Tag: Train Law

  • How to Sell the Property of a Dead Relative in the Philippines

    How to Sell the Property of a Dead Relative in the Philippines

    “While we are postponing, life speeds by.”

    — Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius, Letter 1, translated by Richard Mott Gummere

    By Atty. Jojo Perez | Realttorney®

    [Originally published March 2, 2024 | Substantive revision prepared November 1, 2026]

    Can you sell property that is still in a deceased relative’s name?

    Yes, heirs may arrange the sale of inherited property in the Philippines, but they must establish their rights and authority, use the correct estate-settlement documents, and comply with the applicable tax and registration requirements. Depending on the circumstances, settlement and sale may be documented together through an extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale. A separate title in the heirs’ names is not a universal prerequisite to executing the sale documents.

    Death leaves families with more than grief. It also leaves practical questions. Who may sign for the property? What if one heir is abroad? Can the buyer’s payment help fund the taxes? What happens when the family cannot agree?

    Before finding a buyer or accepting a deposit, understand what the family owns, who must participate, and which process applies. This guide focuses on an agreed extrajudicial settlement of an estate without a will. A will, unresolved debts, disputed heirship, or a proposed sale involving a minor’s share requires separate legal consideration.

    What changes when the registered owner dies

    The title may remain in the deceased person’s name, but that does not mean the heirs have no rights until a new title is issued. Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, successional rights pass at death. Where there are several heirs, the estate is generally held in common before partition, subject to payment of the deceased’s debts. Ownership rights, authority to sell the entire property, and registration of the buyer’s title are related but distinct issues. Civil Code, Articles 777 and 1078.

    Never prepare a deed making it appear that the deceased owner is still alive and personally selling the property. The proper parties must sign in their actual capacities. A notarized document cannot cure a fabricated signature or missing authority.

    Step 1: Identify the heirs and the deceased owner’s actual interest

    Do not assume that the children are the only heirs. Establish the family relationships, whether a spouse survives, and whether an heir has also died. A later death may require examination of another estate and another set of successors.

    Check whether the property was exclusively owned by the deceased, belonged to the spouses’ property regime, or was co-owned with someone else. A surviving spouse’s own interest must be distinguished from that spouse’s inheritance. The name printed on the title does not, by itself, answer every marital-property question.

    Gather the death certificate, relevant birth and marriage records, title, tax declarations, and any documents affecting ownership. Investigate inconsistent names, missing records, annotations, mortgages, occupants, and pending disputes before drafting the settlement. The property due diligence checklist provides a useful starting point for buyers.

    Step 2: Confirm that extrajudicial settlement is appropriate

    Under Rule 74, Section 1, an agreed extrajudicial settlement is available when the deceased left no will, has no debts, and the heirs are all of age or minors are represented by judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose. If there is only one heir, the appropriate instrument may be an affidavit of self-adjudication. Ende v. Roman Catholic Prelate.

    Every heir must be accounted for and properly participate in the agreed settlement, personally or through valid representation. The heirs must address existing liabilities and agree on a lawful settlement. A minor cannot simply sign an SPA, and a parent’s signature should not be assumed to supply every authority needed to dispose of the child’s property. Obtain advice about representation and any necessary court approval.

    If there is a will, it must be dealt with through the applicable probate process. If heirship, ownership, debts, or the proposed division is disputed, a court proceeding, or another appropriate remedy may be needed. Do not conceal a will or omit a family member merely to make the paperwork easier.

    Step 3: Agree on the sale terms and who may represent the heirs

    One trusted representative can make negotiations manageable. Trust, however, should be supported by a clear written mandate or authority.

    Before marketing the property, agree on the proposed price, payment terms, tax and expense allocation, brokerage commission, possession, and distribution of the net proceeds. Distinguish authority to negotiate from authority to sign a settlement or sale and authority to receive the purchase money.

    If an heir cannot personally sign, obtain an appropriately worded Special Power of Attorney. It should identify the property and expressly cover the acts the representative is expected to perform. Verify that the authority remains effective before signing and closing. A family spokesperson cannot automatically bind the other heirs.

