1) The real issue: “occupants” are not all the same

When a property changes hands, the new owner generally acquires the right to possess and to exclude others. But in Philippine law, whether occupants are entitled to relocation assistance or compensation depends less on the fact of “new ownership” and more on the occupants’ legal status and how removal is done.

Broadly, occupants fall into these buckets:

Lawful occupants with a recognized right to stay (e.g., lessees/tenants under a lease, usufructuaries, buyers in possession under a contract, co-owners/heirs, agrarian tenants).
Possessors in good faith who built or improved the land believing they had a right (e.g., “builder in good faith”).
Informal settlers / underprivileged and homeless citizens occupying land without title but within urban poor protections.
Bad-faith occupants / intruders (e.g., those who know they have no right, professional squatters, those who entered by force).

Each bucket has different rules on (a) process, (b) relocation, and (c) compensation.

2) A rule that applies to almost everyone: the owner can’t just “kick you out” (self-help is risky)

Even if the new owner truly owns the land, they generally must regain possession through lawful process—usually:

Ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC); or
An accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership), typically in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), depending on circumstances.

What this means for occupants:

If the owner uses force, threats, lockouts, cutting utilities, or demolitions without authority, the owner may face civil liability, possible criminal exposure (depending on facts), and court injunctions in some situations—even if they later prove ownership.

3) The four main “sources” of relocation/compensation rights in Philippine context

Rights to relocation assistance or compensation usually come from:

Urban poor eviction/demolition protections (most notably the Urban Development and Housing Act, RA 7279).
Civil Code rules on possession and improvements (e.g., reimbursement for necessary/useful expenses; “builder/planter/sower in good faith” under Articles 448–455; rights of possessors under Articles 526–561).
Lease law (Civil Code lease provisions; and for covered residential units, the Rent Control Act, RA 9653, subject to extensions/amendments).
Agrarian law (security of tenure and disturbance compensation principles under agrarian statutes and rules, depending on classification and DAR coverage).

A new owner steps into the seller’s position, but cannot erase these statutory protections simply by buying the property.

4) Informal settlers in urban areas: when relocation and humane eviction safeguards become central (RA 7279)

4.1 Who is covered

RA 7279 focuses on underprivileged and homeless citizens and sets rules for eviction/demolition in a manner consistent with constitutional policy on housing and humane treatment.

Not every informal settler automatically gets relocation. Key distinctions matter, such as:

Underprivileged and homeless vs. professional squatters and squatting syndicates (which are treated differently in policy and enforcement).
Whether the occupation is in danger areas, government infrastructure sites, public places, or privately owned land.

4.2 What “relocation assistance” usually means here

In practice, “relocation assistance” under the urban poor framework commonly involves:

Notice requirements and consultations prior to eviction/demolition;
Coordination with LGUs and housing agencies;
Relocation options (where applicable), typically through government relocation programs;
Humane demolition/eviction standards (timing, presence of officials, avoidance of violence, basic dignity safeguards).

4.3 Common misconception: “If the land is private, the owner must always provide relocation.”

RA 7279’s regime is often operationalized through LGUs and housing agencies; the duty to provide relocation is not always placed purely on the private landowner in a simple “pay relocation” sense. Outcomes vary heavily by:

local ordinances and programs,
whether occupants qualify as underprivileged/homeless,
the site classification, and
whether the matter is enforced through a court process (writs, demolition orders).

Bottom line: Urban poor protections may impose procedural and humane-eviction requirements and can trigger relocation planning, but the details are fact-sensitive and often implemented through government mechanisms.

5) Civil Code compensation: reimbursement for improvements and a “right of retention” (often overlooked)

Even if an occupant must eventually leave, the Civil Code can require the owner to pay for certain improvements or expenses—especially where the occupant possessed in good faith.

5.1 Possessor in good faith: expenses and improvements (Civil Code, general framework)

A possessor in good faith is generally one who possesses with an honest belief of having a right to do so.

