REVIVING NALTDRA CIRCULAR NO. 89 DATED NOVEMBER 12, 1986 ON VERIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION SURVEY PLANS; AND REVOKING LRA CIRCULAR NO. 15 DATED MARCH 16, 1990

National Administrative Register December 12, 1986 [ LRA CIRCULAR NO. 26, August 23, 1990 ]



Effective immediately, NALTDRA Circular No. 89 dated December 12,
1986 requiring among others, that an access road for interior lots of
subdivision survey plan should not be less that three (3) meters wide
depending upon the number of buildings or units which it serves, is
hereby revived.

In turn, LRA Circular No. 15 dated March 16, 1990 is revoked.

Quoted hereunder is the letter dated August 8, 1990 of Commissioner
and Chief Executive Officer Ernesto C. Mendiola, Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board, in answer to the letter-query dated May 4, 1990 of the
LRA, whether or not in approving subdivision survey plans the 2-meter
minimum right of way (Footpath) that is allowed under BP-220, without
violating its intent and notwithstanding that the subject lot is not
within a socialized housing project as contemplated for under BP-220,
may be adopted, to wit:

“Perforce, the provision allowing a two-meter minimum right of way
(Footpath) would only apply to economic and socializing housing projects
or to owners of lots within said projects, as approved by the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board.  Speaking otherwise, if the project is
not an economic or socialized housing as approved by HLURB, or the lot,
subject of application is not located within the said project, the
design standard of BP-220, like the two-meter footpath cannot be invoked
or cited by an applicant.  This does not mean, however, that the
two-meter minimum right of way (footpath) is exclusive only to BP-220.
 There could be other laws, like P.D. 1096 and other related laws which
may also allow such mitigated standard or deviation under exceptional
circumstances but of which this office is not competent to comment on.
 In such eventuality, however, it is those laws that should be cited and
not B.P. 220.”

Subject, therefore, to the above discussion, our answer to your query
is in the negative.  It is worthwhile to state in this regard, that
projects or application falling within the coverage of BP 220 are within
the jurisdiction of HLURB.  (Underscoring supplied)

Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.

Adopted: 23 Aug. 1990

(SGD.) TEODORO G. BONIFACIO
Administrator