Remedies for DAR Inaction and Alleged Land Abandonment (Philippine Context)

Notice

This article is for general information and educational discussion of Philippine agrarian reform concepts. Outcomes depend heavily on facts, documents, and the procedural posture of the case.

I. Why delayed CLOA issuance matters

Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is the State’s formal instrument awarding ownership of covered agricultural land to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs). In practice, delays in CLOA issuance (or in its registration with the Registry of Deeds) can leave ARBs in a prolonged limbo: they may already be in actual possession or “installed,” yet still lack the paper trail needed for secure tenure, financing, succession planning, and protection against harassment or competing claims.

Delays also become flashpoints when landowners or other parties allege that beneficiaries have abandoned the land—an allegation that can be used (rightly or wrongly) to justify withholding issuance, pushing for replacement beneficiaries, or initiating cancellation/disqualification proceedings.

This article maps the legal landscape: (1) what CLOA issuance entails, (2) why delays happen, (3) the menu of administrative and judicial remedies for DAR inaction, and (4) how “abandonment” works in agrarian law and how ARBs can respond.

II. Core concepts and vocabulary (quick reference)

CARP / CARL – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657 (as amended by RA 9700), implementing the 1987 Constitution’s agrarian reform mandate.
ARB – Agrarian Reform Beneficiary; qualified recipient of awarded land (often farmers, farmworkers, tenants, or landless residents meeting statutory/administrative criteria).
LAD – Land Acquisition and Distribution; the operational pipeline (coverage → acquisition → valuation/compensation → survey/subdivision → beneficiary selection → award → registration).
CLOA – Certificate of Land Ownership Award; the DAR-issued instrument evidencing the award. It is commonly the basis for registration and issuance of a Torrens title (OCT/TCT) with agrarian restrictions annotated.
ALI case – Agrarian Law Implementation controversy (e.g., coverage, exemption/exclusion, beneficiary identification, installation, CLOA generation issues). These are typically within DAR’s administrative authority, with hierarchical appeals.
Agrarian dispute – A controversy relating to tenurial arrangements or agrarian relations, or disputes arising from the implementation of agrarian laws; these often fall under DAR’s adjudicatory mechanisms (DARAB framework and successors), with judicial review routes.
Abandonment (in agrarian context) – A serious factual/legal claim that an ARB intentionally and voluntarily relinquished cultivation/possession or rights over the awarded land, often leading to disqualification, replacement, or cancellation proceedings if proven with due process.

III. The legal framework that shapes CLOA issuance and delays

A. Constitutional backbone

The 1987 Constitution (Article XIII, Social Justice and Human Rights) directs the State to undertake agrarian reform, recognize the rights of farmers and farmworkers, and distribute agricultural lands subject to just compensation and reasonable retention limits.

B. Statutory anchors

Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL), as amended by RA 9700
- Defines coverage, beneficiaries, prohibited acts, restrictions on transfer, and the institutional authority of DAR.
Related agrarian instruments (contextual)
- PD 27 and its instruments (CLT/EP) apply primarily to rice and corn lands under earlier land reform; CLOA is the hallmark instrument under CARP.
Registration and titling system
- Torrens registration principles (e.g., Property Registration Decree) matter because CLOAs often require survey plans, technical descriptions, and Registry of Deeds processing to become registered titles with annotations.
Administrative governance and anti-delay norms
- RA 11032 (Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act) and citizen’s charter requirements can be relevant to unreasonable delays and accountability for inaction.

C. The practical reality: DAR issuances

Many decisive rules are implemented through DAR Administrative Orders, Memorandum Circulars, and operational guidelines: these govern beneficiary selection, the LAD workflow, survey and subdivision requirements, CLOA generation, registration procedures, and rules on disqualification/cancellation and beneficiary replacement. In litigation and administrative review, the specific DAR issuance applicable to the transaction date often matters.

IV. What “CLOA issuance” actually involves (and where delays occur)

A. Typical LAD pathway (simplified)

Land identification and coverage screening
- Determine if land is CARPable agricultural land (not validly exempt/excluded; not converted with proper authority; not non-agricultural classification controlling; not protected under special regimes that bar CARP coverage).
Notice to landowner and field investigation
- DAR notices, ocular inspection, land use verification, occupancy and cultivation assessment.
Valuation and landowner compensation process
- Land valuation is processed (often involving Land Bank), with landowner options to accept or contest valuation through the proper channels.
Survey/subdivision and technical documentation
- Approved survey plans and technical descriptions are essential for generating individual lots or partitioned areas. Survey backlog is a major cause of delay.
Beneficiary identification and screening
- Selection of qualified ARBs; validation of qualifications, preferences, and disqualifications; resolution of protests.
Award and generation of the CLOA
- Preparation, signing, and recording of CLOA.
Registration with the Registry of Deeds
- Registration issues can be delayed by incomplete technical requirements, overlaps, encumbrances, boundary disputes, court orders, or documentation gaps.
Distribution/turnover to ARBs and post-award obligations
- Installment/amortization regime begins; restrictions on transfer are annotated; support services may follow (in theory and sometimes in practice).