    For an heir abroad, distinguish two usual routes: acknowledgment before an authorized Philippine consular officer, or execution before a foreign notary followed by the applicable apostille or authentication process. The correct route depends on the country and receiving office. Foreign notarization alone should not be assumed sufficient. DFA apostille and consular guidance.

    Electronic notarization has separate requirements under the Supreme Court’s rules, including a limited route for principals at Philippine foreign posts. It is not an ordinary video call with any notary. Confirm that the proposed service and document comply with the rules and are accepted for the transaction. The Effects of Electronic Notarization in Real Estate Transactions.

    Step 4: Choose the settlement and sale documents

    There are two common structures to consider.

    Settlement followed by a separate sale. The heirs first document and process the settlement, then convey the property through a separate deed of sale. The particular registration sequence should be established before the parties sign or commit funds.

    Extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale. Where legally appropriate, the heirs settle the estate and convey the identified property in a combined instrument. The Land Registration Authority publishes a standard form for an extrajudicial settlement with absolute sale. This structure does not remove either the estate-transfer or sale-transfer requirements. LRA downloadable forms.

    The choice is not determined solely by whether the deceased owned one property or several. Consider the entire estate, the property being sold, the heirs’ agreement, outstanding requirements, and the BIR and Registry of Deeds processing route. Do not omit other estate assets because the buyer wants only one parcel.

    The settlement must comply with the applicable formalities. Rule 74 requires publication of the fact of the settlement once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Its requirements also include a bond concerning personal property, where applicable. Publication does not make an excluded heir’s rights disappear. Ende v. Roman Catholic Prelate.

    Step 5: Settle the applicable taxes and obtain the BIR clearances

    Estate tax and taxes arising from a later sale are separate matters. Do not assume that paying one settles the other.

    For deaths on or after January 1, 2018, the regular estate tax is six percent (6%) of the net taxable estate after applicable deductions. For earlier deaths, apply the estate-tax law in force at the date of death, including its allowable deductions and any lawfully applicable amnesty or other relief. The estate-tax return is generally due within one year of death under the TRAIN law (Rep. Act No. 10963); a late settlement requires assessment of the relevant additions and available remedies. BIR Revenue Regulations 12-2018.

    An estate may still need to file a return and secure the appropriate BIR clearance for registrable property even where deductions leave no estate tax payable. The electronic Certificate Authorizing Registration, or eCAR, is a tax clearance used in the registration process. It is not a certificate guaranteeing ownership or curing an invalid settlement.

    For the sale, determine the property’s tax classification and applicable taxes rather than assuming capital gains tax applies to every transaction. Include documentary stamp tax where applicable, local transfer tax, registration charges, and any required real-property-tax clearance in the closing plan. Confirm the documents and eCAR requirements for each transfer with the relevant offices.

    If sale proceeds are needed to fund the estate obligations, arrange the payment safeguards before signing. Indicate clearly who advances the money, where it goes, what proves payment, and what happens if the transfer cannot proceed. Do not promise a fixed processing period or automatic release of a particular number of eCARs without checking the actual transaction.

    Is a new estate tax amnesty available?

    Legislative update reviewed November 1, 2026. Do not treat a pending bill as an available tax amnesty. The latest Senate hearing update verified for this article is the October 23, 2026 statement issued through Senator Panfilo Lacson’s office. It describes proposals under consideration, rather than an enacted replacement program.

    The previous amnesty and the 2026 BIR clarification

    Republic Act No. 11956 extended the previous estate-tax-amnesty period until June 14, 2025 and covered qualifying estates of persons who died on or before May 31, 2022. The BIR subsequently referred to June 16, 2025, as the operative deadline. Those dates are historical and should not be advertised as a current invitation to apply. Republic Act No. 11956.

    BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 33-2026 clarified that failure to submit proof of estate settlement by that deadline does not invalidate an amnesty application, although the proof remains necessary for the eCAR. It also addresses approved installment arrangements and undeclared properties. This clarification should not be read as reopening the application period for everyone. Anyone who previously applied should have the return, payment records, and remaining requirements reviewed. BIR RMC 33-2026 official digest.

