The Philippines has one of the most pro-poor eviction legal frameworks in the world. Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, as amended by RA 10884), more commonly known as the Lina Law or UDHA, makes the eviction of informal settlers extremely difficult and heavily regulated. When a person purchases a titled property that is already occupied by squatters, the new owner does not automatically acquire vacant possession. The buyer steps into the shoes of the previous owner and inherits the same legal obstacles. This article exhaustively explains the current state of the law (as of December 2025), the available remedies, the procedural requirements, the practical realities, and the strategic options available to a legitimate property owner.

1. Key Legal Principles That Govern the Situation

Squatting on private titled land is unlawful from day one. The squatter has no legal right to be there (Article 428, Civil Code).
However, RA 7279 prohibits summary eviction and demolition of structures occupied by underprivileged and homeless citizens except under strictly limited circumstances and only with a court order.
Self-help eviction (padlocking, fencing without court order, cutting utilities, harassment, hiring goons) is illegal and exposes the owner to criminal prosecution (RA 7279 Sec. 28, Anti-Fencing Law, grave coercion, etc.) and possible nullification of any subsequent court victory.
The law distinguishes between:
- Professional squatters and squatting syndicates (no relocation rights, can be evicted immediately upon court order).
- Underprivileged and homeless informal settler families (ISFs) (entitled to notice, consultation, and relocation before demolition).

2. Who Qualifies as “Underprivileged and Homeless” (Entitled to Relocation)?

Under RA 7279, as amended, and its 2018 IRR (HUDCC Resolution No. 1, Series of 2018), an informal settler family is protected if ALL of the following are present:

The structure was built on or before 14 June 2018 (cut-off date under RA 10884).
The family belongs to the underprivileged and homeless sector (income below the poverty threshold as defined by NEDA, currently around ₱12,000–₱15,000 monthly for a family of five in NCR).
They are not professional squatters or members of a squatting syndicate.
The land is not classified as a danger zone, government priority project area, or subject to a final court eviction order prior to purchase.

If even one family in the property meets these criteria, the entire demolition is stayed until the LGU or NHA provides relocation.

3. Primary Legal Remedy: Ejectment Suit (Rule 70, Rules of Court)

A. When the occupation is recent (less than 1 year from discovery or demand)

File Unlawful Detainer (possession by tolerance became unlawful after written demand to vacate).

Jurisdiction: Municipal Trial Court (MTC) / Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) / Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCCT).

Requirements:

Barangay conciliation (mandatory; obtain Certificate to File Action).
Written demand to vacate (final demand letter, notarized, served personally or by registered mail).
Complaint filed within one (1) year from the date of last demand.

This is a summary procedure — judgment can be obtained in 6–18 months if uncontested.

B. When the squatters have been there for more than 1 year

File Accion Publiciana (recovery of possession) or Accion Reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership + possession) with damages.

Jurisdiction: Regional Trial Court (RTC) if assessed value exceeds ₱400,000 (NCR) or ₱300,000 (outside NCR).

This is a full-blown trial and usually takes 3–8 years.

4. The RA 7279 Overlay on Ejectment Cases

Even if you win the ejectment case, you still cannot demolish until RA 7279 requirements are satisfied.

Step-by-step after winning final judgment of eviction:

File a Motion for Execution / Demolition Order with the trial court.
The court will issue a Writ of Execution and, if necessary, a Writ of Demolition (5-day notice to vacate voluntarily).
The sheriff will serve the 5-day notice.
On demolition day, the sheriff will require proof that:
- There are no qualified ISFs, OR
- The LGU/NHA has provided adequate relocation or financial assistance (60 days minimum wage).
If there are qualified ISFs and no relocation yet, the sheriff will suspend demolition and the case is archived until relocation is provided (this can take years or never happen).

Important Supreme Court rulings:

G.R. No. 177448 (People v. Leachon, 2008) and subsequent cases: No demolition without compliance with RA 7279 Sec. 28.
A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC (2020 Rule on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants) now requires sheriffs to wear body cameras during demolition.

5. How to Win Without Waiting for LGU Relocation

Strategy 1: Prove they are professional squatters or squatting syndicate members (most effective)

Professional squatters are defined under RA 7279 Sec. 3(m) as persons who:

Have sufficient income for legitimate housing (verified through ITRs, employment certificates, bank accounts, vehicle ownership, etc.), OR
Own other real property anywhere in the Philippines, OR
Unlawfully occupy land and then sell/transfer the “rights” or structures for profit.

