Book a Consultation

Category: Upcoming Legislation

  • The 99-Year Lease Debate: Implications for Real Estate and Other Looming Risks

    (Part 2 of 2)

    By Realttorney®

    Despite the passage of the “99-Year Lease Law” on third and final reading by both Houses of Congress on December 24, 2024, there is a chance that it will not become law in the next 6 months. After the May 2025 elections, it seems our legislators may have no appetite to push for the harmonization of the 2 versions of the bill in the bicameral conference, and the subsequent ratification of the approved version by both chambers of the Congress of the Philippines.

    While the proposal to amend Republic Act No. 7652 to extend the lease term for foreign investors to 99 years aims to attract more foreign capital and boost economic growth, it has generated several arguments against its enactment into law. Let us discuss some of these criticisms here.

    This is an opportune time for all real estate stakeholders to learn about the various risks and challenges if the proposed amendments become law. And, by the end of the article, we shall discuss the key takeaways for real estate service practitioners as they practice and serve valued clients in their chosen profession.

    As discussed in the previous article, the proposed amendments to Rep. Act No. 7652 seem constitutionally sound. However, critics argue that a 99-year lease is practically equivalent to foreign ownership of land, which is prohibited under the Philippine Constitution to protect national patrimony. Cause-oriented groups fear this could create loopholes allowing foreigners and foreign-owned entities to gain excessive control over the country’s land and resources over an extended period.

    In addition, detractors of the “99-Year Lease Law” view this 99-year lease contract as a multi-generational lease, far exceeding the average global life expectancy. As such, this long duration raises concerns about the potential for foreigners and foreign-owned entities to establish long-lasting dominance over strategic lands all over the Philippines.

    Furthermore, the extended security over private lands provided to foreign investors may create an uneven competitive landscape. Local enterprises may face challenges competing with foreign investors who have greater incentives and long-term stability in land access. This imbalance could hinder the growth and success of local businesses in the real estate sector.

    Hence, while the extension of a lease up to an aggregate period of 99 years may bring opportunities for growth and development in the real estate market, it is crucial to carefully consider and address the potential challenges and risks associated with this incentive. Therefore, we should understand the risks and learn how to mitigate them so that the real estate sector can continue to thrive and contribute positively to the Philippine economy.

    What are the potential challenges facing the real estate sector if Rep. Act No. 7652 is successfully amended?

    One major concern is the reduced availability of private land for domestic use. Long-term leases effectively take land out of circulation for nearly a century, which could worsen the scarcity of prime land in urban and highly industrialized areas. This scarcity may drive up costs for local businesses and residents, impacting the overall economic landscape.

    The passage of this law will impact the housing market, especially the socialized, low-cost to mid-market housing projects, in a negative way. Apart from the issue of affordability of such housing units, the passage of the “99-Year Lease Law” will drastically affect the supply of such housing projects, thereby exacerbating the ability of government to provide decent and affordable housing units to the low-income Filipinos.

    In addition, there is apprehension that the extended lease terms could lead to increased land values, potentially displacing local investors or developers and making it harder for Filipinos to afford land and housing in their own country.

    What are the potential negative impacts on agriculture and the local communities tied to agriculture?

    Socio-civic organizations have raised concerns that agricultural lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) could be targeted for long-term lease for 99 years by foreign investors or foreign-owned entities. If so, this will undermine the goals of land redistribution and, most importantly, food security.

    Therefore, this amendatory bill, if signed into law, could lead to the expansion of large-scale agribusinesses controlled by foreign corporations, to the detriment of small-scale farmers and other local food producers in the Philippines.

    Historically, the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is designed to ensure the fair distribution of land to farmers and enhance agricultural productivity. The proposed amendments to the Investor’s Lease Act include provisions that require leases to adhere to agrarian reform laws.

    However, there are several concerns that need to be addressed. First, the detractors of the amendments see a potential risk that foreign investors may attempt to convert agricultural lands for industrial or commercial purposes. In their view, this could reduce the amount of land available for agrarian reform beneficiaries and jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the agricultural sector.