B. Common causes of delayed CLOA issuance

Pending exemption/exclusion/coverage challenges
- Landowner claims the land is non-CARPable, already converted, reclassified, or exempt; these can halt or slow issuance while resolved.
Beneficiary protests and competing claims
- Rival lists of beneficiaries, disputes over tenancy, residency, “actual tiller” status, or alleged disqualifications.
Survey and subdivision bottlenecks
- Lack of survey teams, funding, or conflicting boundaries; uncorrected technical descriptions; overlaps with adjacent parcels.
Valuation/compensation disputes and procedural holds
- While distribution may proceed despite valuation disputes under certain conditions, operational practice sometimes slows down when there is pushback, injunctions, or unresolved documentation.
Registration problems
- Registry of Deeds requirements not met; old titles with defects; liens/encumbrances; missing mother title documents; inconsistent names; unsegregated lots.
Institutional delay
- Backlogs, routing delays between municipal/provincial/regional offices, repeated “re-evaluation,” or lack of action without a formal denial.

V. Rights of CARP beneficiaries even before the CLOA is released

Even without a released or registered CLOA, an ARB (or would-be ARB with a validated selection/installation status) may have enforceable protections depending on the documents and the stage of implementation:

Security against self-help eviction or harassment: agrarian controversies are not typically resolved by unilateral acts. Many disputes must go through DAR processes; ejectment tactics can be challenged as agrarian-related harassment or interference with CARP implementation.
Right to due process in any disqualification or replacement effort: removal based on “abandonment,” “non-qualification,” or “neglect” is not supposed to be summary.
Right to request action and a determinative ruling: prolonged inaction is not the same as a lawful denial; beneficiaries can push the agency to decide within the bounds of its authority.

The exact strength of protection depends on what exists on paper (e.g., masterlist inclusion, notice of award, installation orders, field investigation reports, minutes of screening, and similar records).

VI. Remedies for DAR inaction on delayed CLOA issuance

Delays are often best approached in layers: (A) build a clean record; (B) force internal action through administrative steps; (C) escalate accountability for unreasonable delay; (D) use judicial remedies to compel action (not to dictate the outcome).

A. First principle: document, demand, and define the “inaction”

Before remedies are chosen, a beneficiary group should assemble and organize:

Proof of beneficiary status and stage of processing
- Screening results, masterlist, notice of coverage, installation documents, certificates, DAR field reports, identification cards, and any endorsements.
Proof of cultivation/possession
- Photos over time, affidavits of neighbors/officials, receipts for seeds/fertilizer, milling/hauling receipts, cropping calendar logs, certifications from barangay/municipal agriculture office where available.
A “timeline dossier”
- Dates of filings, meetings, endorsements, and follow-ups; names/positions of receiving officers; receiving copies with stamps.

A well-built record is essential because many escalation remedies hinge on showing a clear request, a clear duty to act, and an unreasonable delay.

B. Administrative routes within DAR (core escalation ladder)

While nomenclature varies by region and internal routing, the logic is consistent:

Written request for status and action (with receiving stamp)
- Ask for: (a) the current status; (b) the specific missing requirement; (c) the office currently holding the file; (d) target action date; and (e) a written explanation if no action can be taken.
Formal follow-up and “request for resolution”
- If the matter is stuck due to an unresolved incident (e.g., protest, technical issue), request a formal resolution of that incident.
Elevation to higher DAR levels
- Municipal → Provincial → Regional → Central Office channels, depending on where the bottleneck is. The higher office can be asked to “call up” the records, issue directives, or set compliance deadlines.
Petition/complaint to compel performance of a ministerial step
- If the file is complete and the remaining step is administrative routing/signing/issuance, framing the request as performance of a ministerial duty becomes important for later mandamus.

Practical drafting tip: The most effective letters are not generic pleas. They identify: (1) the land (title/lot identifiers), (2) the beneficiary list reference, (3) the process stage, (4) the specific action requested (e.g., “generate and release CLOA,” “schedule survey,” “resolve pending protest”), and (5) the harm caused by delay.