Common entitlements:

Necessary expenses (to preserve the property) are generally reimbursable.
Useful improvements (that increase value) may be reimbursable, often with elections/choices depending on the situation.
A possessor in good faith may have a right of retention in certain contexts—i.e., the right to remain until reimbursed—subject to the proper legal framework and the nature of the claim.

5.2 Builder/planter/sower in good faith (Articles 448–455): the “who pays whom” decision tree

This is the classic scenario: an occupant built a house or structure believing they had rights to the land (e.g., based on a deed later voided, inheritance misunderstanding, informal sale, or boundary mistake).

General structure:

If the builder is in good faith and the landowner is in good faith, the law typically gives the landowner options, such as:
1. Appropriate the improvement (e.g., keep the house) after paying indemnity; or
2. Require the builder to buy the land, if the value is not disproportionate; otherwise, arrangements can shift toward rental or other equitable outcomes depending on circumstances.

This framework can create real compensation leverage: even when eviction is ultimately proper, the owner may have to pay indemnity for the value of improvements or reimburse expenses, and disputes can delay physical removal until resolved.

5.3 Practical tip

If an occupant claims good faith improvements, the dispute often becomes less about “relocation” and more about:

valuation (materials, labor, depreciation),
good faith vs bad faith, and
documentation (receipts, permits, utility bills, tax declarations, affidavits).

6) Lessees/renters: new owner vs existing lease (Civil Code + Rent Control, where applicable)

6.1 The lease does not automatically vanish just because the property was sold

As a general rule, a sale transfers ownership, but lease relations can persist depending on:

the lease terms,
whether the lease is registered (for real rights effects against third parties in certain situations),
and Civil Code rules allowing a purchaser to terminate or respect the lease based on specific conditions.

6.2 Compensation/assistance in lease situations

For ordinary leases, “compensation” is typically not framed as relocation assistance. Instead, disputes tend to involve:

notice and grounds for termination,
possible damages for unlawful eviction or breach,
return of deposits/advance rent, and
liability for wrongful lockout or harassment.

6.3 Residential rent control (RA 9653, subject to amendments/extensions)

Where rent control applies (depending on location and rent level thresholds), eviction can be limited to specific grounds and procedural requirements. If an eviction violates rent control protections, the tenant may claim damages and other remedies.

7) Agrarian occupants: “new owner” usually does not defeat the farmer’s security of tenure

If the land is agricultural and the occupant is an agrarian tenant or otherwise protected under agrarian laws and DAR rules, the situation is fundamentally different:

Tenants typically enjoy security of tenure.
Change in ownership does not automatically eject the tenant.
Ejectment, if allowed at all, is commonly governed by agrarian rules and DAR adjudication processes, not ordinary ejectment.

Disturbance compensation (concept)

Agrarian frameworks historically recognize disturbance compensation in certain lawful dispossession situations (e.g., conversion, authorized reclassification, or other grounds recognized by agrarian law), often computed by formulas tied to harvests or rentals depending on the tenancy arrangement and governing regulation.

Because agrarian coverage is intensely classification-dependent (tenanted status, land use, DAR conversion orders, exemptions, etc.), it is one of the biggest “trapdoors” for new owners: buying agricultural land without checking tenancy status can mean the buyer cannot simply remove occupants via ordinary court ejectment.

8) Co-owners, heirs, and “family occupants”: eviction may be impossible without partition or settlement

A common Philippine scenario is a new “owner” buying from only one heir or one co-owner, then trying to eject relatives living on the land.

Key principles:

A co-owner has rights to possess the whole property in a manner consistent with co-ownership.
A buyer of a co-owner’s share typically becomes a co-owner (to that extent), not automatically the exclusive possessor.
Remedy is often partition or settlement of the estate, not ejectment of other co-owners/heirs as “intruders.”

Compensation here is rarely “relocation assistance.” Disputes are typically about:

accounting for fruits and expenses,
reimbursement for improvements,
partition proceeds,
and damages for exclusion.