    But we have to remember that there are certain safeguards included in the amendments that would hopefully prevent these things from happening. If such eventualities happen, then it would not be the failure of the letter of the law and its implementing rules and regulations, but due to the weakness of the character of those implementing the agrarian reform law and the implementing agencies of the amendatory law.

    Second, and this is my opinion, enacting these amendments into law without the overall framework of a National Land Use Plan would present great regulatory challenges for the government regulators to manage and plan the use of land that is best for the Philippines, its regions, provinces, and cities.

    Without a comprehensive land use plan, each local government unit (LGU) will compete for the setting up of investment projects in their localities while sacrificing the need for human settlements, food production, and the protection of the environment and ancestral domains, if any, within their territorial jurisdiction.

    Monitoring and enforcing compliance of land use regulations of each LGU will be fragmented at best and may place a strain on government resources. Without effective oversight, there is a possibility of exploitation or non-compliance with the objectives of the Investor’s Lease Act, the laws on the environment, agrarian reform and other regulations.

    Furthermore, critics worry that the bill’s definition of “private lands” might be vague enough to include ancestral domains, putting these lands at risk of being leased to foreign investors and eroding the heritage and identity of indigenous communities. But of course, Rep. Act No. 8371 (the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act) will hopefully provide adequate protection and safeguards to the Indigenous Peoples’ Ancestral Domains.

    On a positive note, the proposed amendments to the Investor’s Lease Act could attract foreign investments in agro-industrial ventures. This could lead to increased employment opportunities for farmers and the introduction of modern agricultural technologies for the use of Filipino farmers.

    Thus, while the government’s land reform program has the potential to bring about positive changes in the agricultural sector, it is crucial to address the aforementioned concerns to ensure all stakeholders in the agricultural sector benefit from all foreign investments in agriculture and agro-industrial ventures.

    Economic Dependency and Lack of Real Impact: Some argue that such a long lease term could lead to economic dependence on foreign-owned entities, with control over significant land areas potentially shifting to foreign interests. Moreover, analysts suggest that the length of the land lease might not be the primary deterrent to foreign investment in the Philippines. Other factors like expensive power, poor infrastructure, governance issues, and graft and corruption might be more significant constraints. Therefore, extending the lease term alone might not guarantee a substantial increase in foreign investment or long-term economic development.

    What then are the key takeaways for Real Estate Service Practitioners?

    The proposed amendments to the Investor’s Lease Act could bring forth a myriad of challenges and opportunities for real estate service practitioners (RESPs) and real estate investors and developers.

    The first thing to keep in mind is the possible rise in demand for advisory services for RESPs. With lease terms being extended, foreign investors will seek expert guidance to navigate local laws and ensure the legality and sustainability of their lease agreements.

    Second, the increase in foreign direct investments in the Philippines may lead to an increase in demand for medium-scale or large-scale property development projects, opening doors for local partnerships and joint ventures for the clients of RESPs or the RESPs themselves.

    Third, the possible growing demand for real estate projects will necessitate that RESPs conduct thorough due diligence to guarantee that leased properties adhere to agrarian reform laws and local zoning ordinances, among others.

    Finally, it is imperative for RESPs to play a role in advocating for policies that strike a balance between protecting national interests and fostering economic growth. Ultimately, RESPs must be agents of positive change for all stakeholders in the real estate industry.

    RESPs must be prepared to adapt to the changes brought about by the forthcoming amendments to the Investor’s Lease Act and seize the opportunities it presents. By staying informed and proactive, RESPs can navigate the evolving landscape of the real estate industry with confidence and success.

    In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Investor’s Lease Act demonstrate the government’s dedication to attracting foreign direct investments. While the proposed 99-year lease period is constitutionally acceptable, it is crucial to consider the potential drawbacks, such as impacts on land availability, the real estate market, and the land reform program, among others.

    To ensure that this policy achieves its objectives without compromising national interests, it is essential to establish robust safeguards, clear regulations, and transparent implementation by government officials. For professionals in the real estate industry, this development highlights the importance of staying informed and proactive in guiding clients through the changing legal landscape.

