1) The short thesis

Yes—a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) can validly cover land that already has a Torrens title (TCT/OCT), because the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) covers private agricultural land regardless of whether it is titled or untitled. A Torrens title is not a shield against agrarian coverage.

But a CLOA cannot validly “cover” titled land when (a) the land is outside CARP’s legal scope (exempt/excluded or not agricultural at the legally relevant time), or (b) the government’s acquisition and coverage process violated jurisdictional limits or due process. In those situations, the coverage—and the resulting CLOA and CLOA-based title—may be attacked through the correct forum and on correct grounds, often hinging on jurisdiction and the nature of the controversy.

This article explains: what a CLOA is, when titled land may be covered, the common “improper coverage” patterns, where to challenge them (DAR, DARAB, Special Agrarian Courts, RTC/MTC), and how jurisdictional errors shape outcomes.

2) The legal framework you must have in mind

Constitutional foundation

The 1987 Constitution mandates agrarian reform as a social justice program, allowing the State to redistribute agricultural land subject to just compensation and respect for rights.

Statutory anchors

R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), as amended (notably by R.A. 9700), sets the scope, process, and institutions of CARP/CARPER.
P.D. 27 (and related issuances) governs earlier rice/corn land reform and Emancipation Patents (EPs)—conceptually similar to CLOAs but legally distinct in origin.
R.A. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended, is central for leasehold/tenancy relations—crucial for deciding whether a dispute is “agrarian” and thus within agrarian forums.

The institutional map

DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform): policy, implementation, and many administrative determinations—especially coverage, exemption/exclusion, conversion, and beneficiary identification.
DARAB (DAR Adjudication Board) and DAR adjudicators: resolve agrarian disputes (tenancy/leasehold issues, cancellation cases tied to agrarian relations/beneficiary qualifications, etc., depending on the governing rules and the nature of the claim).
Special Agrarian Courts (SACs): designated Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) with jurisdiction principally over just compensation cases (and certain CARP-related matters assigned by law).
Regular courts (RTC/MTC): civil and criminal cases that are not agrarian in nature, including many actions involving title/possession—but often constrained by the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion when agrarian issues are embedded.

3) What exactly is a CLOA—and why it can collide with a TCT

Definition and purpose

A CLOA is the State’s instrument awarding ownership of CARP-covered land to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs). Once issued and registered, it is typically reflected in the Registry of Deeds and functions as a form of title (often annotated as a CARP award and subject to statutory restrictions).

Important characteristics

It is a product of agrarian reform authority, not an ordinary private conveyance.
It comes with restrictions (notably limits on transfer/alienation for a statutory period and conditions tied to beneficiary compliance, amortization rules, and prohibited acts).
It can be individual or collective (e.g., plantations historically received collective CLOAs; policy has evolved over time to address subdivision and individualization issues).
Registration matters: once registered, a CLOA may be transposed into an OCT/TCT in the name of the ARB(s), with CARP annotations.

Why a titled land can still be validly CLOA-covered

CARP targets agricultural land as a land-use class, not “untitled land.” A Torrens title proves ownership, but does not determine whether the land is within CARP coverage. Many large agricultural estates are—and have always been—titled.

4) So, can a CLOA cover titled land? Yes—but only through lawful CARP acquisition

The general rule

Private agricultural lands are within CARP’s coverage whether titled or not. If land is agricultural and not exempt/excluded, DAR may cover it and, through the lawful process, cause transfer of ownership to ARBs, resulting in CLOA issuance and registration.

The lawful pathway (high-level)

Although details vary by mode (Compulsory Acquisition, Voluntary Offer to Sell, etc.), CARP coverage and acquisition generally require:

Identification of land as potentially coverable agricultural land
Notice to the landowner and opportunity to be heard
Field investigation and classification/use determination
Valuation and just compensation process (with Land Bank participation)
Transfer steps that allow eventual issuance/registration of CLOA in favor of beneficiaries

A key practical point: the landowner’s TCT is not “ignored”; it is displaced through legal acquisition. Improper coverage disputes often arise when that displacement occurs without the required jurisdictional basis or due process.