C. Anti-delay accountability tools (ARTA / civil service / Ombudsman track)

When delay becomes unreasonable, beneficiaries may consider accountability mechanisms:

RA 11032 (Ease of Doing Business) / Citizen’s Charter enforcement
- Agencies are expected to publish service standards and processing times. Unjustified inaction may be the basis of a complaint for violation of anti-red tape rules.
Administrative complaint against responsible officials
- Depending on facts, beneficiaries may file complaints for neglect of duty, undue delay, or other administrative offenses under civil service rules and public ethics standards (the Code of Conduct for Public Officials is commonly invoked in such complaints).
Ombudsman complaints (where facts support)
- If there is evidence of corruption, bad faith, or deliberate obstruction, the Ombudsman route may be considered. This is not merely a “delay complaint”; it requires careful factual grounding.

These tracks do not directly “issue the CLOA,” but they can change agency behavior, trigger internal audits, and force written actions that become reviewable.

VII. Judicial remedies: what courts can (and cannot) do about DAR inaction

A. The key distinction: compel action vs. control discretion

Courts are generally more willing to:

Compel DAR to act (decide, resolve, process, conduct hearing, complete a required step), than to:
Order DAR to decide in a particular way (e.g., “issue CLOA to X no matter what”).

This distinction governs mandamus and related remedies.

B. Mandamus (Rule 65): the classic tool for agency inaction

A petition for mandamus may be viable when:

There is a clear legal right on the part of the petitioner;
There is a corresponding duty on the part of DAR (or a DAR officer) to perform an act;
The duty is ministerial (or at least includes ministerial components) and not purely discretionary; and
There has been unlawful neglect or refusal to act after demand.

How it works in CLOA delay scenarios:

If the delay is due to an unresolved factual controversy (e.g., beneficiary protest, alleged abandonment, coverage dispute), courts are more likely to order DAR to resolve the controversy within a period, rather than directly order issuance.
If the record shows that all requirements were met and the remaining steps are purely administrative (printing, signing, releasing, transmitting for registration), mandamus arguments strengthen.

C. Certiorari / Prohibition (also Rule 65) – more limited for “inaction”

These are typically aimed at acts done with grave abuse of discretion. They become relevant if DAR issues an order that is patently arbitrary (e.g., a summary denial without due process) rather than mere delay.

D. Injunction (to prevent eviction/harassment while DAR processes)

If delay is accompanied by threats of eviction or interference, beneficiaries often need immediate protection to preserve the status quo while agrarian mechanisms run their course. Injunctive relief is highly fact-dependent and requires showing entitlement under procedural rules and jurisprudential standards.

E. Jurisdiction and exhaustion cautions (critical)

Agrarian matters are a jurisdictional minefield. Many issues must first be ventilated in DAR’s own processes (ALI or adjudicatory), with appeals through prescribed channels before courts entertain review—except in recognized exceptions (e.g., pure questions of law, urgency with irreparable injury, or where administrative remedies are inadequate). Forum choice should track the nature of the controversy:

Coverage/beneficiary identification/CLOA generation issues often fall under ALI authority and administrative appeals.
Tenurial disputes and certain cancellation/disqualification controversies are typically within DAR’s adjudicatory framework.
Courts generally come in for judicial review (often via Rule 43 where applicable) or to compel lawful action (mandamus) without dictating agrarian policy outcomes.

VIII. Alleged land abandonment: what it means and why it affects CLOA issuance

A. Abandonment is not mere absence

In agrarian settings, “abandonment” is commonly understood as more than simply being away or experiencing a failed season. It generally requires:

Voluntary and intentional relinquishment of rights or possession; and
Overt acts consistent with giving up cultivation/tenure.

Temporary non-cultivation due to illness, calamity, lack of capital, displacement, or other justifiable causes is not automatically abandonment. Likewise, cultivation through family members or a legitimate caretaker arrangement (consistent with agrarian rules) may defeat a claim of abandonment, depending on the governing DAR issuance and factual proof.

B. Why abandonment allegations delay CLOA issuance

Abandonment claims often arise in three moments:

Before award – to oppose inclusion in the beneficiary list or to push for replacement.
During processing – to justify holding issuance “pending validation.”
After issuance – to support cancellation/disqualification proceedings.

DAR may pause issuance if there is a pending protest or an incident requiring factual verification, but it cannot treat unverified allegations as self-proving. Due process and a determinative resolution are required.