    What the Senate was considering

    At the October 23 hearing, Lacson’s office reported consideration of multiple estate-tax measures and a House proposal to extend the earlier amnesty. His Senate Bill No. 1889 instead proposes a new amnesty covering estates of persons who died on or before December 31, 2025, at 6 percent of the net estate. That proposed coverage is not an existing entitlement. Senate Bill 1889 proposal and explanatory statement.

    The hearing raised concerns about proof of death, documentary delays, and payment deadlines. The same statement says Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian generally supports amnesty but questioned why taxpayers still struggle to pay after repeated opportunities, including whether the 6 percent rate is too expensive. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe his position simply as opposition to any new amnesty. October 23 hearing statement.

    The practical advice is to prepare the documents now and have the present liability assessed. Do not assume that a proposed deadline, coverage date, rate, or waiver will survive the legislative process. Before relying on new relief, verify the enacted law, its effectivity, and the applicable BIR implementation. Estate tax amnesty must also be distinguished from local real-property-tax relief.

    Step 6: Complete registration and the agreed turnover

    Signing the documents and paying the taxes are not the final steps. Submit the proper instruments, BIR clearances, title documents, publication evidence, local tax documents, and other applicable requirements to the Registry of Deeds. Coordinate the local transfer-tax and registration deadlines rather than leaving them until the end.

    Follow through on the resulting title and updated tax declaration. Separately document possession, keys, occupants, unpaid charges, and release of the purchase-price balance. A successful registration does not physically remove an occupant or resolve a boundary or access dispute.

    A hypothetical case study involving an overseas heir

    Assume a widower dies without a will, leaving a house and lot that he exclusively owned. His wife died earlier, her estate has already been properly dealt with, and records establish that his three adult children are his only heirs. Assume there are no outstanding debts. Two children live in Metro Manila; the third lives abroad.

    The children agree to sell. They first verify the title and supporting records. The overseas child executes an appropriate SPA through the applicable consular or foreign-notarization route. The family and buyer obtain advice on using a combined settlement with sale or separate instruments, arrange publication and tax compliance, and agree in writing how any funds advanced for taxes will be protected. Registration and turnover follow once the requirements are met.

    Change one fact and the solution may change. A disputed heir, an unresolved earlier estate, a minor, a will, or a defective SPA may prevent this straightforward route.

    A buyer’s checklist before paying

    • Verify the title, annotations, actual possession, boundaries, access, and intended use.
    • Establish the deceased owner’s interest and identify every person whose participation or authority is needed.
    • Check the settlement route and independently verify the identities, signatures, and representative’s powers.
    • Obtain a written estimate and allocation of taxes and expenses, with safeguards for any advance payment.
    • Set clear document, registration, payment, and turnover milestones, including what happens if a condition fails.
    • Verify the buyer’s legal eligibility to acquire the property. Being a relative does not, by itself, make a foreign buyer qualified to own Philippine land.

    Do not rely on a notarized SPA merely because someone says everyone signed it. If a supposed signatory has died or authority has changed, the transaction must be reviewed before it proceeds.

    Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

    Must the heirs get a new title before signing a sale?

    Not in every case. A legally appropriate settlement with sale can combine the documentation. The estate and sale requirements still have to be satisfied before the buyer can complete registration.

    Can one heir sell the entire property?

    One heir’s signature ordinarily cannot bind all co-heirs without authority. Selling an undivided hereditary interest is a different transaction from selling the entire property; it can raise partition and redemption issues that need separate advice.

    What if one heir refuses to sell?

    The other heirs should not sign for that person without authority. Consider negotiation, partition, or the appropriate court remedy rather than misrepresenting consent.

    How long does the process take?

    There is no reliable universal timetable. Missing records, multiple estates, overseas execution, disputes, tax issues, and registration requirements can materially affect completion. Obtain a case-specific work plan.

    Before you put the property on the market

    The first useful step is to establish the estate’s legal and documentary position. Know the heirs, identify the proper settlement route, and work out the taxes and closing arrangements. A buyer should be able to see how the transaction will reach a valid, registrable transfer.