5) When titled land should NOT be CLOA-covered: the main categories of improper coverage

Improper coverage is usually not about “titled vs. untitled.” It is about scope, classification, jurisdiction, and timing.

A) The land is not “agricultural land” in the legally relevant sense

CARP covers agricultural land, generally meaning land devoted to agricultural activity and not validly classified for non-agricultural uses at the controlling time under law and jurisprudence.

Landmark guidepost: Natalia Realty (Supreme Court) is widely cited for the principle that land already reclassified/approved for residential use prior to CARP’s effectivity (June 15, 1988) may be outside CARP scope—because it is not “agricultural land” for CARP purposes at that critical time.

Common factual patterns:

Subdivision development approvals predating CARP
Government proclamations or land-use classifications showing non-agricultural character before June 15, 1988
Established built-up residential/commercial use supported by approvals and historical records

Caution: Reclassification by LGU after June 15, 1988 often does not automatically remove land from CARP without proper DAR conversion clearance (the reclassification-vs-conversion distinction is a frequent litigation trap).

B) The land is exempt or excluded by law

Even if titled, land may be:

Excluded because it is not within alienable/disposable agricultural land (e.g., forest land, mineral land, certain reservations)
Exempt due to specific statutory categories (e.g., lands for certain public purposes, and other categories set by law and implementing rules)

Jurisdictional collision: classification of public lands (forest/mineral) is principally within DENR authority; DAR cannot, by itself, transform forest land into agricultural land.

C) The land is already validly converted, or conversion authority is missing

A frequent “improper coverage” allegation is:

“This is already residential/industrial by LGU zoning.” That argument is only as strong as the timing and legal effect of the reclassification, and whether DAR conversion was required and obtained.

Practical takeaway: The controlling question is rarely “what does the tax declaration say?” but “what is the legally recognized land classification/use at the relevant time under CARP rules and jurisprudence?”

D) The land is within the landowner’s retention rights—or covered beyond lawful limits

CARP recognizes retention (commonly up to a statutory ceiling, subject to qualifications and rules). Coverage that ignores or improperly denies retention can be attacked.

Retention disputes are intensely fact-specific: ownership structure, total landholdings, prior distributions, notices, and whether retention was properly and timely asserted.

E) The land is used for activities jurisprudentially treated as outside CARP coverage

Landmark guidepost: Luz Farms (Supreme Court) is known for excluding land used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage, emphasizing that the program targets agricultural land devoted to crop production, not those specific industrialized livestock operations.

F) The coverage process was jurisdictionally defective or denied due process

Even if the land could be covered in theory, procedural violations can render coverage and acquisition vulnerable.

Landmark guidepost: DAR v. Roxas & Co. is widely invoked on due process in CARP acquisition—particularly the need for proper notice and opportunity to be heard during compulsory acquisition.

Typical defects raised:

No valid service of Notice of Coverage (or service to wrong party)
No real opportunity to participate or contest classification/coverage
Coverage proceeded despite pending exemption/conversion issues
Serious deviation from mandatory steps that affected substantive rights

6) The “double title” problem: when a CLOA exists while a private TCT still exists

How double titling happens

CLOA is issued/registered without properly cancelling the original TCT; or
Registry errors; or
Coverage done without valid acquisition; or
Fraud/misrepresentation in beneficiary listing or land identification

Legal consequences (conceptual)

A CLOA or CLOA-based title issued without authority (e.g., over excluded land, or without jurisdiction) can be void or voidable depending on the defect.
In Torrens doctrine, a later title that overlaps a prior valid title is generally problematic; however, agrarian titles are special because they are connected to State acquisition powers—so the real question becomes whether the State lawfully acquired the land and lawfully transferred it.