9) What courts actually remove in ejectment: possession, not “ownership fairness”

9.1 Ejectment is summary

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are designed to quickly determine who has the better right to physical possession at the moment, not to fully settle ownership.

9.2 Demolition after judgment is not automatic

Even after a favorable judgment, implementing removal may require:

a writ of execution, and
where structures are involved, a special order of demolition and compliance with sheriff procedures.

These procedural layers are where occupants often raise:

claims of good faith improvements,
humanitarian protections (especially urban poor contexts),
or third-party rights.

10) A practical “entitlement map”: when relocation/compensation is most likely

Strongest legal footing for compensation/assistance

Builder/possessor in good faith with substantial improvements (Civil Code indemnity/reimbursement frameworks).
Agrarian tenants with security of tenure and/or disturbance compensation concepts (subject to agrarian classification and DAR rules).
Urban poor qualified occupants facing eviction/demolition where RA 7279 safeguards apply (procedural protections; possible relocation program involvement).

Moderate footing

Lawful lessees (damages for unlawful eviction, rent control protections when applicable, return of deposits, etc.).

Weakest footing

Bad-faith intruders with no lawful right and no credible good faith claim—usually no relocation/compensation entitlement, though humane enforcement standards still matter and unlawful self-help by the owner can still create liability.

11) What “compensation” commonly looks like (by category)

(A) Civil Code improvements

Reimbursement of necessary expenses
Indemnity/value of useful improvements
Owner’s election to keep improvements (pay) vs require purchase of land (in some cases)
Potential right of retention until payment (context-dependent)

(B) Agrarian situations

Disturbance compensation (where legally applicable)
Compliance with DAR processes; possible administrative adjudication outcomes

(C) Lease situations

Damages for illegal eviction (actual, moral, exemplary in proper cases)
Statutory compliance under rent control (if covered)
Return of deposits/advance rent; possible attorney’s fees if awarded

(D) Urban poor eviction/demolition

Procedural protections; potential relocation coordination
In some implementations: transport assistance, temporary shelter measures, or relocation site assignments (often through LGU/housing agencies rather than a direct “cash-out” rule)

12) Common “new landowner” mistakes that create occupant claims (and increase payouts)

Skipping demand and immediately using force (lockouts, threats, cutting utilities).
Demolishing without authority or without the required court orders and procedures.
Buying land without checking:
- existing leases,
- agrarian tenancy,
- co-ownership/heirship issues,
- pending cases or annotations,
- occupants’ improvement claims.
Assuming a title or deed automatically beats all occupants (it often wins on ownership, but may still trigger payment for improvements or statutory protections).

13) What occupants should document (because entitlement often turns on proof)

For claims of compensation/assistance, documentation is frequently decisive:

Proof of how entry happened (permission, contract, tolerance, inheritance, sale, boundary understanding).
Proof of good faith (receipts, communications, barangay records, tax declarations, building permits, utility bills).
Proof of improvements and timeline (photos, sworn statements, contractor invoices).
Proof of household status for urban poor contexts (residency, income class, census/validation records where applicable).
Proof of tenancy for agrarian contexts (DAR/Barangay records, harvest sharing, leasehold arrangements, sworn statements, receipts, farm inputs).

14) Key takeaways

The phrase “ejected by a new landowner” does not, by itself, determine whether relocation or compensation is due. The deciding factors are (1) the occupants’ legal status, (2) good faith, (3) improvements made, (4) land classification (urban vs agricultural), and (5) lawful procedure.
Relocation assistance is most strongly associated with urban poor eviction/demolition safeguards and is often operationalized through government processes.
Compensation is most strongly grounded in the Civil Code’s improvement and possession rules and, in agricultural contexts, agrarian security of tenure/disturbance compensation concepts.
Even a rightful owner can incur liability and increased costs by using self-help instead of lawful judicial or administrative processes.