    Do not let the process drift. Every deferred heir signature, missing record, and unpaid tax is a problem that grows while the family waits.

    If you need help settling an estate or evaluating a proposed sale of inherited property, book a consultation with Realttorney®. Bring the available title, death, and civil registry records, tax declarations, and any settlement or amnesty documents already filed.

    This article provides general information on Philippine estate settlement and property transactions. The appropriate documents, taxes, authority, and procedures depend on the entire estate and the circumstances of the parties.


    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.

  • Do You Want Foreign Ownership of Land in the Philippines?

    “Buy land. They are not making it anymore.”

    – Mark Twain, American Writer and Humorist
    Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

    By Realttorney®

    Congress is abuzz. It seems that charter change is on its legislative agenda this year and it looks like it is gaining traction. We have reached a point where the President of the Republic just gave instructions to a co-equal branch of government – the Senate of the Philippines – to take the lead in studying the proposed amendments to the economic provision of the 1987 Constitution.

    Since I am a real estate guy, this article will focus on the hot-button topic of allowing foreign ownership of land by foreigners. I will lay out two points that RESPs should consider before joining the debate on whether it is a wise idea to allow foreigners to own lands in the Philippines.

    Every licensed real estate broker and accredited real estate salesperson knows that the Philippine Constitution currently restricts foreign ownership of land. Hence, any policy change would require constitutional amendments. Allowing foreigners to own land in the Philippines has both advantages and disadvantages, and the discussion around this topic involves economic, social, and legal considerations.

    Point Number One. Allowing foreign ownership of land in the Philippines will attract more foreign direct investment.

    This is not necessarily true. The inability to own land is not the main driver of why Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Philippines has not been as robust compared to other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the last three (3) decades.

    The main reason why the Philippines wants to attract more foreign direct investment is because it leads to increased economic activity, job creation, and infrastructure development. But, the Philippines was not an ideal investment destination from 1986 onwards.

    In my opinion and based on the last three decades since 1986, the main reasons for not choosing the Philippines as an investment destination are (1) high cost of power; (2) high labor cost; (3) red tape; (4) corruption; and (5) unfriendly business environment.

    The Philippines has the second-highest cost of electricity in the ASEAN Region. Japan is number one. But, when you think that power is about 40 to 60 percent of the cost of production of a manufacturing company, foreign investors will shun away from the Philippines.

    We have been suffering from high power costs because of the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) that the government entered into during the Ramos administration to provide the solution to the power crisis in the mid-1990s. Those PPAs (with a 25-year term) are thankfully about to end if not already expired.

    In conjunction with the ramping up of various renewable energy sources in the country, Filipinos may enjoy the benefits of lower power costs in the next 3 to 5 years. So, there is hope to attract foreign investors in the near to long term.

    During the late 1990s up to the late 2000s, the cost of labor in the country was relatively high compared to China and Vietnam. Hence, it makes sense for foreign investors to invest in countries where labor is cheap despite its perceived low quality compared to Filipino laborers during those times.

    Let’s discuss red tape, corruption, and unfriendly business environment together because they are interrelated. In the early 2000s, foreign investors would complain that it was just too tedious to set up a business in the Philippines. There was too much regulation and too many people who had to sign permits and everything.

    Foreign businesses that wanted to set up shop in the country were faced with an uninspired bureaucracy. This was either because of a lack of effort or just a means to make it harder for businesses to deal with them.

    And when foreign business would want to make the process easier or faster a form of consideration became necessary. This rent-seeking system was tolerated for a long time. This was argued by Calixto Chikiamco, President of the Foundation for Economic Freedom.

    In fairness, our government has passed the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (Rep. Act No. 9485) and the Ease of Doing Business Act (Rep. Act No. 11032) in response to clamor from foreign business chambers to help attract foreign investments to the Philippines. Arguably, these have helped improve the perception that the Philippines is a better place to invest in.

    However, it does not cure what had happened in the past 3 decades prior. But it begs the question, will allowing foreign ownership of land in the Philippines improve our standing as a foreign investment destination? Probably not.

