Inflation holds steady at 1.7% in October 2025

Philippine Headline inflation steadied in October as slower price increases in vegetables and meat offset higher utility costs during the month, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) said on Wednesday.

PSA data showed that the consumer price index (CPI) stood at 1.7% in October, unchanged from September’s print but eased from 2.3% a year ago.   

October also marked the eighth straight month that inflation fell below the central bank’s 2-4% target band.   

In the 10 months to October, average inflation matched the BSP’s full-year target of 1.7%.

Meanwhile, core inflation, which discounts volatile prices of food and fuel, eased to 2.5% from 2.6% in September. Still, it was slightly faster than the 2.4% print in October 2024. 

This brought year-to-date core inflation to 2.4%, easing from the 3.1% clip seen in the comparable year-ago period.

Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels contributed most to the CPI during the month and posted a 2.7% inflation rate, National Statistician Claire Dennis S. Mapa said.

Electricity alone posted a 4.1% inflation in October, accelerating from the 1.2% clip seen in September. 

In October, the Manila Electric Co. hiked the overall electricity rate by P0.2331 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to P13.3182 per kWh. This means residential customers consuming 200 kWh had to pay an additional P47 in their bill last month. 

Meanwhile, inflation for water supply also quickened to 5.7% in October from 5.3% a month earlier.

In September, the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System okayed the proposed P0.14 per cubic meter (cu.m.) hike for Maynilad and a P0.15 per cu.m. rollback for Manila Water for the October-December period.

Department of Economy, Planning, and Development Secretary Arsenio M. Balisacan said the government’s efforts to manage supply conditions and ensure price stability helped inflation hold steady in October.   

“The steady headline inflation rate shows that our coordinated interventions are helping to maintain adequate supplies and keeping essential goods affordable,” he said in a statement. “We remain vigilant in managing risks from weather disturbances, global market volatility, and other domestic factors that may affect prices in the coming months.”

Meanwhile, slower inflation for food and non-alcoholic beverages tempered inflationary pressures in October.

The heavily weighted food and nonalcoholic beverage index eased to 0.5% in October from the 1% clip logged the month earlier.

“Our food basket, food and non-alcoholic beverages, has the biggest weight in the inflation basket at 37.75% more or less,” Mr. Mapa said.

Food inflation slowed year on year to 0.3% from 0.8% the previous month and 3% in October 2024. 

This came as inflation for vegetables, tubers, plantains, cooking bananas and pulses eased to 16.6% from 19.4% in September.

Likewise, the PSA recorded slower inflation for meat and other parts of slaughtered land animals in October at 5.2% from 6% a month ago.

However, Mr. Mapa noted that inflationary pressures from food remain as prices of fish and other seafood picked up to 8.2% from 7.9% in September.

RICE PRICES

Rice inflation remained in the negative for the tenth month in a row at -17% in October from -16.9% in September.

Mr. Mapa said rice prices continued to decline amid increased unmilled rice production in the last quarter of the year.

“Our production is high, but of course, prices in the world market are also starting to drop. So that actually affected, in a good manner, our retail rice prices, because it continues to decline,” he said in Filipino.

Citing PSA data, Mr. Mapa said a kilo of regular-milled rice was sold at an average price of P40.09 in October, dropping by 20.2% from P50.22 a year ago. Well-milled rice was also cheaper at an average P46.49 per kilo, down 15.9% from P55.28 last year. Meanwhile, special rice was priced at P56.39 per kilo last month, falling by 11.8% from P63.97 in October 2024.

“Despite the import ban on rice, the price of the grain was largely stable while meat and dairy prices eased, offsetting the increase in utility rates,” Aris D. Dacanay, economist for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at HSBC Global Investment Research, said.

Earlier, President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. ordered a 60-day freeze on regular and well-milled rice imports from Sept. 1 to Nov. 2 to support local farmers amid the harvest season and to stabilize rice prices.

The suspension has been extended until yearend, with the government eyeing to open an import window in January before reimposing the ban from February to April.

Meanwhile, PSA data also showed that inflation in the National Capital Region (NCR) picked up to 2.9% in October from 2.7% in the previous month and 1.4% in the same month in 2024.

Outside NCR, inflation eased to 1.3% from 1.5% in September and the 2.6% clip a year ago.

Central Visayas still saw the highest inflation print among other regions at 2.6%, while prices in Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao declined the fastest at -1.3%.   

Inflation for the bottom 30% of income households declined at a faster pace of -0.4% in October from -0.2% in September. For the 10-month period, it averaged 0.3%, slower than 4.5% a year ago.

INFLATION AHEAD

The BSP still sees inflation settling below its 2-4% target by yearend, citing the recent easing of rice prices in the country.

