5%) participants are college graduates, 23 (22.1%)

are high school graduates, and 12 (11.5%) are elementary graduates. There also four (3.8%) participants

who have some elementary education, four (3.8%) have some high school education, and five (4.8%) have

some college education. Only one (0.96%) finished graduate school while two (1.92%) finished vocational

courses. The rest, 16 (15.4%) did not give an answer.

7, 7%4, 4%

12, 11%

13, 12%

3, 3%

10, 10%5, 5%

14, 13%

7, 7%

5, 5%

10, 10%

14, 13% Housewife

Teacher, Seaman, Engineer

Barangay captains and councilors

Clerks

Government Healthcare workers

Farmers, Fishermen

House Painter, Mechanic, Laborer, Technician

Housekeeper, vendor

Retired

Self-employed, volunteer

No Job

No Answer

Single, 10, 9%

Married, 81, 78%

Widow, 3, 3%

No Answer, 10, 10%

Figure 9. Civil status

4

12

4

23

5

38

1 2

16

05

10152025303540

ElementaryLevel

ElementaryGraduate

High SchoolLevel

High SchoolGradute

College Level CollegeGraduate

GraduateSchool

Vocational No Answer

No

. of

Par

tici

pan

ts

Level of Education

Figure. 10 Highest Educational Attainment

23

As for the jobs, of the 104, 10 (9.61%) do not have jobs, seven (6.7%) are retired, seven (6.73%)

are housewives, and 14 (13.46%) do not have an answer. Of the 65 participants with jobs, 14 (21.5%) have

elementary occupations such as housekeeping and vending; 10 (15.4%) are either farmers or fishermen;

12 (18.5%) works for the barangay as captain or councilor; three (4.6%) are government healthcare

workers; 13 (20%) work as office clerks; five (7.7%) are skilled laborers such as being a house painter,

mechanic, laborer, or technician; four (6.2%) are teacher, seaman, and engineer; four (6.2%) are self-

employed and one is a volunteer.

Figure 12. Estimated Annual Income

For the estimated annual income, 41 (39.4%) chose not disclose while 64 (61.54%) did. Of the 64,

28 (43.75%) have an income of under PhP 40,000; eight (12.5%) are within the PhP 40,000-PhP 59,999

income range; 11 (17.19%) earn PhP 60,000- PhP 99,999; nine (14.06%) earn PhP 100,000- PhP 249,999;

and seven (17.19%) have an income of PhP 250,000 and up.

41

28

8

11

9

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

No answer

under 40,000

40,000-59,999

60,000-99,999

100,000-249,999

250,000 and over

Number of Participants

Inco

me

Ran

ge (

Ph

P)

24

ANNEX G

LOT INFORMATION

On the sizes of the lots of the participants, of the 104, 34 (32.7%) have no answers because they

do not know the size of their lots. Of the remaining 70 (67.3%), 37 (52.9%) have a lot size of 101-250 sqm;

14 (20%) have a lot size within 30-100 sqm; eight (11.4%) have a lot size within 251-500 sqm; size (8.6%)

have lot areas within 501-750 sqm; and three (4.3%) have lots with an area of 1,500 sqm which are to be

subdivided.

As for the number of years residing on the

lot, 23 (21.8%) respondents said they have been

living on their lots for 1-10 years; 14 (13.3%) are on

their lots for 21-30 years and another 14 (13.3%) for

31-40 years; 12 (20.2%) for 51-60 years of

residency; and eight (7.7%) for 11-20 years of

residency. Four (3.8%) respondents said that their

families have been living on their lots for 71-80

years. Another four (3.8%) have been living on it for

91-100 years and two (1.9%) more said their family

have been living on the land for over 100 years. The

rest do not have an answer because they do not

know especially when they were just representing

the lot owner.

The participants were also asked how many people have been residing on their respective lots. Of

the 104, 74 (70.4%) have 1-10 residents; 14 (13.3%) have 11-20 residents; 3 (2.86%) have 31 and more

residents; and one (0.95%) has 21-30 residents. The rest, 11 (10.48%), have no response.

14

37

8 62 3

34

0

10

20

30

40

30-100 101-250 251-500 501-750 751-1000 1500 andabove

no answer

No

. of P

arti

cip

ants

Area in Square Meters

Figure 13. Lot Area

9

23

8

14

14

8

12

6

4

4

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

No answer

1-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

31-40 years

41-50 years

51-60 years

61-70 years

71-80 years

91-100 years

101 years and above

Number of Participants

Nu

mb

er o

f Ye

ars

the

lot

is o

ccu

pie

d

Figure 14. Number of Years Residing on the Lot

25

For the mode of acquisition, of the 104 participants, 41 (39.05%) have purchased the lot; 40

(38.1%) have inherited the land; 6 (5.71%) were given the lot, through a deed of donation; and four (3.81%)

have been invited to reside on the lot. Two (1.9%) participants do not have an answer.

The participants have several structures built on their lots. Of the 104 participants, 68 (65.4 %) have

houses only, 4 (3.84%) has a store, a garden, a house for animals such as pigs and chickens, or a basketball

court only on their lots. The rest, 32 (30.77%) have a combination of either of the mentioned structures

plus carinderia (a small restaurant), parking lots, storage areas.

11

2

74

14

1

2

0 20 40 60 80

No answer

None

1 to 10

11 to 20

21 to 30

31 and above

Number of Participants

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le r

esid

ing

on

th

e lo

t

2

5

4

6

39

41

0 10 20 30 40 50

No answer

Others

Lent/Invited

Given

Inherited

Purchased

Number of Participants

Mo

de

of

Acq

uis

itio

n

Figure 15. Number of People Residing on the Lot Figure 16. Mode of Lot Acquisition

26

ANNEX H

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH)

27

ANNEX I

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (FILIPINO)

28

29

ANNEX J

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (BISAYA)

30

ANNEX K

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE AND QUESTIONNAIRE

31

32

ANNEX L

CONSENT FORMS (ENGLISH AND FILIPINO)