A Philippine legal-context article (general information, not legal advice).

1) Why this issue keeps coming up

In the Philippines, it’s common for people to call themselves “real estate agents” and broker deals through Facebook groups, referrals, or informal networks. When a deal closes (or collapses), the fight often becomes: Who is entitled to the commission—if anyone—and can an unlicensed person legally collect it?

Commission disputes in this space usually sit at the intersection of:

Regulatory law (who may legally practice real estate service), and
Civil law (contracts, agency, obligations, and remedies).

The uncomfortable truth is that many “commission agreements” are made with people who are not legally allowed to earn commissions for brokerage acts—creating serious enforceability problems.

2) The governing regulatory framework: Real Estate Service Act (RESA)

The central law is Republic Act No. 9646 (Real Estate Service Act of 2009) and its implementing rules, enforced through the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES).

RESA regulates and licenses real estate service professionals, primarily:

Real Estate Broker (licensed; may engage in brokerage and supervise salespersons)
Real Estate Salesperson (registered/accredited; generally operates under a licensed broker)
Real Estate Appraiser
Real Estate Consultant

Core policy: If a person performs acts that constitute real estate brokerage or regulated real estate service without the required license/registration/accreditation, they are engaging in illegal practice, which can trigger administrative and criminal consequences—and often makes commission claims legally shaky.

3) Who may legally earn or claim commissions

In practice, commission entitlement is cleanest when it flows through the legally recognized chain:

A. Licensed Real Estate Broker

The broker is the primary professional recognized to conduct brokerage and claim professional fees/commissions for regulated brokerage acts.

B. Registered/Accredited Real Estate Salesperson (under a Broker)

A salesperson typically works under a broker and is compensated via an agreed split/arrangement.
Many disputes arise when salespersons bypass the broker or when the broker refuses to release the salesperson’s share.

C. Property Owner Selling Their Own Property

An owner selling their own property is generally not “practicing” brokerage for others. They can negotiate their own sale without a license.

D. “Unlicensed agent,” “property specialist,” “referral partner,” “finder”

Labels don’t control. What matters is what the person actually did.
If the person performed brokerage acts (e.g., negotiated price/terms, matched buyer and seller, facilitated the sale for compensation, represented themselves as an agent for another), they risk being treated as an unlicensed practitioner.

4) What counts as “brokerage acts” (the danger zone for unlicensed persons)

Commission disputes frequently hinge on whether the claimant merely introduced parties or actually brokered the transaction. Acts that commonly push someone into regulated territory include:

Soliciting listings or buyers for compensation
Marketing property as an intermediary
Showing property and managing negotiations
Presenting offers and counteroffers between parties
Orchestrating documentation, closing steps, and deal coordination as the intermediary
Representing that they are authorized to act for the seller/buyer

A pure “referral” or “introduction” argument is sometimes raised to justify a fee. But once the person’s role becomes intermediation with negotiation/coordination as a service, the claim starts to look like regulated brokerage.

5) The civil-law backbone: contracts and agency (why writing matters)

Most commission claims are civil claims for sum of money based on:

A brokerage/commission agreement (express or implied), and/or
Agency principles (the broker/salesperson as intermediary), and/or
Equitable theories (e.g., unjust enrichment / quantum meruit—discussed below)

Key civil-law friction points:

A. Was there a valid agreement on commission?

Courts look for proof of:

Offer and acceptance (even via chats/messages)
Rate/amount and trigger event (when commission is earned)
Parties responsible to pay (seller, buyer, or both)
Scope (exclusive vs open listing, term, territory)

B. Authority to sell real property must be in writing (Civil Code)

If the intermediary claims they were authorized to sell or to sign/execute documents on behalf of the owner, the Civil Code requires written authority for an agent to sell real property. Even if a broker usually doesn’t sign the deed, disputes can arise when someone claims they had authority to bind the owner. Lack of written authority can be fatal to certain claims and defenses.

6) The big legal question: Can an unlicensed person recover commissions?

This is the heart of the topic.

A. Typical outcome: commission claims by unlicensed practitioners are highly vulnerable

When the services performed are the very acts that the law reserves for licensed/registered professionals, courts commonly treat related commission arrangements as contrary to law/public policy. That can mean:

The “commission contract” is void or unenforceable, and
The claimant is barred from collecting, especially when they knowingly acted without authority/license.

B. “But I did work—can I claim under quantum meruit or unjust enrichment?”

Unlicensed claimants often pivot to equity:

Quantum meruit (reasonable value of services)
Unjust enrichment (it’s unfair the other party benefited without paying)

The obstacle is the doctrine that courts generally will not aid a party to recover from an arrangement that is illegal or prohibited, especially if the claimant is in bad faith or clearly part of the prohibited activity. Equity usually does not reward illegal practice.

That said, outcomes can become fact-sensitive where:

The claimant’s work can be characterized as lawful and separable from regulated brokerage acts (e.g., purely administrative marketing services with no intermediation), or
The paying party acted in fraudulent bad faith (e.g., induced services then invoked illegality to avoid paying).