    Whether assisting foreign investors or safeguarding the rights of Filipino landowners, the real estate sector must serve as a conduit between opportunity and compliance. While proponents argue that a 99-year lease term will attract foreign investment and stimulate the economy, opponents voice significant concerns regarding national sovereignty, potential displacement of local communities, negative impacts on agriculture, questionable economic benefits, and potential legal complexities.

    The stakeholders in the real estate industry, especially RESPs, should urge Congress and the Executive Department to exercise caution and prioritize the long-term interests of Filipino citizens and national patrimony.

    Do you have anything to add? Or do you disagree with what we have written? Your comments will be very much welcomed.

    ——-

    Atty. Jojo is a real estate attorney, an estate planning attorney, a licensed real estate broker, and a PRC-accredited Lecturer/ Speaker for Training Programs in Real Estate. He is committed to helping new and veteran real estate service practitioners be well-informed of the latest laws, rules, regulations, and information relevant to the real estate service sector.

  • Amending the Right-of-Way Act with ARROW

    “On this note, the prevailing rule is that the courts will compel the establishment of a right of way only when absolutely necessary.”

    – Mr. Justice Gaerlan, Ponente in Sps. Vargas v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.

    By Realttorney®

    One of the most persistent challenges in the Philippines in terms of infrastructure development and projects has been the acquisition of land for right-of-way (ROW). This critical process has historically been beset by delays, inconsistencies, and legal hurdles, impeding the timely implementation of national and local development projects.

    Republic Act No. 10752, or “The Right-of-Way Act,” was passed in 2016 to streamline the land acquisition process for government infrastructure. However, as infrastructure ambitions grow in scale and complexity – particularly under the Build, Build, Build and its successor programs – the need for further reform has become evident.

    The proposed Senate Bill No. 2821, also known as the “Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act,” seeks to comprehensively amend Rep. Act No. 10752 to introduce more efficient, inclusive, and transparent processes concerning land acquisition for infrastructure projects by both the national government and public service providers. This blog explores the salient features of the ARROW Act, the motivations behind its reforms, and the implications for stakeholders in both the public and private sectors.

    Let’s begin.

    Rep. Act No. 10752 was enacted in 2016 to facilitate the acquisition of ROW for government infrastructure projects through streamlined procedures for negotiated sale and expropriation. Key features included payment of just compensation based on current market value, the inclusion of informal settlers in the compensation scheme, and a limited scope of coverage focusing primarily on government-led projects.

    However, the law fell short in addressing delays caused by valuation disputes, overlapping land claims, inconsistent property assessments, and lack of integration with private-sector infrastructure initiatives. These gaps hindered the government’s ability to implement infrastructure projects on time and within budget.

    Senate Bill No. 2821 is the committee report combining three Senate Bills, taking consideration House Bill No. 6571, and was filed on September 11, 2024. It proposes substantial amendments to Rep. Act No. 10752. It expands the law’s scope, introduces new mechanisms for planning and execution, and integrates the role of private entities providing public services.

    These reforms aim to accelerate and streamline the process of acquiring the necessary right-of-way. One of the major reforms the ARROW Act seeks to introduce is the expansion of the coverage of the law.

    Expanded Coverage. The ARROW Act explicitly broadens the application of the law to include all national government infrastructure projects undertaken through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), referencing Republic Act No. 11966 or the “Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Code of the Philippines”.

    The coverage of the law now includes private entities granted the power of eminent domain. It also provides a clearer definition of “private entity providing public service” in the realm of electricity distribution and transmission, petroleum pipelines, water and wastewater systems, internet and telecommunications, airports, seaports, and irrigation projects.

    And, subject to ownership restrictions under the Constitution, a private entity may acquire private land or patrimonial property for the right-of-way site or location of an infrastructure project, as may be reasonably necessary for the efficient maintenance and operation of the public service pursuant to the private entity’s franchise or authority to operate.

    Moreover, the expansion of the coverage of the law ensures uniform standards in compensation and procedure across both government and private-sector projects delivering public services. It closes the gap previously exploited by some projects that bypassed ROW safeguards through technicalities.