“Inflation is projected to average below the low end of the target range in 2025, primarily due to the easing of rice prices in previous months,” it said in a statement. “The risks to the inflation outlook are limited as price pressures are expected to ease amid stabilizing global commodity prices.”

However, the central bank said the outlook for domestic economic growth has weakened.

“This outlook reflects in part the impact on business confidence of governance concerns about public infrastructure spending. Indications of slowing demand also reflect lingering uncertainty from the external environment,” the BSP said.

For November, Mr. Mapa said fuel prices will likely drive up inflationary pressures following the latest pump price adjustment.

Oil firms in the country implemented fuel price hikes on Tuesday, amounting to P1.70 per liter for gasoline, P2.70 per liter for diesel and P2.10 per liter for kerosene.

Mr. Mapa said they will continue to monitor the impact of recent typhoons on consumer prices, as well as Mr. Marcos’ earlier directive to impose a price freeze on basic and prime commodities until yearend.

“There are threats to overall food inflation. Some items are increasing, (such as) the price of fish (and) vegetable,” Mr. Mapa said, noting vegetable prices are sensitive to weather conditions.

In a note on Wednesday, Chinabank Research said inflation will likely remain low in the coming months, but noted that pump price adjustments and the weather’s impact on food prices still pose risks.   

“We expect overall inflation to remain low for the rest of the year, though upward price pressures may arise from energy — a hefty increase in local pump prices was announced this week — as well as from weather-sensitive food prices,” it said.

Meanwhile, HSBC’s Mr. Dacanay said the benign inflation and clearer rice policies could push the BSP to cut rates by 25 basis points (bps) in December.

“All in all, we think October inflation plus the clarity over rice policies strengthen the case for a December rate cut by the BSP,” he said. “With no issues in inflation, monetary policy has the runway to pump the economy to, hopefully, offset the fiscal fallout brought by a sharp drop in public infrastructure spending.”

Since it began its easing cycle in August 2024, the Monetary Board has cut its key policy rate by 175 bps to a three-year low of 4.75%. 

BSP Governor Eli M. Remolona, Jr. has signaled further easing until early next year to support the economy as the ongoing flood control anomalies have hit business sentiment, clouding their growth outlook.   

The Monetary Board will hold its last rate-setting meeting this year on Dec. 11.

Source: Business World

When co-owners cannot agree on the sale of their property

Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.

When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?

In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.

Alteration

If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.

Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.

Sale of Co-Owner’s Share

In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.

When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.

Partition and Sale

If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.

There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.

(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)

The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.

The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.

When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.

The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)

Another case involved co-owners of a 96-hectare property in Cavite, which was covered by several certificates of title. The first group of co-owners had agreed to sell their share in the property to a buyer for Php 12.50 per square meter.

The second group of co-owners filed a case in court because they objected to the sale, claiming that not only was the property incapable of partition, but also that the selling price was grossly excessive.

Accordingly, the second group of co-owners asked to be allowed to exercise their right to purchase the shares of the first group for Php 9.50 per square meter, as provided under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.

The Court declared that Article 1620 of the Civil Code was not applicable because the first group of co-owners had not actually sold their shares but only agreed to sell them to another party.

What was applicable was Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provided for the partition of the property, as it was clear that the co-owners no longer wanted to remain as co-owners of the property.

In this case, the Court finally decided that the property should be sold to third parties at a public sale, with the opening bid starting at Php 12.50 per square meter for the following reasons:

1. During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and

2. It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.

(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)

Source: Inquirer

Unconscionable interest rates can be nullified or reduced

While the parties to a loan agreement may freely agree on the interest rate that applies to their transaction, any imposition of interest rate must always be reasonable and fair.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that even the willingness of the debtor to assume an exorbitant and unconscionable interest rate does not validate the agreed rate as legally binding and enforceable. This principle was clearly explained in the case of Spouses Castro v. Tan [GR 168940, Nov. 24, 2009], penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, which states:

“The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals.”

Relative thereto, any loan agreement stipulating a grossly excessive interest rate is contrary to morals, and therefore void from the beginning, in consonance with Article 1409 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Moreover, to prevent lenders from exploiting borrowers with oppressive rates of interest, the courts are granted the power to reduce unjust or unconscionable contractual interest rates, pursuant to Article 1229 of the said Code, which provides:

“Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.”

With the foregoing, any debtor who enters into a loan agreement with an excessive interest rate may seek judicial relief to declare the interest void and unenforceable, or to reduce it to a fair and reasonable rate as warranted by the circumstances.

In this regard, one may, therefore, file a civil suit through the courts, either for the annulment of the interest rate in your loan agreement or the reformation of the instrument to fix the appropriate interest rate.

Source: Manila Times