C. Who can raise abandonment, and what is the burden of proof?

Typically, the party alleging abandonment (often a landowner, a rival claimant, or sometimes local complainants) bears the burden to present evidence. Beneficiaries should expect the allegation to be tested through:

Field investigation reports
Ocular inspections
Sworn statements
Cropping and production indicators
Community attestations
Documentary proof of farm inputs/outputs

D. Consequences if abandonment is proven (with due process)

Depending on the stage:

Pre-issuance: the alleged abandoning beneficiary may be disqualified or replaced; the land is awarded to other qualified beneficiaries.
Post-issuance: abandonment may be used as a ground (subject to the controlling rules) for cancellation of the award and reallocation—again, only after notice, hearing, and a decision by the competent authority.

Because cancellation affects property rights, procedural rigor matters: notice to the beneficiary, opportunity to refute, and reasoned decision-making are indispensable.

IX. How beneficiaries can defend against abandonment allegations (practical and legal)

A. Build an “actual cultivation” evidence pack

Beneficiaries should gather proof across multiple seasons if possible:

Time-stamped photos/videos of cultivation, planting, harvesting, farm improvements, and occupancy
Receipts: seeds, fertilizer, pesticide, machinery rental, irrigation fees
Harvest-related documents: milling receipts, hauling receipts, buyer ledgers, delivery receipts
Affidavits from neighbors, barangay officials, and local agricultural officers attesting to cultivation history
Farm logbook: dates planted/harvested, inputs used, labor engaged, weather impacts
Proof of residence or farm-linked livelihood (where relevant to qualification rules)

B. Explain gaps with credible, specific facts

If there was a period of non-cultivation, document the cause:

Hospital records, death/illness in the family
Calamity reports, flooding/typhoon impact evidence
Lack of irrigation or pest infestation documentation
Threats/harassment preventing access (with blotter reports or sworn statements)

C. Demand due process and a written resolution

A common beneficiary mistake is relying on verbal assurances. The correct approach is to:

Request that any abandonment allegation be reduced to a formal incident/protest,
Ask DAR to calendar a conference/inspection, and
Require a written ruling resolving the allegation.

A written ruling is essential because it triggers review routes and prevents perpetual “pending validation” limbo.

X. When DAR delay and abandonment claims collide: the proper way to frame the controversy

A frequent pattern is: “DAR refuses to release CLOA because someone claims the beneficiaries abandoned the land.” The legally disciplined framing is:

DAR has the duty to resolve the abandonment allegation through the prescribed process.
DAR has the duty to either proceed with issuance (if allegation is unsubstantiated) or formally disqualify/replace (if proven) with due process.
Endless inaction is not an option—it undermines both beneficiary rights and orderly agrarian reform implementation.

This framing supports both administrative escalation and, where appropriate, mandamus to compel DAR to act (resolve and complete the required steps), without demanding that the court decide agrarian facts in the first instance.

XI. A practitioner’s checklist: choosing the right remedy fast

A. Identify the real bottleneck

Survey pending?
Registration pending?
Beneficiary protest pending?
Coverage/exemption challenge pending?
Abandonment allegation pending without a docketed incident?

The correct remedy depends on what is actually pending.

B. Choose the channel that matches the issue

Technical/survey backlog → push for scheduling, request written status, elevate to regional technical units.
Unresolved protest/abandonment → demand docketing, hearing/inspection, and written resolution.
Paper-routing delay after completion → position the request as ministerial performance; prepare for mandamus.
Bad-faith obstruction or corruption indicators → consider administrative accountability tracks with careful documentation.

C. Always create a litigation-grade paper trail

Written demands with receiving copies
Names/positions of officers
Dates and reference numbers
Clear identification of land and beneficiaries
Specific relief requested (issue, resolve, schedule, transmit, register)

XII. Conclusion

Delayed CLOA issuance is rarely “just a delay.” It is usually the visible symptom of a definable bottleneck—technical, legal, administrative, or political. The Philippine agrarian framework provides multiple levers to address DAR inaction: internal escalation, anti-red tape accountability, administrative complaints, and judicial compulsion through mandamus where legal conditions are met. Meanwhile, allegations of land abandonment are serious and potentially dispositive, but they are not self-executing; they must be proven through due process and resolved by a written determination. The most effective beneficiary strategy is disciplined: document cultivation and status, force the agency to define the bottleneck in writing, insist on docketed resolution of abandonment claims, and escalate—administratively and, when warranted, judicially—to compel action rather than endure indefinite limbo.