    A significant addition introduced by the bill is the mandatory preparation of a Right-of-Way Action Plan (RAP) by the implementing agency before any property acquisition. This plan must include a census and profile of affected persons, an inventory of affected assets, estimated ROW costs (including compensation for land, structures, improvements, machinery considered as immovables, crops, and trees), a schedule of implementation, institutional arrangements, and proof of stakeholder consultations.

    The RAP is a major leap forward in promoting transparency, accountability, and proper planning. It reduces disputes and strengthens social safeguards, especially for marginalized groups. Similar planning documents are standard in international best practices, such as those recommended by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

    By mandating transparency it builds public confidence, supports media oversight, and allows civil society to monitor compliance.

    Specific Procedures for Ancestral Domains. The ARROW Act introduces a dedicated section addressing the “entry and use of property within ancestral domains”. It mandates securing a “Certification Precondition” from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). An “Infrastructure Right-of-Way Easement Agreement” is to be executed between the implementing agency and the NCIP-certified indigenous political structure, granting the right to use the land while the ICCs/IPs retain ownership. For ICCs/IPs without an established political structure, the process of “Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)” as per Rep. Act No. 8371 must be observed.

    This harmonizes ROW acquisition with the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), balancing infrastructure development with cultural sensitivity. It is a significant improvement from previous vague and often adversarial processes.

    Revised Rules on Negotiated Sale. The rules for negotiated sale will be amended for both government and private entities. The ARROW Act removes the reliance on inconsistent BIR zonal values. The basis for the price offer is now explicitly linked to the standardized property valuation system and schedule of market values established under Rep. Act No. 12001, or the “Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act”.

    This proposed change addresses one of the most common causes of ROW delays: contested compensation. Hence, the standards for assessing the value of property subject to negotiated sale are updated to explicitly include the “APPROVED SMV established under R.A. No. 12001”, or in its absence, the BIR Zonal Valuation. Therefore, a unified valuation framework improves predictability and ensures that compensation reflects true market value, thus reducing litigation and fostering trust.

    The bill specifies the “payment terms” more clearly. Upon the execution of a deed of sale, the property owner shall be paid “seventy percent (70%)” of the negotiated price of the land (exclusive of certain taxes) and “seventy percent (70%)” of the negotiated price of structures, improvements, crops, and trees. The remaining “thirty percent (30%)” shall be paid upon the transfer of title (if wholly affected) or annotation of the deed of sale (if partially affected) and the land is completely cleared.

    Prompt payments incentivize cooperation and reduce friction. Ensuring that informal landholders with decades of possession are recognized and reimbursed aligns with equitable land governance practices.

    There is also a provision regarding the payment of “capital gains tax” by the implementing agency or private entity is now explicitly stated to apply only to the negotiated sale of property classified as “capital assets”. Negotiated sale of property classified as ordinary assets are subject to the existing rules and regulations of the BIR.

    Meanwhile, the buyer of the property will pay for documentary stamp tax, transfer taxes, and registration fees at the Registry of Deeds, for titled lands. Finally, the ARROW Act clarifies the requirements for “untitled lands”, outlining specific documents the possessor shall submit to the implementing agency.

    Modified Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. The guidelines for expropriation have also been revised in this manner:

    1. The “initial deposit” to the court in favor of the property owner has been changed to “fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the land”, “seventy percent (70%) of the replacement cost of improvements and structures (including machinery considered as immovable)”, and “seventy percent (70%) of the current market value of crops and trees”. These amounts will be based on the “approved SMV under RA No. 12001”. In its absence, interim measures using BIR zonal valuation and assessed values are provided.
    2. The court is mandated to “immediately issue a writ of possession ex parte” upon compliance with the deposit requirements.
    3. The Act sets a timeframe of “sixty (60) days” from the filing of the expropriation case for the court to determine the just compensation if the owner contests the offered value.
    4. Finally, Court-ordered demolition is now allowed for non-compliant informal settlers.

    These revised guidelines speed up land acquisition while retaining fairness. Fast-tracking possession is critical in projects with firm deadlines, such as flood control or transportation hub corridors, i.e., railroad networks.

