Breaking Ground, One Title at a Time: Inside the Philippines’ SPLIT Project Push

Manila, Philippines - Deep in the countryside, where land is both livelihood and legacy, a quiet transformation is underway. The Philippine government, with support from the World Bank, is accelerating efforts to untangle decades-old land ownership issues through the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project, a reform initiative that aims to put clear land titles directly into the hands of farmers.

At stake is more than paperwork. For thousands of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs), the shift from collective to individual land titles represents a long-awaited step toward true ownership, economic security, and independence.

From Shared Titles to Individual Ownership

For years, many farmers held collective Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs), documents that grouped multiple beneficiaries under a single land title. While intended to streamline agrarian reform, these collective titles often led to disputes, unclear boundaries, and limited economic use of the land.

The SPLIT Project seeks to resolve this by subdividing collective CLOAs into individual titles, giving each farmer a clearly defined parcel. The logic is straightforward: when ownership is clear, farmers are more likely to invest in their land, access credit, and increase productivity.

Progress with Caution

According to the latest World Bank implementation report, the project is making “moderately satisfactory” progress—a rating that reflects steady gains, but also acknowledges ongoing hurdles.

Field operations have expanded, and parcelization efforts are moving forward across multiple regions. Yet the pace remains uneven. Surveying challenges, documentation gaps, and coordination issues among implementing agencies continue to slow down full-scale rollout.

Despite these constraints, the momentum is notable. Compared to earlier phases marked by delays, the project has shown measurable improvement in execution and output delivery.

Risks Beneath the Surface

The report underscores a persistent reality: agrarian reform is inherently complex. The SPLIT Project continues to operate under a “substantial risk” environment, shaped by factors such as:

• Overlapping land claims and legal disputes
• Fragmented land records and outdated documentation
• Institutional coordination gaps among government agencies
• Capacity limitations in field-level implementation

These are not new problems, but they remain deeply embedded in the system, requiring more than technical fixes.

Beyond Titles: The Bigger Rural Question

While land titling is a critical milestone, experts caution that it is only one piece of a larger rural development puzzle. Ownership alone does not guarantee higher incomes.

Farmers still need access to credit, farm-to-market roads, irrigation, and extension services. Without these, the economic promise of land ownership may remain unrealized.

Still, securing individual titles is widely seen as a foundational reform—one that can unlock broader opportunities when paired with sustained government support.

A Reform That Tests Governance

More than a land project, SPLIT has become a test of institutional coordination and governance. Its success depends not just on surveying land, but on aligning agencies, resolving disputes, and maintaining data integrity across thousands of parcels.

In this sense, the project reflects a deeper truth: agrarian reform is as much about systems as it is about soil.

Looking Ahead

As implementation continues, the challenge will be balancing speed and accuracy, ensuring that titles are issued efficiently without compromising legal soundness.

For now, the story of SPLIT is one of cautious progress. It is a reform moving forward, step by step, across fields and communities—reshaping land ownership in ways that could define the future of rural development in the Philippines.

And for the farmers waiting on the ground, each title released is more than a document. It is a promise, of clarity, of control, and of a more secure tomorrow.

Source: The World Bank Implementation & Results Report SPLIT Project 

Related article: Environmental and Social Dimensions of the SPLIT Project

Annulment of CLOA titles in the absence of full payment of the value of the lands covered by RA 6657 (CARP)

A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) can be canceled if just compensation is not provided. The issuance of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is a significant step in the government's agrarian reform program, as it grants ownership rights to beneficiaries, typically landless farmers. However, a CLOA can be revoked if it is determined that the original landowner did not receive just compensation for the land. This situation constitutes a violation of the fundamental principle of fair compensation under the power of eminent domain.

The Principle of Just Compensation. Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use, provided that fair compensation is given to the property owner. This principle is enshrined in many legal systems worldwide, including the Philippines, where the ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Program (CARP) facilitates land redistribution. Under CARP, landowners whose properties are expropriated must be compensated adequately and promptly by the government.

Grounds for CLOA Cancellation.

A CLOA may be revoked by the courts if it is proven that the original landowner was not fairly compensated. The following grounds may justify such a cancellation:

1. Non-Payment or Inadequate Payment: If the government fails to provide full and fair compensation, the landowner can challenge the validity of the CLOA issued to beneficiaries.

2. Procedural Irregularities: If there were procedural lapses in the acquisition process, such as a lack of due process in determining land valuation, courts may intervene.

3. Violation of Property Rights: If the taking of land violates constitutional protections regarding property ownership, the courts may order the nullification of the CLOA.

4. Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the CLOA was issued based on fraudulent claims or misrepresentation, it can be subject to revocation.

Legal Implications of CLOA Cancellation. If a court cancels a CLOA due to non-payment or underpayment of just compensation, the land may revert to the original landowner, or the government may be compelled to rectify the compensation issue before proceeding with redistribution. This situation can lead to significant legal battles between landowners, government agencies, and agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Furthermore, the revocation of a CLOA can have social and economic repercussions. Agrarian reform beneficiaries may face displacement, and the government's credibility in implementing land reform programs may be undermined. To prevent such issues, it is crucial for authorities to ensure that fair and just compensation is provided at the outset of land acquisition.

