Introduction

In the Philippines, inheriting property often brings with it a mix of opportunities and challenges, particularly when the inherited land or building includes unauthorized constructions erected by third parties, such as squatters, informal settlers, or even previous occupants without legal basis. These unauthorized structures can range from makeshift shanties to more permanent buildings constructed without the owner's consent or proper permits. Removing such constructions requires navigating a complex interplay of civil, administrative, and sometimes criminal laws to protect the heir's property rights while ensuring due process for all involved parties.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the legal principles, procedures, and remedies available under Philippine law for heirs seeking to remove unauthorized constructions from inherited property. It draws from key provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), the Revised Penal Code, local government codes, and relevant jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. Understanding these elements is crucial for heirs to assert their ownership effectively and avoid protracted disputes.

Legal Basis for Property Rights in Inheritance

Under Philippine law, inheritance is governed primarily by the Civil Code, specifically Articles 774 to 1105, which outline the rules on succession. When a person dies, their property passes to their heirs either through intestate succession (if no will exists) or testate succession (via a valid will). Heirs acquire ownership rights immediately upon the death of the decedent, subject to the settlement of the estate, including payment of debts and taxes.

Article 777 of the Civil Code states: "The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent." This means that heirs become co-owners of the property instantly, even before formal partition or registration of title. However, if unauthorized constructions exist on the property, the heirs' rights may be encroached upon by possessors who claim rights under concepts like builder in good faith (Article 448) or bad faith (Article 449).

Unauthorized constructions are those built without the owner's permission, lacking building permits under the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096), or violating zoning laws under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160). Such structures can be deemed nuisances or illegal occupations, triggering remedies for removal.

Identifying Unauthorized Constructions

To classify a construction as unauthorized, heirs must establish:

Lack of Ownership or Consent: The builder must not hold title or have explicit permission from the true owner or heirs. Squatters or informal settlers often fall into this category, as defined under Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), which addresses professional squatters but also protects underprivileged citizens.
Violation of Permits and Regulations: Constructions without permits from the local government unit (LGU), such as the city or municipal engineer's office, are illegal. The National Building Code mandates permits for any building, alteration, or demolition.
Adverse Possession Claims: Some occupants may invoke acquisitive prescription under Article 1113 of the Civil Code, where continuous, public, and adverse possession for 10 years (in good faith) or 30 years (in bad faith) could ripen into ownership. However, this does not apply if the property is registered under the Torrens system (Presidential Decree No. 1529), where titles are indefeasible after one year from issuance.

Heirs should conduct a title search at the Registry of Deeds to confirm ownership and inspect the property with witnesses to document the constructions, perhaps through photographs, affidavits, or a survey by a licensed geodetic engineer.

Rights and Obligations of Heirs

As successors, heirs have the right to possess, use, and dispose of the property under Article 428 of the Civil Code: "The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law." This includes the right to eject unauthorized occupants and demolish illegal structures.

However, heirs must respect due process. Arbitrary removal can lead to liability for damages or criminal charges, such as grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. If the construction was built by a "builder in good faith" (one who believed they had the right to build), Article 448 allows them reimbursement for necessary expenses or the option for the owner to appropriate the structure after payment.

In contrast, for builders in bad faith (knowing they lacked rights), Article 449 permits the owner to demand demolition at the builder's expense, plus damages. Supreme Court cases like Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 108894, 1997) emphasize that good faith is presumed unless proven otherwise, placing the burden on heirs to demonstrate bad faith.

Remedies for Removal

Philippine law offers multiple avenues for removing unauthorized constructions, depending on the circumstances:

1. Administrative Remedies

Barangay Conciliation: Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Presidential Decree No. 1508, as amended by Republic Act No. 7160), disputes involving real property must first undergo conciliation at the barangay level if the parties reside in the same city or municipality. This is mandatory for ejectment cases unless exempted (e.g., if violence is involved). Failure to comply can lead to dismissal of subsequent court actions.
Local Government Intervention: LGUs have authority under Section 444(b)(3)(vi) of the Local Government Code to order the abatement of nuisances. If the construction violates zoning or building codes, heirs can file a complaint with the municipal or city mayor, who may issue a demolition order after notice and hearing. The Office of the Building Official can also revoke permits or order stop-work.
DENR Involvement: For properties involving public lands or environmental concerns, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) may intervene, especially if the land is classified as forest or agricultural under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).