    Relocation of Informal Settlers. The responsibility for establishing and developing resettlement sites for informal settlers will be primarily assigned to the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD), through the appropriate key shelter agency.

    Advance Appropriations. The importance of providing “adequate appropriations in advance” for ROW acquisition for national government infrastructure projects is emphasized by the ARROW Act. Specific expenses to be covered by these appropriations are listed. The Act also clarifies that appropriations for ROW in PPP projects shall follow the guidelines in Rep. Act No. 11966.

    Regulation of Developments within the Declared ROW. The period during which no development contrary to the approved project plans is allowed within the defined right-of-way after the notice of taking is two (2) years. The implementing agency is required to provide the concerned national agencies and LGUs with a copy of the notice of taking.

    Sanctions for Private Entities. The proposed ARROW Act explicitly includes “civil or criminal sanctions” for the president, manager, director, trustee, or responsible officers of a “private entity” who violate any provision of the Act.

    Applicability of Rep. Act No. 8975. The Act explicitly states that the provisions of Republic Act No. 8975 on the prohibition and penal sanction on the issuance of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, or preliminary mandatory injunctions shall apply. This provision ensures deterrence against non-compliance while protecting the integrity of national priority projects.

    Mandatory Public Disclosure. A new section mandates the “public disclosure of essential right-of-way information” such as the ROW Action Plan, the status of ROW claims, and the status of expropriation cases on the implementing agency or private entity’s website, subject to the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

    Expansion of the IRR Committee. The composition of the committee responsible for preparing the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) has been updated to include the Secretaries of the Departments of Information and Communications Technology, Environment and Natural Resources, Finance, Justice, Human Settlement and Urban Development, and Agrarian Reform, among other changes.

    A multi-agency approach promotes policy coherence and addresses cross-sectoral challenges such as electrification, connectivity, and environmental safeguards. The participation of DHSUD also ensures the integration of resettlement concerns.

    These reforms under the ARROW Act are intended to address bottlenecks and expedite the acquisition of right-of-way, which is often a critical factor in the timely implementation of infrastructure projects in the Philippines.

    What then are the practical benefits of these proposed amendments? First is faster project execution. The ARROW Act provides clearer procedures, faster court action, and earlier payment schedules to reduce delays in the implementation of critical government infrastructure projects.

    The second is enhanced investor confidence. The PPP proponents will gain from consistent rules and easier access to ROW, meeting important timelines that may lead to cost reductions. Third is fairer compensation. A unified valuation system and clear tax rules reduce conflicts and misunderstandings between all stakeholders in the project. Fourth is better community engagement. The mandatory public consultations and transparent planning process reduce resistance from affected sectors. And finally, inclusive development. Stronger protections for IPs and informal settlers align with constitutional social justice goals.

    In conclusion, the proposed amendments to Rep. Act No. 10752 through the ARROW Act represent a bold and necessary leap toward infrastructure modernization in the Philippines. They reflect a sophisticated understanding of the legal, social, and economic intricacies of land acquisition and signal a commitment to making infrastructure delivery faster, fairer, and more accountable.

    For legal professionals, developers, and policymakers, these amendments are not merely procedural updates – they are strategic enablers of national development. As the Philippines seeks to build resilient, inclusive, and sustainable infrastructure, the ARROW Act provides a sharper legal tool for achieving these goals.

    Share your thoughts in the comments section so we will know if you support or oppose this amendment being pushed by our legislators.

    ——-

    Atty. Jojo is a real estate attorney, an estate planning attorney, a licensed real estate broker, and a PRC-accredited Lecturer/ Speaker for Training Programs in Real Estate. He is a Chartered Trust and Estate Planning (CTEP®) professional who is committed to educating Filipinos about the value and importance of having an estate plan in their lives.

  • The 99-Year Lease Law: Boon for Investments or Threat to Filipino Land Ownership?

    We are only tenants, and shortly the great Landlord will give us notice that our leased has expired.

