Grounds for Cancellation of CLOA Land Titles

The Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is a title issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as provided by Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 9700 (CARP Extension with Reforms or CARPER). It is considered an original certificate of title in Torrens system and enjoys the same indefeasibility and imprescriptibility as any other Torrens title — but only after the lapse of the restrictive period and subject to specific statutory grounds for cancellation.

Cancellation of a CLOA is not an ordinary land registration proceeding. It is an administrative proceeding handled primarily by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) or the DAR Secretary, and is governed by strict statutory grounds. Judicial courts have no original jurisdiction to cancel CLOAs except on very limited constitutional grounds (e.g., grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction).

Exhaustive Statutory Grounds for Cancellation of CLOA (as consolidated from RA 6657, RA 9700, DAR Administrative Orders, and Supreme Court jurisprudence)

The DAR may cancel a registered or unregistered CLOA only on the following grounds:

1. Misclassification or erroneous classification of the land as agricultural when it is actually non-agricultural
   (e.g., land is classified as residential, industrial, or mineral land at the time of award)

2. The land is found to be outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)

   • Land exceeds retention limits but was erroneously included
   • Land is exempted or excluded by law (e.g., lands with 18% slope and above that are undeveloped, fishponds under certain conditions, lands devoted to poultry/swine, etc.)

3. The land award has exceeded the prescribed area or ceiling

   • Awardee was given more than the maximum 3-hectare limit (or 5 hectares in the case of original homestead grantees under certain conditions)

4. Falsification or deliberate misrepresentation of material facts in the application

   • ARB submitted fake documents, spurious deeds of transfer, or falsely declared himself/herself as a tenant or farmworker

5. The beneficiary is not qualified to be an agrarian reform beneficiary

   • Not a landless tenant, farmworker, or actual tiller at the time of identification
   • Government employee or military personnel disqualified under the rules
   • Already owned other agricultural lands exceeding the retention limit

6. Substantial misrepresentation or fraud in the acquisition of the CLOA

   • Dummy or fictitious beneficiaries
   • Collusion between landowner and supposed tenants to circumvent CARP

7. Non-payment of amortizations for at least three (3) consecutive years without justification
   (Section 26, RA 6657; DAR AO No. 2, Series of 2007)

8. Voluntary waiver or surrender of rights by the beneficiary

   • Written waiver executed with assistance of counsel or BARC certification

9. Abandonment or neglect of the land for an unreasonable period

   • Failure to cultivate or develop the land for at least three (3) years without justifiable reason
   • ARB permanently left the country or changed residence with no intention to return and till the land

10. Misuse or conversion of the land to non-agricultural use without DAR approval

    • Illegal conversion in violation of Section 65 of RA 6657 and DAR AO No. 1, Series of 2002

11. Sale, transfer, or conveyance of the land in violation of the prohibitory period

    • The CLOA land is inalienable and non-transferable for ten (10) years from registration, except through hereditary succession or to the government
    • Any transfer within the 10-year prohibition renders the CLOA cancellable and the transferee disqualified as ARB

12. Mortgaging the land or the rights therein in violation of law

    • CLOA explicitly prohibits mortgage except in favor of government financial institutions for agricultural production purposes

13. Failure to pay real property taxes for three (3) consecutive years
    (DAR AO No. 3, Series of 1996, as amended)

14. Final court judgment declaring the CLOA void ab initio

    • Rare instance where the Supreme Court declares the entire award process void due to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by DAR

Important Principles Established by the Supreme Court

• The DAR has exclusive original jurisdiction over cancellation of registered CLOAs (Sutton v. Lim, G.R. No. 191660, 2012; Heirs of Julian Tacan v. Melendez, G.R. No. 192610, 2015).
• Regional Trial Courts (acting as land registration courts) cannot cancel CLOAs except on constitutional grounds or when the CLOA was issued without jurisdiction.
• Cancellation is a mode of reversion of the land to the State for re-award to qualified beneficiaries.
• The 10-year prohibitory period is counted from the date of registration of the CLOA in the Register of Deeds, not from the date of issuance by DAR.
• Emancipation Patents (EPs) and CLOAs issued under Presidential Decree 27 and RA 6657 are equally indefeasible after the restrictive period, but remain subject to the above grounds during and even after the prohibition.

Procedure for Cancellation (DAR AO No. 03, Series of 2003, as amended)

1. Filing of verified petition before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) or Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD)
2. Summary hearing (DARAB Rules apply)
3. Decision by PARAD/RARAD
4. Appeal to DARAB Central Office
5. Motion for reconsideration
6. Appeal to the Office of the President or directly to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 (for questions of fact and law)
7. Finality of decision → DAR Secretary issues Order of Cancellation → forwarded to Register of Deeds for annotation/cancellation of title

Effects of Cancellation

• The land reverts to the government for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
• The former ARB loses all rights over the land and may be perpetually disqualified from becoming an ARB.
• Improvements introduced by the disqualified beneficiary may be compensated by the new awardee or the State.

Prescription

There is no prescription for cancellation on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation if the government is the real party-in-interest (Solid State Multi-Products Corp. v. Catenza, G.R. No. 200919, 2018). Private individuals, however, may be barred by laches.

This constitutes the complete and exclusive list of grounds for cancellation of CLOAs recognized under Philippine agrarian reform law as of 2025. Any other ground not found in statute or DAR administrative issuances is invalid and cannot be used as basis for cancellation.