Squatting syndicate (Sec. 3(n)): organized group that facilitates occupation for profit.

If you successfully prove even one family belongs to this category, they lose relocation rights and can be demolished immediately after the 5-day notice.

Evidence commonly accepted by courts:

Affidavits of neighbors that the occupants rent out rooms or have businesses.
Vehicle registration under their name (LTO certification).
Bank accounts with substantial balances.
Proof they own a house elsewhere (certified true copy of title).
Proof of previous “rights” sales (kasunduan, receipts).

File a Motion to Declare Respondents as Professional Squatters with supporting evidence. Many courts grant this and allow immediate demolition.

Strategy 2: File under the danger-area exception (Sec. 28(a))

If any portion of the property is beside an estero, riverbank, railroad, high-tension wires, or classified as high-risk by MGB, you can argue the entire area is a danger zone. Courts often allow demolition without relocation in genuine danger areas.

Strategy 3: Negotiated buy-out / amicable settlement

The fastest and most common solution in practice (80–90 % of cases).

Typical amounts in Metro Manila (2024–2025 rates):

₱50,000–₱150,000 per family for small lots.
₱200,000–₱500,000 per family in prime locations (Makati, BGC, Ortigas, Alabang).
Higher if structures are concrete or they have been there for decades.

The settlement is documented in a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale of Structure / Waiver of Rights with Quitclaim, and the owner voluntarily allows them 30–60 days to self-demolish after full payment.

This is perfectly legal and courts respect it.

Strategy 4: File criminal cases to pressure settlement

Although simple squatting was decriminalized by RA 8368 (1997), the following are still criminal:

Use of force, intimidation, threat, or stealth (Art. 282, Grave Coercion; qualified trespass under Art. 280 if armed).
Squatting syndicate operation (RA 7279 Sec. 27 in relation with PD 772 as revived in part).
Violation of domicile, malicious mischief, etc.

File these cases with the Prosecutor’s Office. Even if eventually dismissed, the arrest warrants and court appearances pressure the squatters to settle.

6. Special Cases

A. Property bought from a bank (extrajudicial foreclosure)

Banks usually deliver properties with squatters already evicted or with ongoing ejectment cases. If squatters remain, the bank is solidarily liable with the previous owner for warranty against eviction (Art. 1547, Civil Code). You can sue the bank for reimbursement of buy-out amounts.

B. Property bought “as-is-where-is” from auction

The principle of caveat emptor applies, but banks are still required by BSP regulations to disclose known occupants. You can still sue for partial hidden defects.

C. Property covered by ongoing CMP/LCMP or proclaimed socialized housing site

Eviction becomes almost impossible. The only remedy is to compel the NHA/LGU to pay you just compensation (inverse condemnation).

7. Timeline and Cost Realities (2025 estimates, Metro Manila)

Unlawful Detainer (if <1 data-preserve-html-node="true" year occupation):

Filing to judgment: 8–24 months
Execution/demolition (if professional squatters): +3–6 months
Total cost: ₱250,000–₱600,000 (lawyer + sheriff + clearance fees)

Accion Publiciana/Reivindicatoria:

4–10 years
Cost: ₱800,000–₱2.5 million

Negotiated buy-out:

3–12 months
Cost: ₱1–₱15 million depending on number of families and location

8. Practical Checklist for New Owners Who Discover Squatters After Purchase

Immediately secure a certified true copy of the title and tax declaration.
Conduct ocular inspection with barangay officials and take dated photos/videos.
Send notarized demand letters to vacate (15–30 days).
File barangay complaint within a week.
Simultaneously gather evidence of professional squatter status.
Engage a lawyer experienced in eviction (not just any litigation lawyer).
Budget for both litigation and possible buy-out.
Never use violence or self-help.

Conclusion

Under current Philippine law, a legitimate titled owner will always eventually prevail, but the timeline and cost depend almost entirely on whether the occupants can be classified as professional squatters or whether a negotiated settlement is reached. The UDHA was designed to protect the genuine poor, but in practice it has been weaponized by squatting syndicates and middle-class occupants who know how to manipulate the system. The most successful property owners are those who combine aggressive litigation (to establish legal right) with pragmatic negotiation (to obtain actual possession). In 2025, buying occupied property without a clear eviction plan remains one of the riskiest investments in the Philippine real estate market.