    – Joseph Jefferson, 19th century American Comedian

    (Part 1 of 2)

    By Realttorney®

    On December 16, 2024, the Senate of the Philippines passed on third and final reading Senate Bill No. 2898. The day after, the House of Representatives passed on third and final reading House Bill No. 10755. Both bills amend Republic Act No. 7652, known as the Investor’s Lease Act. The bicameral conference has not been scheduled at present.

    The passage on 3rd reading by both Houses of Congress of their respective versions of the amendatory bill has ignited significant discussion among stakeholders in the Philippines. SBN 2898 proposes a 99-year lease term for foreign investors, replacing the original 50-year lease term, with a 25-year renewal.

    This development raises crucial questions regarding the potential breach of the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of land, its impact on the real estate sector, the negative impact on farmers, plantation workers, including the indigenous cultural communities, and the implications for the government’s land reform program. This part will delve into the specific amendments to the existing law and discuss the seeming evasion of the sacred constitutional prohibition.

    The Philippine Constitution explicitly prohibits foreigners from owning land within the country but allows foreign entities to lease lands under certain conditions. According to civil society groups, the extension to a 99-year lease term in the amendatory bill gives rise to concerns that it circumvents the constitutional prohibition by granting de facto control over land without outright ownership.

    What are the key constitutional and legal considerations that we all need to know to better understand this important piece of legislation?

    Under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution states, “Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.”

    The last paragraph of Section 3 declares, “Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.”

    The constitutional mandate is quite clear. Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, explicitly restricts the duration of leases to a maximum of 50 years for alienable lands of the public domain (agricultural lands), and not to exceed 1,000 hectares in area.

    Meanwhile, the coverage of Rep. Act No. 7652, and the recently passed amendatory bills is the granting of long-term lease on private lands to foreign investors for the establishment of industrial estates, factories, assembly or processing plants, agro-industrial enterprises, land development for industrial, or commercial use, tourism, agriculture, agro-forestry, ecological conservation and other similar priority productive endeavors.

    So, what is the difference between alienable lands of the public domain and private lands in the Philippines?

    In the Philippines, alienable lands of the public domain refer to agricultural lands of the public domain that have been reclassified and made available for private ownership, while private lands are those that are not part of the public domain and are privately owned.

    The key difference lies in ownership: public domain lands are owned by the State, while private lands are owned by individuals or corporations. Alienable public lands, once reclassified, become susceptible to private acquisition through various legal means.

    To be sure, a lease of private land to a foreign investor for a reasonable period (25 years initially and extendible to another 25 years before) is valid. The amendment will now allow the aggregate period of the lease contract to extend beyond 50 years but not exceed 99 years.

    It is important to note that only foreign investors who have approved and registered investment under Rep. Act No. 7042 (Foreign Investment Act of 1991, as amended), Rep. Act No. 11534 (Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises Act) as amended by Rep. Act No. 12066 (CREATE MORE Act), or other applicable laws, or has complied with the investment requirements prescribed by the appropriate Investment Promotion Agency, according to existing laws, can avail of a contract of lease for a period not to exceed 99 years.

    But what if you a foreign investor have no approved and registered investment under the laws mentioned above, but still want to set up shop in the Philippines by renting private lands. What would be the period of lease?

    The law that would govern this case is Pres. Decree No. 471, entitled “Fixing a Maximum Period for the Duration of Leases of Private Lands to Aliens.” Under this law, the maximum period allowable for the duration of leases of private lands to aliens or alien-owned corporations, associations, or entities not qualified to acquire private lands in the Philippines shall be 25 years, renewable for another period of 25 years upon mutual agreement of both lessor and lessee. However, any contract or agreement made or executed in violation of Pres. Decree No. 471 shall be null and void ab initio.

    Our legislators argue that the 99-year lease period will offer stability and predictability to foreign investors who want to invest in the Philippines. And it seems to pass constitutional scrutiny at this time. However, the long-term lease alone is not sufficient to entice foreign direct investments to the country.

    What changes and/or improvements are introduced by the amendatory bills to the Investor’s Lease Act?

    First, the lease contract between the foreign investors and the owners of private lands must be registered with the Registry of Deeds of the Province or City where the lease area is located and annotated on the certificate of title covering the leased area.