    As of 2022, the Philippines attracted the least amount of FDI among ASEAN’s six largest economies, at US$9.2 billion. Singapore was the highest FDI recipient at US$141 billion, followed by Indonesia at US$22 billion, then Vietnam at US$18 billion.

    Point Number Two. Allowing foreigners to own land can boost the real estate market, leading to increased property demand and potentially higher property values.

    Based on historical trends, the other countries that have allowed foreign ownership of real estate have thrived economically. Yet it is not necessarily true that foreign investment in the real estate sector will automatically lead to increased property demand and higher property values.

    There is a myriad of factors that collectively shape the real estate market and the demand for real estate development projects. In my opinion, here are several key factors that impact real estate demand: (1) GDP growth and employment rates; (2) interest rates; (3) demographics – population growth and age distribution; (4) infrastructure development; (5) market sentiments – both consumer and investor confidence; (5) geopolitical risks; and (6) government regulations – housing policies and land use policies.

    Discussing each of them will make this article longer than it already is. So that will be a topic for another article in the future. Now what about the issue of higher property values? Will allowing foreigners to own land in the Philippines lead to higher land values?

    In my opinion, the answer is a resounding No.

    In case you missed it, the TRAIN Law (Rep. Act No. 10963) amended Section 6(E) of Rep. Act No 8424 which mandates the Commission on Internal Revenue (CIR) to determine the fair market value of real properties located in each zone or area, subject to automatic adjustment once every three (3) years.

    This is the main reason why property valuation has been increasing in the past 5 years and, in my opinion, opening up the ownership of land to foreign investors will have little effect in increasing the property values in the country.

    But what about the argument that “allowing foreign ownership may lead to land speculation and price inflation, making it more challenging for local residents to afford properties.” I think this argument has no leg to stand on.

    Why? Land banking is a practice where real estate investors (or real estate developers) aggregate or consolidate the purchase of parcels of land that they do not need at the present time but may do so at some future time to take advantage of the price arbitrage.

    Can you imagine foreign investors sinking their money into the Philippine market by land banking? I don’t see it. Yet any land speculation will be done by local investors who will be in the best position to take advantage of the price difference when they sell the parcels of land to foreign real estate investors.

    It is the local real estate investors who will cause the prices of real estate to rise not the foreign investors. The best way foreign capital will enter the Philippine real estate sector is by partnering with major or publicly listed real estate developers. An example of this is the partnership of Nomura Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. with Federal Land.

    So now what?

    The proposal for allowing foreign ownership of land has two options. First, switching the current 60:40 ownership ratio in favor of foreigners and setting that as the limit. Second, allowing 100% foreign ownership of land to foreigners – whether juridical or natural persons. And the type of foreign investment we need at this time and in the future should determine what option is best.

    I would argue that the type of foreign investment needed in the Philippines should be in the manufacturing sector and tourism development. And, if our legislators are hell-bent on changing the economic provisions of our Constitution then Congress should immediately enact the National Land Use Act as a complimentary piece of legislation.

    The Philippines has a low manufacturing base. Our economy has been driven by personal consumption and government spending in the last 2 decades. That is the reason why our GDP can never reach double-digit growth.

    Can we manufacture electric jeepneys to support our transport sector? Can we process and manufacture EV batteries for electric vehicles? We should emphasize that the Philippines’ nickel production level is second only to those of Indonesia, and the latter has plans to produce 30 million battery cells, which can be used to manufacture approximately 180,000 electric cars.

    We hope that this will be considered by the current Administration.

    Allowing foreign ownership of land (via any of the 2 options mentioned above) may encourage foreigners to invest in tourism-related ventures, contributing to the development of the tourism sector. Massive capital is needed to develop integrated tourism sites. Foreign capital may be the best way to ramp up tourism development in all areas of the Philippines.

    Finally, why do I advocate the immediate passage of the National Land Use Act in conjunction with allowing foreign ownership of land in the Philippines? Here are several reasons.