Practical bottom line: Courts and agrarian authorities often resolve “double title” by answering the upstream question: Was the land validly under CARP coverage and lawfully acquired?

7) Jurisdiction issues: the most important part of challenging an improper CLOA

Challenges fail as often from wrong forum as from weak evidence. The same factual story can be dismissed if filed in the wrong place.

A) DAR’s administrative jurisdiction (coverage, exemption/exclusion, conversion)

As a rule, determinations like:

whether land is CARP-covered
whether it is exempt/excluded
whether conversion is proper
whether a CLOA was administratively proper to issue in the first place fall within DAR’s primary competence, subject to appeals and judicial review.

This is why courts often invoke:

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction (specialized agency should decide first)
Exhaustion of administrative remedies (complete the agency process before going to court)

B) DARAB / agrarian adjudicators (agrarian disputes)

Disputes involving:

tenancy/leasehold relations
beneficiary qualification and compliance
disputes arising from the implementation of agrarian reform affecting ARBs/landowners in an agrarian relationship are commonly treated as agrarian disputes for DARAB/adjudication.

C) Special Agrarian Courts (RTC as SAC): just compensation

If the core issue is how much just compensation is due, the proper forum is typically the Special Agrarian Court. This remains true even if the landowner simultaneously argues procedural defects; courts often separate valuation (SAC) from administrative coverage issues (DAR).

D) Regular courts (RTC/MTC): when the dispute is not agrarian in nature

Regular courts generally handle:

ejectment (MTC) and possession cases
quieting of title, reconveyance, annulment of title (RTC)
damages and other civil actions only when the controversy is not agrarian and does not require resolving matters entrusted to DAR.

But if deciding the case requires answering “is this CARP-covered agricultural land?” courts frequently defer to DAR first.

E) Jurisdictional signals: how to classify your dispute

Ask:

Is there an agrarian relationship? (tenant/leaseholder/ARB vs landowner)
Is the dispute about implementation of CARP (coverage/beneficiaries/conversion)?
Is the dispute purely about civil ownership/title unrelated to agrarian relations?
Is the dispute about valuation/just compensation?

The controlling classification determines the proper forum.

8) How to challenge improper coverage and CLOA issuance (conceptual roadmaps)

Stage 1: Before CLOA issuance (best stage to fight)

Objective: Stop or correct coverage before the award hardens into registered titles and entrenched possession.

Typical steps:

Participate in DAR coverage proceedings upon Notice of Coverage
Submit evidence supporting exemption/exclusion or non-agricultural classification
Apply for exemption/exclusion where appropriate
Assert retention rights properly and timely
Build a record: site inspection reports, approvals, certifications, historical land-use evidence

Why this stage matters:

It minimizes reliance on later cancellation and title litigation
It reduces the “fait accompli” problem where beneficiaries are already installed

Stage 2: After CLOA issuance (administrative cancellation / correction)

If a CLOA has issued, challenges usually revolve around:

lack of CARP coverage authority (exemption/exclusion)
due process violations in acquisition/coverage
beneficiary disqualification or unlawful transfers
mistaken identity of land (technical descriptions, overlaps, wrong parcel)

A critical strategic question is whether the ground is:

a coverage/jurisdiction defect (often DAR-centered), or
an agrarian dispute involving ARB qualification/compliance (often adjudication-centered), or
a title-based civil action that requires RTC involvement (with deference to DAR where needed)

Stage 3: Judicial review routes (the “how it reaches court” question)

Common judicial pathways include:

Petition for review of quasi-judicial determinations (often via Court of Appeals mechanisms depending on the nature of the DAR action and governing procedural rules)
Certiorari (grave abuse of discretion) where appropriate
Special Agrarian Court action for just compensation
RTC civil actions (quieting, reconveyance, annulment) when the dispute is properly judicial and not primarily agrarian—while anticipating primary jurisdiction defenses

Injunction realities

Agrarian laws contain strong policy resistance to injunctions that would paralyze CARP implementation. Courts can be reluctant to enjoin DAR processes absent exceptional circumstances (e.g., clear lack of jurisdiction, patent nullity, or serious due process violations). This heavily influences litigation strategy and timing.