    Please take note of the important conditions that must exist in order for the Register of Deeds to register the long-term lease contract: (1) the foreign investor must present proof of an approved and registered investment under the Foreign Investment Act of 1991, as amended, and the CREATE Act, as amended by the CREATE MORE Act; (2) the date of commencement and maximum duration of the lease are certain; (3) the technical description of the property subject of the lease is clearly specified; and (4) there is a provision in the lease contract providing for its termination if the investment project does not commence within 3 years from the signing of the lease contract.

    The last condition is a “safety valve” that ensures that the registered and approved investment enterprise of the foreign investor will definitely push through within the 3-year period from the execution of the lease contract.

    This is apart from the condition that warrants the ipso facto termination of the lease contract upon (1) the withdrawal of the approved and registered investment within the period of the lease contract, or (2) when there is unauthorized use of the lease area for other purposes than what was approved by the Investment Promotion Agency. Moreover, if the ipso facto termination of the lease contract indeed happens then the Lessor has the right to be compensated for the damages that the Lessor may have suffered.

    Moreover, it should be noted that the registration of the long-term lease contract shall be the operative act that renders the lease binding against third persons. As such, registration shall be made following the appropriate provisions of Pres. Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree.

    The second important amendment to know is that the registered long-term lease contract shall not be subject to collateral attack. Hence, it cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. However, this shall be without prejudice to a periodic review of the terms of the lease to be done by the Board of Investments (BOI) or the appropriate Investment Promotion Agency (IPA).

    It should be noted that the continuation of the lease shall be subject to the condition that the lease contract remains equitable for all interest parties – Lessor, Lessee, and the government, as represented by the BOI or IPA. Add to this, is the condition for the renewal of the lease contract upon the foreign investor-lessee, which is the next amendment below.

    The third important amendment is that the foreign investor shall show that that it has made social and economic contributions to the country and the communities in the leased land, as a condition for the renewal or extension of the lease period, which should not exceed 99 years in all.

    Fourth, under the existing law, the leasehold right acquired under the long-term lease contracts may be sold, transferred, or assigned. The amendment now allows that the same leasehold right may serve as security for a loan or as collateral. But when the buyer, transferee, assignee, or creditor is a foreigner or foreign-owned enterprise, the conditions and limitations concerning the use of the leased property as provided under the amendatory law shall continue to apply.

    Fifth, in the case of tourism projects, the lease of private lands by qualified foreign investors shall be limited to projects with an investment of not less than US$ 5,000,000.00, seventy percent of which shall be infused in said project within 3 years from the signing of the lease contract.

    Sixth, in the case of agricultural and agro-forestry lands, the terms of the lease shall be subject to the rules on conversion and the rules of the Department of Agrarian Reform governing Joint Venture Agreements in agro-forestry lands.

    Seventh, unless there is an express prohibition in the lease contract, the Lessee may sublet the leased property with the consent of the Lessor. All the conditions, coverage, and limitations mentioned in the amendatory law shall likewise apply to the sublease contract. Furthermore, the sublease contract shall be registered with the Registry of Deeds and annotated on the certificate of title covering the land, as well.

    Finally, if there is a failure on the part of the foreign investor to initiate the investment project within 3 years from the signing of the long-term lease contract then the contract will be terminated, and all entitlements granted under the law shall be revoked. Thereafter, the Lessor shall be entitled to the possession of the leased property.

    In all, there are adequate safety nets that will protect the owners of private land and balance the interests of the foreign investors and that of the Philippine economy. The amendments ensure that potential inequities or misuse of the leased land are conditions that would terminate the long-term lease.

    In part two of this article, we shall discuss the impact of this proposed legislation on the real estate sector, the impact on farmers, and plantation workers, including the indigenous cultural communities, and the implications for the government’s land reform program.

    ——-

    Atty. Jojo is a real estate attorney, an estate planning attorney, a licensed real estate broker, and a PRC-accredited Lecturer/ Speaker for Training Programs in Real Estate. He is committed to helping new and veteran real estate service practitioners be well-informed of the latest laws, rules, regulations, and information relevant to the real estate service sector.