Sufficient proof to establish a parcel of land as alienable and disposable

In the Philippines, to establish that a parcel of land is alienable and disposable (A&D)—meaning it is no longer part of the public domain and can be owned privately—you need to provide sufficient proof.

Republic Act (RA) 11573 entitled "An Act Improving the Confirmation Process for Imperfect Land Titles, amending for the purpose of Commonwealth Act 141," as amended, otherwise known as "The Public Land Act," and Presidential Decree 1529, as amended, otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," was approved on July 16, 2021 and took effect on Sept. 1, 2021. This ensures the continued titling of the agricultural lands and simplifies the procedures and requirements for the judicial confirmation of imperfect titles.

As background, before the enactment of RA 11573, the prevailing jurisprudence was Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties Inc. (GR 154953, June 26, 2008, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio), which established the following requirements to prove that the land sought to be registered is alienable and disposable:

"It is not enough for the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (Penro), or Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (Cenro) to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the Penro or Cenro. "In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records. These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable."

However, in the case of Republic vs. Pasig Rizal Co. Inc. (GR 213207, Feb. 15, 2022, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa), it was stated that the requirements to prove the alienable and disposable character of land in Republic vs. T.A.N. Properties Inc. have been superseded by the enactment of RA 11573.

Section 7 of the RA 11573 declares that a certification by a duly designated geodetic engineer of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain sufficiently proves that it is alienable, to wit:

"SECTION 7. Proof that the Land is Alienable and Disposable. — For purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect titles filed under Presidential Decree 1529, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable. Said certification shall be imprinted in the approved survey plan submitted by the applicant in the land registration court. The imprinted certification in the plan shall contain a sworn statement by the geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land.

"Should there be no available copy of the Forestry Administrative Order, Executive Order or Proclamation, it is sufficient that the Land Classification (LC) Map Number, Project Number and date of release indicated in the land classification map be stated in the sworn statement declaring that said land classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (Namria) and is being used by the DENR as land classification map."

At present, the presentation of the approved survey plan bearing a certification signed by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer stating that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural land of the public domain shall be sufficient proof that the land is alienable, provided that the certification bears references to:

(i) the relevant issuance (e.g., Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order or Proclamation); and

(ii) it contains a sworn statement by the said geodetic engineer that the land is within the alienable and disposable lands of public domain.

In the absence of a copy of the said relevant issuances, the sworn statement of the DENR geodetic engineer must state: (i) the LC Map number; (ii) the Project Number; and (iii) the date of release indicated in the LC Map; and (iv) declaration that the LC Map is existing in the inventory of the LC Map records of the Namria and is being used by DENR as land classification map. The said geodetic engineer must also be presented as witness for proper authentication of the certification so presented.

Source: Manila Times

Prior Physical Possession Immaterial in Unlawful Detainer

Prior Physical Possession Immaterial in Unlawful Detainer: Understanding the Philippine Legal Context

In the Philippine legal system, the Rules of Court provide mechanisms for the recovery of possession of real property. Among these remedies is an action for unlawful detainer under Rule 70. This specific remedy is designed to restore possession to one who is deprived of it through unlawful means, even if prior physical possession is not held by the complainant.

Defining Unlawful Detainer

Unlawful detainer occurs when a person unlawfully withholds possession of a property after the expiration or termination of their right to occupy it. Typically, this involves a lessor-lessee or similar relationship, where a lease or agreement allows lawful possession initially, but such possession becomes illegal upon termination of the arrangement.

Prior Physical Possession: Not a Prerequisite

Contrary to common misconceptions, the complainant in an unlawful detainer case does not need to prove prior physical possession of the property. Instead, the focus is on whether the defendant unlawfully withheld possession after the termination of their right to remain on the property.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently upheld this principle. In cases of unlawful detainer, the issue revolves around the existence of an agreement, express or implied, that granted the defendant possession of the property and whether such possession was properly terminated. As long as the complainant can demonstrate a better right to possession, physical possession before the alleged unlawful withholding is irrelevant.