The cancellation of a CLOA due to the lack of just compensation underscores the importance of adhering to the legal and constitutional principles of eminent domain. The government has a duty to provide equitable compensation to landowners while promoting agrarian reform. By ensuring fair payment, legal disputes can be minimized, and the objectives of land reform can be successfully achieved without compromising property rights.

In Philippine jurisprudence, the cancellation of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) due to the lack of just compensation to the original landowner has been addressed in several cases. Notably:

1. Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127876): The Supreme Court emphasized that expropriating land without valid payment of just compensation violates the constitutional mandate that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court acknowledged that while procedural lapses occurred in the acquisition process, it did not have the power to nullify the CLOAs already issued to farmer beneficiaries. Instead, it highlighted that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) should correct its procedural lapses, noting that the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.

2. Heirs of the Late Domingo Barraquio vs. Almeda Incorporated (G.R. No. 169649): The Supreme Court ruled that an exemption order issued by the agrarian reform secretary must be final and executory before it can serve as a basis to revoke or cancel CLOAs issued to farmer-beneficiaries. This case underscores the importance of finality in administrative orders before affecting the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries.

3. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Loreto G. Nicolas, et al. (G.R. No. 168394, October 2008): In this case, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) declared the coverage of certain lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) void ab initio. The DARAB ordered the cancellation of the CLOAs issued to the beneficiaries and reinstated the titles to the original landowners. This decision was based on the finding that the lands had been reclassified as urban zones prior to their inclusion in CARP, making them exempt from agrarian reform coverage.

4. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Dumlao (G.R. No. 167809, November 27, 2008): The Supreme Court held that just compensation for agricultural lands under Operation Land Transfer should be based on the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA No. 6657). The date of valuation starts from the issuance of emancipation patents, covering all landholdings regardless of the Department of Agrarian Reform's processing. This case underscores the importance of determining just compensation in accordance with current laws to ensure fairness to landowners.

5. Phil-Agro Industrial Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 193987, March 13, 2017): The Supreme Court ruled that just compensation should be reckoned from the time of taking, identified as the issuance date of the CLOA. The Court emphasized that delays in paying just compensation entitle landowners to legal interest to compensate for the loss of income due to the taking. 

6. Philcontrust Resources, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (G.R. No. 214714, October 7, 2020): This case highlights the necessity for stakeholders to comply with agrarian laws and regulations, particularly concerning the proper procedure for compulsory land acquisition, including the payment of just compensation. The Court underscored the importance of following due process to ensure the effective implementation of the agrarian reform program.

7. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat (G.R. No. 127876, November 30, 2001): The DAR issued CLOAs to farmer beneficiaries over portions of the petitioner's land without providing just compensation to the petitioner. The Supreme Court highlighted that a CLOA serves as evidence of ownership under RA 6657, and before it can be awarded to a beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the state from the landowner with just compensation.

These cases on payment of just compensation underscore the necessity of adhering to due process in agrarian reform, particularly ensuring that landowners receive just compensation before the issuance of CLOAs to beneficiaries. /cds

According to Philippine jurisprudence, a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) can be cancelled if the landowner was not paid "just compensation" for the land acquired under agrarian reform, meaning the government must fairly compensate the landowner for the property taken, and failure to do so can result in the cancellation of the CLOA issued to the beneficiary; this is primarily governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). 

DAR-World Bank Project SPLIT to facilitate subdivision of collective to individual CLOAs for agrarian reform beneficiaries

Support to Parcelization of Lands to Individual Title (SPLIT), is a project that seeks to give farmer-beneficiaries covered under collective Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (cCLOA), the opportunity to have and own individual titles as evidence of ownership to the farmlot/s awarded to them under the agrarian reform program.

The recently approved Department of Agrarian Reform-World Bank (DAR-WB) SPLIT project is a loan package amounting to Php24 Billion which shall be used to subdivide the cCLOAs - about 1.38 million hectares, into individual land titles so that the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) may fully exercise their rights of ownership and possession over their landholding/s.

The issuance of CCLOAs has repercussion to the government as it could not collect taxes and amortization. The same can be said to many beneficiaries who are not engaged in collective farming. All these issues can be cured once these cCLOAs are split into individual titles, he said.

The project SPLIT also includes the acquisition for the DAR Provincial offices involved, of survey and other related equipment for the subdivision of each farm lot, four-wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles for the mobilization of DAR survey teams, including hiring of additional manpower. It also requires capability trainings due to advances in technology, such as on the use of new software/computer programs like the AutoCAD Google Earth (AGE) Mapping which is useful for the subdivision of individual land titles as it requires computing technical descriptions, conversion of coordinates, transporting KMZ files (used by Google Earth) to Andriod phones among others.

The DAR-WB SPLIT project is in response to President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s order to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to conduct the survey and re-documentation of collective land titles to individual certificates of landownership awards (CLOAs). President Rodrigo R. Duterte requested the assistance of the World Bank in order to expedite the process of subdividing the lands covered by collective agrarian reform land titles.