    1. The Act will ensure the proper use of land for the protection and rehabilitation of life-support systems, food security, safe settlements, and more efficient infrastructure systems.
    2. The Act is designed to ensure just, holistic, and ethical planning consistent with the principle of sustainable development.
    3. The proper implementation of the National Land Use Act could minimize, if not totally avoid, the harmful consequences of natural calamities, and mitigate or alleviate the effects of climate change on the lives and properties of Filipinos.

    When a National Land Use Act (NLUA) is enacted, foreign investors will be able to know where to invest and how to deploy their resources in what industry gives them the highest return on their capital. The NLUA gives foreign investors a set of rules where they will have to operate.

    In conclusion, the decision to allow foreigners to own land in the Philippines involves a careful balancing act between economic benefits and potential drawbacks. Policymakers must carefully consider the long-term implications, consult with experts, and implement safeguards to ensure that any changes align with the country’s overall development goals.

    What is your position on this issue? I would like to read them in the comments section. Have a great weekend.

    ——-

    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.

  • How to Legally Not Pay VAT for the Ordinary Asset of a Corporation?

    By Realttorney®

    Most seasoned CRBs know the difference between an ordinary asset and a capital asset classification of real properties owned by different persons. And, most all know the types of internal revenue taxes that are due on the sale of the different asset classes.

    As a review, the sale, barter or exchange of a real estate classified as a capital asset necessitates the payment of capital gains tax (CGT) and documentary stamp tax (DST) only. Meanwhile, if the parcel of land is defined as an ordinary asset of the registered owner then payment of creditable withholding tax (CWT), DST and value-added tax (VAT) is in order.

    The biggest percentage of all three taxes is the 12% VAT. And, often, it is the deal breaker in a transaction with both seller and buyer refusing to shoulder the hefty amount of VAT. But, there is a way to avoid paying VAT for a real property defined as an ordinary asset of the registered owner. But, this can only be done if the registered owner is a single-asset corporation.

    A common estate planning tool in the 1990s, real properties registered in the name of Family Holding Corporations are typically considered ordinary assets by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). But, if the deal can be structured where the buyer will purchase the shares of the single-asset family corporation then the payment of VAT can be dispensed with altogether.

    Under BIR Revenue Regulation No. 6-2013, the value of the shares of stock at the time of sale shall be the fair market value (FMV) using the Adjusted Net Asset Method. Almost always, using the ANA method of RR No. 6-2013 increases the FMV of the share of stock of the corporation because the BIR would always look for the latest Appraisal Report to determine the current value of the real property and use this value in the computation of the BOOK VALUE of the shares of stock. In its simplest equation, book value is computed as such: total assets minus total liabilities plus retained earnings over the total outstanding number of shares. The value in the appraisal Report is inputted in the asset category.

    However, BIR Revenue Regulation No. 20-2020, dated 3 August 2020 changed the rules again to determine the FMV of shares of stocks of corporations not listed and traded in the local stock exchange. Upon the effectivity of the latest Revenue Regulation, the following rule shall apply: “For common shares of stock, the BOOK VALUE based on the latest available financial statements duly certified by an independent public accountant prior to the date of sale, but not earlier than the immediately preceding taxable year, shall be considered as the prima facie fair market value.” What is the effect of this latest regulation?

    Since BIR will no longer require the latest Appraisal Report then the FMV of the shares of stock of a single-asset corporation will definitely be lower versus the previous rule using the ANA Method. Finally, please remember that RA 10963 (TRAIN Law) increased the 5%-10% tax rates to a single 15% single tax rate on net capital gains realized by a person or domestic corporation from the sale, barter, exchange, or other disposition of shares of stock in a domestic corporation not traded in the local stock exchange.

    Now, the manner and propriety of using a Family Holding Corporation as a wealth-preservation tool in the current regulatory environment is a totally different matter. But, it is observed that setting up a Family Holding Corporation is still somewhat popular among estate planners in today’s setting, “despite its dubious ability to actually save on taxes and transfer fees,” as Atty. Edson T. Eufemio said in his 2004 article in the Philippine Law Journal.

    ——-

    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.