9) Evidence that usually decides improper coverage cases

Improper coverage controversies are won with documents anchored to time.

A) Land classification and land-use evidence (timing is everything)

Zoning ordinances and comprehensive land use plans (CLUP) with effective dates
Approvals from relevant housing/land-use regulators (historical HSRC/HLURB, now DHSUD ecosystem) where applicable
Development permits and subdivision plans
Aerial photos, historical imagery, photographs with credible dating
Sworn statements corroborated by objective records (not merely self-serving affidavits)

B) DENR status (for public land/exclusion arguments)

Certifications on whether land is alienable and disposable or forest land
Cadastral and land classification maps
Technical descriptions and survey plans showing true location vis-à-vis timberland boundaries or reservations

C) DAR process integrity (due process and jurisdiction)

Proof of service (or lack) of Notice of Coverage
DAR field investigation reports
Conference notices, minutes, orders
Valuation notices and Land Bank communications
The sequence and dates of coverage actions

D) Title and technical overlap proof

Mother title, derivative titles, encumbrances, annotations
Certified true copies of CLOA, EP (if any), and CLOA-based OCT/TCT
Geodetic engineer reports identifying overlaps, misdescriptions, boundary mismatches

10) Common misconceptions that derail challenges

“It’s titled, so CARP can’t touch it.” Incorrect. CARP targets agricultural land, and much agricultural land is titled.
“LGU reclassification automatically exempts it.” Often incorrect, especially for post–June 15, 1988 reclassifications without DAR conversion clearance.
“Once a CLOA title is registered, it’s untouchable forever.” Overstated. While Torrens principles protect registered titles, courts and agrarian authorities have treated titles issued without authority (e.g., over excluded lands) as vulnerable, and agrarian mechanisms exist for cancellation in proper cases—especially where jurisdiction is absent or statutory conditions were violated.
“Just compensation issues cancel coverage.” Not usually. Valuation disputes go to SAC; coverage/exemption goes to DAR.
“File ejectment and the agrarian problem disappears.” Often wrong. If agrarian issues are embedded, ejectment courts may dismiss, suspend, or defer due to agrarian jurisdiction doctrines.

11) Landmark jurisprudential guideposts (Philippine Supreme Court themes)

The following cases are frequently used as conceptual anchors in CLOA-coverage disputes:

Natalia Realty v. DAR – Emphasizes that lands already reclassified/approved for non-agricultural uses prior to CARP’s effectivity may be outside CARP scope.
Luz Farms v. DAR – Excludes land used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage.
DAR v. Roxas & Co. – Stresses due process requirements in CARP compulsory acquisition (notably notice and opportunity to be heard).
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. PARC – Illustrates CARP’s reach over large titled estates and the policy seriousness of redistribution (in a different doctrinal setting, but often cited in discussions about CARP implementation and authority).
Land Bank jurisprudence on just compensation (including themes on valuation standards and interest) – Reinforces that valuation is a specialized track typically for SAC proceedings.

The consistent Supreme Court throughline: jurisdiction and the nature of the land at the controlling time are decisive, and courts often insist that agrarian agencies resolve agrarian questions first.

12) Conclusion

A CLOA may validly cover titled land when the land is legally agricultural and within CARP scope, and the State follows lawful acquisition and award procedures. Improper coverage disputes arise when titled land is misclassified, exempt/excluded, already non-agricultural at the controlling time, covered without required conversion authority, covered beyond retention limits, or processed in violation of jurisdiction and due process. The outcome often turns less on rhetoric about “private ownership” and more on (1) timing-based land classification proof, (2) statutory exclusions, (3) process integrity, and (4) filing in the correct forum with the correct theory of the case.