Relevance of Ownership and Possession

It is crucial to distinguish between ownership and possession in unlawful detainer cases. Ownership is immaterial; the case strictly concerns the right to physical possession or possession de facto. The rightful possessor need not be the owner but must establish a legal right to possess the property superior to the defendant’s claim.

The Supreme Court clarified this in Supreme Transliner, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (G.R. No. 165617, September 27, 2006), where it emphasized that the determination of prior physical possession is not necessary in cases of unlawful detainer because the issue centers on whether the withholding of possession was unlawful after the right to occupy had expired or was terminated.

Procedure and Timeliness

An unlawful detainer action must be filed within one year from the date of unlawful withholding of possession. The complainant must prove the existence of an agreement or tolerance for the initial possession and that such right has been terminated.

Failure to file within this period may result in the complainant losing the right to pursue an unlawful detainer action. However, other remedies such as an accion publiciana (for recovery of possession filed in the regional trial court) or an accion reivindicatoria (for recovery of ownership and possession) may still be available, though they follow different procedural and jurisdictional rules.

Significance of this Legal Principle

The principle that prior physical possession is immaterial in unlawful detainer reflects the Philippine judiciary's commitment to swiftly resolving disputes over property possession without delving into issues of ownership. It ensures that rightful possessors can reclaim their property without undue delay, fostering respect for agreements and legal possession.

Conclusion

Understanding that prior physical possession is immaterial in unlawful detainer cases simplifies the legal landscape for litigants seeking to recover possession of property. By focusing on the existence of a prior agreement and the unlawful withholding of possession, this principle reinforces the efficiency and accessibility of remedies under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines. Whether you are a lessor, lessee, or property owner, knowing this distinction is essential in protecting your rights.

Source: ZRE

PHL may need 50M sq.m. of industrial space by 2035

The Philippines may need at least 50 million square meters (sq.m.) of industrial space by 2035, with an estimated average price of P30,000 per sq.m., to accommodate surging demand from the manufacturing, logistics, and data center sectors, according to commercial real estate consultancy firm PRIME Philippines.

“By 2035, the major backbone of the Philippine economy will be the industrial sector. Industrial real estate is no longer just an asset — it’s the key to unlocking the Philippines’ economic future. The demand is here; the supply must follow,” PRIME Philippines Founder and Chief Executive Officer Jet Yu said.

Warehouse supply grew by 4% to 37.6 million sq.m. in 2024, driven by new developments in Laguna, Batangas, and Cebu.

PRIME Philippines projected that supply would breach 40 million sq.m. this year, with upcoming expansions in Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Pampanga, Cebu, and Davao.

Mr. Yu noted that about a third of the projected demand will come from the development of data centers, with over 100 data centers expected to go live in the country within the next three years.

“The 50 million sq.m. is a conservative-to-optimistic estimate. In just one or two years, we’re going to see many countries, including the Philippines, localizing and housing their own data domestically,” he said.

Mr. Yu added that the country’s manufacturing and logistics sectors are also expected to fuel industrial space demand.

“There has been a rapid decentralization across the Philippines. Logistics players have strategically positioned themselves over the past three to four years,” he said.

“On manufacturing, when many companies from China sought to diversify their operations to other ASEAN neighbors, we somewhat missed that opportunity. However, over the next ten years, we expect significant demand,” he added.

Meanwhile, Mr. Yu said the country’s manufacturing sector could continue to thrive amid geopolitical tensions.

“As long as we play it strategically and carefully, it’s safe to say that the manufacturing sector will continue to thrive in the Philippines,” he said.

“In 2025 alone, we have already received interest from companies looking to expand their existing manufacturing facilities in the Philippines. These are secondary hubs as a way for manufacturers to diversify and mitigate potential risks,” he added.

The United States paused its planned 25% tariffs on Mexico and China in exchange for concessions on border and crime enforcement.

However, US President Donald J. Trump said he is not rushing efforts to defuse a trade war with China, which was triggered by a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports.

In response, China imposed targeted tariffs on US imports and placed several companies, including Google, on notice for possible sanctions.

Source: Business World