2. Judicial Remedies

Action for Ejectment (Unlawful Detainer or Forcible Entry): Filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Unlawful detainer applies if possession was initially lawful but became illegal (e.g., lease expiration), while forcible entry covers entry by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth (FISTS). Heirs must prove prior physical possession or tolerance. Summary in nature, decisions are executory pending appeal.
Accion Publiciana or Reinvidicatoria: If ejectment is not applicable (e.g., due to longer possession periods), heirs can file these plenary actions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recover possession or ownership. Accion publiciana is for possession after one year, while reinvidicatoria asserts ownership.
Quieting of Title: Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, heirs can file an action to remove clouds on title caused by unauthorized constructions, especially if occupants claim adverse rights.
Demolition as Ancillary Relief: In any action, courts can order demolition if the structure is proven illegal. However, under Rule 39, Section 10(d) of the Rules of Court, execution of demolition requires a special order after hearing.

3. Self-Help Remedies

Article 429 allows owners to use reasonable force to repel actual or imminent unlawful invasion, but this is risky and not recommended for existing constructions, as it may constitute self-help prohibited under jurisprudence like German Management & Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 76216, 1989), which requires judicial intervention for established possessions.

Procedures for Removal

A step-by-step process typically includes:

Verification and Documentation: Confirm inheritance through a deed of extrajudicial settlement (if intestate) or probate (if testate), registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Registry of Deeds. Obtain a certified true copy of the title and tax declaration.
Demand to Vacate: Send a formal demand letter via registered mail or notary, giving occupants reasonable time (e.g., 15-30 days) to remove structures voluntarily. This establishes the cause of action for ejectment.
Barangay Proceedings: Attend conciliation; if no settlement, obtain a certificate to file action.
Filing of Complaint: Lodge the appropriate case in court or with the LGU, attaching evidence like titles, photos, and affidavits.
Hearing and Decision: Participate in proceedings; if victorious, secure a writ of execution for demolition, supervised by the sheriff.
Appeal and Enforcement: Occupants may appeal, but under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, MTC decisions in ejectment are immediately executory unless a supersedeas bond is posted.

Costs may include filing fees (around PHP 2,000-10,000 for MTC cases), attorney's fees, and sheriff's expenses. Timeline varies: ejectment can take 6-12 months, while RTC cases may extend to years.

Special Considerations

Informal Settlers: Republic Act No. 7279 requires relocation for underprivileged settlers before demolition, involving the National Housing Authority (NHA) or LGU. Professional squatters (those who squat for profit) are not entitled to such protections.
Environmental and Cultural Aspects: If constructions affect heritage sites or protected areas, comply with Republic Act No. 10066 (National Cultural Heritage Act) or environmental laws.
Tax Implications: Removing constructions may affect property tax assessments; heirs should update declarations with the assessor.
Criminal Aspects: If entry involved force or damage, file charges for trespass (Article 281), malicious mischief (Article 327), or usurpation (Article 312) of the Revised Penal Code.

Jurisprudence and Key Cases

Supreme Court rulings reinforce these principles:

Calacala v. Republic (G.R. No. 154415, 2005): Emphasizes that registered owners have superior rights over squatters.
Spouses Abrigo v. De Vera (G.R. No. 154409, 2004): Clarifies good faith in building, requiring reimbursement only if proven.
City of Manila v. Laguio (G.R. No. 118127, 2005): Discusses nuisance abatement by LGUs.

These cases underscore that while property rights are paramount, procedural safeguards prevent abuse.

Challenges and Practical Advice

Common hurdles include delays in court, resistance from occupants, or collusion with local officials. Heirs should engage a lawyer specializing in property law, consider mediation, and secure the property with fences or guards post-removal to prevent re-entry.

In summary, removing unauthorized constructions on inherited property demands a balanced approach respecting legal rights and processes. By adhering to these frameworks, heirs can reclaim their inheritance efficiently while minimizing risks. Consultation with legal professionals is essential for case-specific guidance.