Can a foreigner own land in the Philippines?

As a general rule, ownership of private lands in the Philippines are reserved to Filipino citizens
and domestic corporations as embodied in the 1987 Constitution. The primary purpose of the constitution
provision disqualifying aliens from acquiring lands of the public domain and private lands is the
conservation of the national economy and patrimony. 1 However, the said rule is not absolute, and the
same shall be discussed below.

By Foreigners through Succession:

One of the exceptions to the general rule mentioned above is embodied in the 1987 Constitution
itself. Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution specifically provides that the restriction set forth in the
ownership of land does not apply in cases of hereditary succession. 2 However, this section only pertains to
forced heirs who inherited the land through intestate proceedings. The Constitutional provision which
enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession. 3

By former Filipino citizens regardless of the modes of acquisition:

Moreover, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may
acquire private lands, either through succession or any other mode of acquisitions, subject to limitations
provided by law.4 This pertains to former Filipino citizens who have not yet performed any acts of
repatriation. The limitations set forth by law are contained in Batas Pambansa Bilang 185 and Republic
Act 8179, which amended the Foreign Investment Act of 1991. BP 185 provides the guidelines on land
ownership by former Filipinos for purposes of establishing residence. On the other hand, RA 8179
sets forth the terms and conditions for land acquisition for investment purposes.

BP 185 provides that any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a
transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban
land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married
couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted; Provided, that if both shall avail of the
same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed. 5

If the purpose of the acquisition of land is not for establishing residence but for investment, RA
8179, in amending the Foreign Investments act, should apply. Under RA 8179, any natural-born citizen
who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine Laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand [5,000]
square meters in the case of urban land or three [3] hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein
granted: Provided, That If both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the
maximum herein fixed.6

By former Filipino citizens who reacquired their Filipino citizenship:

Since by reacquiring their Filipino citizenship through the Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003, otherwise known as Republic Act 9225, the former Filipino citizens would be
restored of their full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities

1 Muller v. Muller, G.R. No. 149615, 2006 August 29.

2 Article XII, Section 7, 1987 Constitution: Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
3 Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez, G.R. No. L-30435, 1982 February 15.
4 Article XII, Section 8, 1987 Constitution: Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided
by law.
5 Section 2, Batas Pambansa Bilang 185.
6 Section 10, Foreign Investments Act of 1991, as amended by RA 8179.
under existing laws of the Philippines.7 This is so because they shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the said act. 8 As such, when it comes to ownership of land,
the Filipinos who reacquired their citizenship can now own land without the limits set forth by BP 185 and
RA 8179.

Foreigners as mortgagors:

Foreigners can be a mortgagee of a private land. However, a foreigner cannot subsequently own
the land should default ensues and he/she is also proscribed from taking part in the bidding or any sale of
the land during foreclosure. What the law prohibits directly cannot be done indirectly.

Republic Act No. 4882, amending Republic Act 133, is clear on the matter to wit:

"Section 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, private real property may be
mortgaged in favor of any individual, corporation, or association, but the mortgage or his
successor in interest, if disqualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
Philippines, shall not take possession of the mortgaged property during the existence of the
mortgage and shall not take possession of mortgaged property except after default and for the
sole purpose of foreclosure, receivership, enforcement or other proceedings and in no case for a
period of more than five years from actual possession and shall not bid or take part in any sale
of such real property in case of foreclosure: provided, that said mortgagee or successor in
interest may take possession of said property after default in accordance with the prescribed
judicial procedures for foreclosure and receivership and in no case exceeding five years from
actual possession."9

So what would be the remedy of a foreigner in case the mortgagor defaults in his/her payments?

If the foreign mortgagor-creditor opts not to foreclose the property due to ownership restrictions, he/she
may opt to file an action to file an action for sum of money. However, may it be reminded that if the mortgagee
opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for the collection of the debt, and vice
versa.10

Who are considered as natural born Filipinos?

Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes are
deserving of the privilege. It is a "precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition," 1
that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by those who
dispute it.11

According to Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, natural born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. 12 In connection with this, the citizens of the Philippines are
defined as follows:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and

7 Section 5, Republic Act 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re- Acquisition Act of 2003.
8 Ibid. Section 2.
9 Section 1, Republic Act 133, as amended by Republic Act No. 4882.
10 Flores v. Spouses Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, 2011 April, 13.
11 Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434. 2004 March 3.
12 Article IV, Section 2, 1987 Constitution.
 [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. 13

This raises some questions on the status of children who are born abroad with (1) a Filipino
mother and a foreign father, and (2) a foreign mother and a Filipino father. Likewise, what would be the
status of children who are born in the Philippines with: (3) a Filipino mother and a foreign father, and (4)
a foreign mother and a Filipino father?

For those born abroad with Filipino mothers and/or fathers, the answer would be that they are
classes of citizens of the Philippines possession dual citizenship. The Supreme Court in the case of
Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, 1999 May 26, contemplates different situations in which a Filipino
citizen may, without performing any act and as an involuntary consequences of laws of different countries,
be also a citizen of another state, to wit:

Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following
classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of
jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens,
unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may, without performing
any act, be also a citizen of another state; but the above cases are clearly possible given the
constitutional provisions on citizenship. (emphasis supplied)

From the above pronouncements, we can conclude that children born in the Philippines with
either parents as Filipinos would be considered as a natural born Filipino citizen. The only complications
would come if the child is born before 1973 with a foreign father because the person would have to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However, if the person born before 1973 with a
foreign father is an illegitimate child, the constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino
citizenship does not apply. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, the child became Filipino after
birth. 14

Considering that the Philippines follow the jus sanguinis, wherein a child follows the nationality
or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli
which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth 15, what would be the status of
foundlings whose parents are unknown?

This is now the legal void that has been a hot topic in the recent news, especially so because they
are assailing the status as a natural born Filipino citizen of one of the leading presidentiable candidates,
Senator Grace Poe Llamanzares.

In an opinion espoused by Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio, a foundling cannot be

considered as a natural-born citizen of the Philippines because by definition, a foundling is one who is
abandoned upon birth and whose biological parents are unknown. The foundlings citizenship cannot be
reckoned on the basis of his or her birth since the facts of her birth, as well as her parents, are unknown.

On the other hand, Former Supreme Court Justice Artemio Panganiban rebuts the opinion of SJ
Carpio and posits that Under Article 2 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, she a

13 Ibid, Section 1.
14 Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, 2004 January 13.
15 Valles v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, 2000 August 9.
foundling who was found in Iloilo, Philippines is deemed to have Filipino parents. Perforce, she is
natural-born since her presumed parents, specifically her father, are accorded Philippine citizenship, 16

Foundlings are not uncommon but their status right now is still in murky waters.

16 Former Supreme Court Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Grace Poes Citizenship, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2015 June 14.