Proposed 99-year land lease to foreign investors ‘game-changing’

The Federation of Filipino Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Inc. (FFCCCII) on Wednesday urged lawmakers to immediately pass the 99-Year Land Lease Bill, seen as a “game-changing” reform that will help elevate the country’s global competitiveness and attract “transformative” investments.

In a strongly worded statement, the business group framed the proposal as a “historic opportunity” for the Philippines to align itself with Asia’s top-performing economies by offering long-term land lease options to foreign investors.

The bill seeks to allow qualified foreign investors to lease private land for up to 99 years, a model already adopted by regional neighbors such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

“This is not merely a policy adjustment; it is a strategic leap forward, aligning the Philippines with Asia’s most dynamic economies. The time to act is now,” FFCCCII president Victor Lim said.

To address national security and land ownership concerns, the FFCCCII proposed certain safeguards. These include strict oversight by the Department of Trade and Industry and investment promotion agencies, anti-speculation provisions requiring projects to start within three years and compliance with agrarian reform laws.

“Just like Singapore and Hong Kong, we can attract big investments while keeping sovereignty intact,” the FFCCCII said.

Catalyst for industrialization

The group pointed to long-term land lease models in other Southeast Asian countries as catalysts for industrialization and investment. Singapore’s transformation into a global financial and tech hub and Indonesia’s expansion in renewable energy and agro-industrial development were among the examples cited.

The business group said the impact would spread throughout the economy, driving job creation, boosting tax revenues and strengthening local enterprises.

“This reform will help unlock multibillion-dollar investments in advanced manufacturing, tourism, agro-industry, and renewable energy,” the FFCCCII read. “The ripple effect? Millions of high-quality jobs, stronger MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises) and higher tax revenues for infrastructure, health care and education,” it added.

The group emphasized that global investors were watching how the Philippines would respond, especially as regional competitors continued to implement pro-investment reforms.

It warned that delays in passing the measure could undermine the country’s competitiveness in the region.

“Global capital flows where policies are welcoming. While Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and others aggressively court investors, the Philippines cannot afford hesitation,” the statement said.

Source: Inquirer

Purchase money resulting trust

Question:

My parents bought a certain land, but the title was transferred to my brother. We are all living in the house built on said property. When my brother died, his heirs claimed ownership over the property, arguing that their father was the owner as reflected in the Torrens Title. My mother reminded them that their father has no financial capacity to purchase the land. Who is the real owner of said property? Can my parents present proof that my brother is not its real owner?

This is a classic case where legal ownership (as shown in the Torrens Title) and equitable ownership (who actually paid for the property) are in conflict. Here's how the situation breaks down legally and what options may be available:

Legal Context

Under the Torrens system, the person whose name appears on the certificate of title is presumed to be the lawful owner of the property. However, this presumption is not absolute and can be overturned with clear, strong, and convincing evidence.

Key Facts in Your Case

1. Title is under your brothers name – so, on paper, he's the legal owner.

2. Your parents paid for the land – they're claiming they are the true buyers.

3. Everyone lived in the house together – shows cohabitation but not necessarily ownership.

4. Your brother had no financial capacity to purchase the land – this is a critical point if provable.

5. Now that your brother is dead, his heirs are asserting ownership – they are legally standing in his shoes.

   
   

What Your Parents Can Do

Yes, your parents can present evidence to rebut the title in Jeff's name and establish a "resulting trust" or "implied trust." This is a legal concept where:

A trust is presumed in favor of the real buyer (your parents) if they can show they provided the purchase money, and the title was placed in another’s name for convenience or other reasons.

Types of Proof Your Parents Should Gather:

• Receipts or proof of payment (checks, bank withdrawals, sale agreements)

• Deed of sale naming them as the real buyers

• Affidavits from witnesses (e.g., the seller, neighbors, family, etc.)

• Lack of income or financial capacity of Jeff at the time of purchase

• Any written or oral admission by Jeff that he was not the real owner

  
  

Possible Legal Remedies

If amicable settlement fails, your parents may:

1. File a case in court to establish a resulting trust or reconveyance of the property.

2. Argue that Jeff held the title in trust for your parents, not in his own right.

3. Ask the court to order the cancellation of the title in Jeff’s name and issue a new one in your parents’ name.

   
   

Important Caveats

• Statute of limitations may apply depending on how long ago this happened. Usually, it's 10 years from discovery of fraud or denial of the trust.

• The burden of proof is on your parents since the title is not in their name.

• This can be a long and potentially costly legal battle, so legal advice is a must.

Next Steps

1. Consult a lawyer specializing in property or family law.

2. Start collecting any and all documentation that proves your parents paid for the land.

3. Try amicable settlement or mediation with your brother's heirs, if possible.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

New legislators urged to freeze farmland conversions

Farmer organizations urged would-be legislators to file measures that would halt the conversion of farmland, citing the need to ensure food security.

Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (UMA) proposed that the 20th Congress consider a ban on land conversion by property developers.

“The country is losing precious agricultural land that could otherwise grow food staples like rice and vegetables to real estate projects for subdivisions and golf courses, commercial districts and pseudo-industrial zones,” it said.

It also called for measures to disincentivize farmers from switching away from staples to “plantation crops” like cavendish banana, pineapple, and oil palm.

“We cannot become food self-sufficient if the state prioritizes global market demand over domestic needs,” it added.

Agrarian reform beneficiaries are often forced to sell their land to developers due to unfavorable farming conditions, farmer organizations have said.

UMA is lobbying for the refiling of a Genuine Agrarian Reform bill, which seeks the distribution of land at no cost to farmer beneficiaries and the creation of cooperatives as vehicles for productivity.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. in 2023 signed the New Agrarian Emancipation Act, which aims to condone all loans, including interests, penalties, and surcharges incurred by agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Farmer organizations have lobbied for the insertion of anti-land conversion provisions in a proposed Land Use Act, which was approved by the House of Representatives in 2023. The bill remains pending in the Senate.

UMA said legislators need to arrest the decline in the number of farm workers by improving their working conditions.

“The number of agricultural workers has long been on the decline — not because landless farmers are finally getting land, but because of rural wage discrimination against agri-workers,” it said.

UMA also pushed for the refiling of the proposed Rice Industry Development Act, which it views as an alternative to the Rice Tariffication Law of 2019.

The bill being backed by UMA seeks to increase rice industry productivity on a three-year timetable with funding of about P400 billion.

The allocations include a rice production socialized credit program (P25 billion), an accelerated irrigation development program (P45 billion), a post-harvest facilities development program (P30 billion), a research and development and extension services program (P15 billion, and a procurement program for the National Food Authority (P310 billion).

“The government needs to do more than bring food staples like rice directly to the market; it should also purchase directly from farmers, boxing out middlemen and, in particular, the rice cartel,” UMA said.

Source: Business World