Even then, it’s an uphill climb. The safer legal position remains: regulated brokerage commissions should be paid only to properly licensed/registered/accredited professionals.

7) Criminal and administrative exposure (often used as leverage in disputes)

Commission fights aren’t purely civil. They can escalate into regulatory and criminal pressure:

A. Illegal practice under RESA

An unlicensed person performing regulated acts can face:

Criminal penalties (fines/imprisonment depending on circumstances), and
Enforcement through PRC/PRBRES and prosecutorial channels

B. Liability for those who enable unlicensed practice

Disputes sometimes rope in:

Licensed brokers who allow unregistered persons to act as salespersons
Developers/teams using “agents” without proper accreditation
Individuals who misrepresent licensure

C. Separate criminal risks: estafa, falsification, misrepresentation

If money changes hands (reservation, “processing,” “commission in advance”) and is misappropriated, or if fake PRC IDs are used, disputes can morph into:

Estafa allegations (fraud/misappropriation)
Falsification or use of falsified documents
Other fraud-related complaints

8) Common commission-dispute scenarios (and how they usually play legally)

Scenario 1: “Unlicensed agent” sues seller for 5% commission

Typical issues:

Seller denies agreement or says payment was conditional
Claimant acted as broker without license Common result: Claim is weak; agreement may be unenforceable if it involved prohibited brokerage practice.

Scenario 2: Licensed broker vs unlicensed “lead generator”

A broker may refuse to share commission with an unlicensed person who negotiated/handled the deal. Risk: The broker also faces scrutiny if they effectively enabled unlicensed practice.

Scenario 3: Salesperson vs broker (commission split dispute)

This can be a straight contract/accounting dispute if the salesperson is properly registered/accredited and the arrangement is documented. Evidence is everything: accreditation, written split agreement, proof of collection.

Scenario 4: Two intermediaries claim they were the “procuring cause”

When multiple brokers/salespersons were involved, courts often examine who was the effective cause of the meeting of minds (who produced the ready, willing, and able buyer under the agreed terms). Exclusive listings can change outcomes dramatically.

Scenario 5: Seller circumvents intermediary at the last minute

A classic pattern: seller meets buyer through the intermediary, then closes directly to avoid commission. Licensed practitioners often have stronger claims here—especially with proof of introduction, negotiations, and agreed commission terms.

9) Evidence that decides these cases

Whether the claimant is licensed or not, commission disputes are won or lost on documentation:

PRC license details (and validity at the time of transaction)
Salesperson registration/accreditation under a broker
Written listing authority / authority to negotiate
Commission agreement (even in messages)
Proof of “procuring cause”: introductions, site-viewing logs, chat threads, offer exchanges
Proof of closing/consummation or seller bad faith preventing it
Receipts, bank transfers, acknowledgment texts
Proof of who agreed to pay (seller vs buyer)

10) Proper venues and dispute pathways in the Philippines

Commission disputes usually proceed through one or more of these:

Demand letter / formal negotiation (often the most cost-effective)
Barangay conciliation (for covered disputes under the Katarungang Pambarangay system, subject to exceptions)
Court action for sum of money (regular civil case or small-claims procedure depending on the amount and rules in force)
PRC/PRBRES administrative complaint (if a licensed professional is involved, or to report illegal practice)
Criminal complaint (if fraud, misappropriation, falsification, or illegal practice is implicated)

11) Best practices to prevent commission disputes (especially the unlicensed-agent problem)

For property owners and buyers

Verify PRC licensure and salesperson accreditation (don’t rely on selfies with IDs)
Pay commissions to the licensed broker (and let the broker pay their salespersons)
Use a written agreement stating:
- commission rate and tax handling
- when it is earned (upon signing, upon payment, upon deed execution, etc.)
- exclusivity and duration
- tail period (commission due if buyer introduced during the term buys within X months)
- dispute resolution and attorney’s fees
Never give “commission advances” or “processing fees” without clear documentation

For licensed brokers and teams

Maintain strict compliance: only accredited salespersons perform sales functions
Use standardized documentation:
- authority to sell / listing agreement
- buyer registration / customer information sheet
- site viewing acknowledgment
- commission sharing agreements
Avoid “ghost agents” and informal sub-agents without accreditation—this is where disputes and liability grow teeth.

12) Practical takeaways (the short version)

Commission is not just a private agreement in the Philippines—it sits under a licensing regime.
If the claimant was unlicensed and performed brokerage acts, their commission claim is often unenforceable and may expose them (and sometimes others) to penalties.
Licensure + documentation + clear commission triggers are the strongest antidotes to commission disputes.
When a deal is sourced informally, parties should expect disputes to turn on (1) license status, (2) proof of agreement, and (3) proof of procuring cause.

If you want, paste a sample fact pattern (who promised what, who is licensed, what was done, and what documents/messages exist). I can map it onto the legal issues above and identify the strongest arguments and vulnerabilities on each side—without giving step-by-step litigation tactics.