Contact: +63 (0) 34 7290631
PRC LICENSE NO. 030309 Mapa Street, San Julio Subd., San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines.
The Philippines inched up three places to 97th out of 143 countries and jurisdictions in the 2025 edition of the World Justice Project’s (WJP) Rule of Law Index. It was the country’s best ranking in five years. However, it remained one of the laggards in the region.
Source: Business World
Long-delayed infrastructure projects in the Philippines could gain momentum with the passage of the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, according to analysts.
Republic Act No. 12289, signed last month by President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., amended the Right-of-Way Act of 2016 to make property acquisition faster, more transparent, and predictable.
Under the new law, agencies and private concessionaires must make upfront deposits on properties slated for acquisition — including crops, trees, and improvements — equivalent to 15% of their market value.
“By standardizing compensation and requiring upfront deposits, both landowners and developers gain greater transparency and security,” said Jamie S. Dela Cruz, research manager at KMC Savills.
“For the property sector, this translates into clearer growth corridors and faster value appreciation in areas near planned infrastructure,” she added.
“Developers, investors, and businesses can plan with more certainty, while landowners benefit from more predictable compensation.”
Joey Roi H. Bondoc, director and head of research at Colliers Philippines, said the amended RoW Act will support real estate expansion outside Metro Manila.
“You cannot achieve both infrastructure implementation and decentralization if you cannot acquire the properties needed to build infrastructure,” he said.
Analysts have noted developers’ growing interest in regional areas such as Pampanga, Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao, amid favorable economic conditions and talent pools.
However, Ms. Dela Cruz cautioned that uneven implementation at the local level and potential speculative price surges in acquisition areas remain risks.
Right-of-way bottlenecks have long hindered infrastructure projects, affecting property developers’ expansion plans.
Beyond solving RoW bottlenecks, the government should strengthen urban planning and zoning to prevent congestion and ensure that infrastructure projects support balanced growth, she said.
She also stressed the need for more efficient permits, land titling, and property registration, as well as affordable housing for middle-income and working-class households.
“It should also ensure that public-private partnerships in key growth areas align infrastructure with commercial, industrial, and residential demand,” she added.
“If these issues are addressed together, the ARROW Act could become a genuine catalyst not only for infrastructure delivery but also for a more competitive, resilient, and inclusive Philippine property market,” Ms. Dela Cruz said.
Source: Business World
In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court explained the different actions for claiming land ownership and possession.
Lea Victa-Espinosa bought a parcel of land. When she had it surveyed, she discovered that parts of the land were occupied by the spouses Noel and Leny Agullo. Espinosa demanded that the Agullos vacate the portion belonging to her, but they refused.
Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession (but not ownership) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asking the court to order the Agullos to vacate the portion of land. The RTC dismissed the complaint, declaring that Espinosa should have filed an action for forcible entry considering that the action was still within the one-year period from her discovery of dispossession.
The RTC denied Espinosa’s motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding her argument that her complaint was not merely to determine who between her and the Agullos had the better right of possession over the property, but one for accion reivindicatoria, since she sought not only to recover ownership but also possession.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and agreed that Espinosa’s action was one for accion reivindicatoria, as her claim sought to recover full possession of the property, which is an element of ownership, allowing the case to proceed.
The Supreme Court, however, denied the appeal of the Agullos and allowed the RTC to proceed with the case on different grounds, declaring that the action was not accion reivindicatoria but one of accion publiciana.
The High Court explained that in accion publiciana, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land without necessarily claiming ownership, whereas in accion reivindicatoria, the determination of ownership of the land is essential, with possession granted to the rightful owner.
In the case, Espinosa did not seek a determination of ownership, nor did the Agullos dispute her title of ownership over the land. More importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that accion publiciana could be filed even within the one-year period from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth was used by the possessor—which, in this case, was not alleged. (Sps. Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa, G.R. No. 269921, April 22, 2025)
Understandably, the legal terms ejectment, unlawful detainer and forcible entry, accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria may be confusing to non-lawyers.
The following may help clarify any confusion.
This type of action may either be an action for Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer where both have the objective of recovery of physical or material possession. The action is based on Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and proceedings are summary (expedited) in nature.
A complaint for Forcible Entry is one where the entry of the party being ejected is illegal from the start whereas, in Unlawful Detainer, the possession was initially lawful but becomes unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess — such as when a lease agreement has ended.
Cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are filed with the lower courts (Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts) within one year from the unlawful deprivation or entry in the case of Forcible Entry or one year from the last demand in cases for Unlawful Detainer.
This is an action for recovery of the right to possess. It is based on Articles 523 to 560 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and it is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of real property independently of title.
While this type of action is usually filed against third persons, it may also be filed against any co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property.
In an action by one co-owner against another co-owner, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership. The complaining co-owner cannot seek exclusion of the other from the property because as co-owner he has a right of possession. (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)
In the words of the Supreme Court, when possession can no longer be wrested via summary action for ejectment when dispossession has lasted for more than a year, the dispossessed party may still file a complaint for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
The general rule is accion publiciana is filed when the dispossession has lasted for more than a year. However, when the dispossession does not involve force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, the case may be filed even if the dispossession has lasted for less than one year.
This type of case is filed with the lower courts or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property) and the action prescribed within 10 years from the time of the dispossession.
Accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership of a parcel of land and, as an element of this ownership, possession over the land. The party claimant must allege ownership over the parcel of land and seek recovery of its possession. (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)
This action is based on Articles 428 and 434 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and, like Accion Publiciana, is considered an ordinary civil proceeding.
The action may be filed with the lower court or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property and, generally, there is no time limit within which to bring the action except that the adverse party may acquire ownership over the land by virtue of prescription which will then defeat the claimant’s action in accion reivindicatoria.
Source: Inquirer