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

Vietnam still enjoys cost advantage in furniture

The 17% tariff the US is poised to charge Philippine goods, while favorable compared to rest of the region, is not enough to overcome Vietnam’s cost advantage in furniture, the Chamber of Furniture Industries of the Philippines (CFIP) said.

CFIP Director General Ajun L. Valenzuela said that the Vietnam price advantage over equivalent Philippine goods is about 40%.

“Vietnam’s prices are much cheaper,” he said in a phone interview, adding: “our price difference with Vietnam is around 40%.”

Vietnam’s furniture exports totaled $16 billion in 2024, against Philippine exports of $200 million.

Vietnamese goods will be charged a 46% tariff starting July if it does not negotiate more favorable terms.

The tariff differential “is also good for us because it will make our prices at par with the Vietnam price, but it is not a solution,” he added.

The so-called reciprocal tariffs imposed on US trading partners announced in early April have been suspended for 90 days. In the interim, the US will charge most trading partners a 10% baseline rate.

According to Mr. Valenzuela, the Philippines still has an opportunity “to attract US buyers seeking alternatives to Vietnamese suppliers.”

“We can rely on our strengths: the unique craftsmanship, the indigenous materials, and the reputation or quality… especially in niche and premium segments,” he added.

The US is the largest export destination of Philippine furniture, accounting for $99 million, or 49.7% of the total. The other top markets include the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, and France.

He said it is possible that Singapore, which was assigned a 10% reciprocal tariff, “may act as a re-export hub for Vietnamese furniture.”

“We know for a fact that Singapore is not a furniture manufacturing country, so they sourced before from China, and now they will be sourcing from Vietnam. So, it potentially dilutes the Philippines competitive edge if rules of origin are not strictly enforced,” he added.

“There is also a risk that Vietnamese and Chinese furniture, now less competitive in the US, could be redirected to the Philippines,” he said.

“This could lead to import flooding, increased competition, and downward pressure on prices here,” he added.

The Philippine cost disadvantage lies mainly in labor, he said.

“The Philippine average monthly manufacturing wage is significantly higher than Vietnam’s. In the Philippines it is $420-$450, while Vietnam’s labor cost is only $300-$350,” he said.

“Labor cost makes it difficult for Philippine producers to compete on price, especially for large-scale commoditized orders,” he added.

He said the industry is also disadvantaged in terms of scale, with Filipino small and medium enterprises unable to expand.

He said high electricity costs are also a concern for the furniture sector, along with the sourcing of raw materials.

“Vietnam benefits from proximity to large plantations and easy access to imported timber through established supply chains, while we rely on imported wood,” he said.

He said that the exemption of wood and wood products under the new US tariff regime will allow Philippine manufacturers to import sustainable and certified solid wood from the US at a very competitive rate.

He said establishing Philippine brands in the US market will require sustained investment in marketing, compliance, and relationship-building.

Source: Business World