Rights of Occupants on Untitled Family Land in the Philippines: Eviction, Co-Ownership, and Remedies

This guide explains how Philippine law treats people living on “family land” that has no Torrens title yet—whether they’re heirs, caretakers, tenants, or informal settlers. It’s practical information, not a substitute for personalized legal advice.

1) What “untitled family land” usually means

When Filipinos say a property is “untitled,” they typically mean no Torrens title exists yet. That land may still be:

Private but unregistered
- Ownership can exist even without a title (e.g., by inheritance or long possession).
- Evidence: tax declarations/receipts, surveys, deeds, affidavits of neighbors, photos, and continuous possession.
Part of the public domain
- All lands not clearly private belong to the State.
- To become private and registrable, the land must first be classified as alienable and disposable (A&D) and the possessor must meet statutory requirements for confirmation of imperfect title or free patent.

Tax declarations are not title. They are supporting evidence of possession/claim, not conclusive proof of ownership.

2) Where an occupant’s rights may come from

Heir/co-owner by succession. When a parent dies owning land (registered or not), the heirs become co-owners pro indiviso until partition (Civil Code, Arts. 484–501).
Possessor by tolerance. Occupation allowed by the family (e.g., “pahiram lang”). Lawful at first; becomes unlawful after a clear demand to vacate that’s ignored.
Agricultural tenant/lessee. Security of tenure under agrarian laws (e.g., RA 3844; CARP/RA 6657 as amended). Eviction is highly restricted and generally within DAR/DARAB jurisdiction.
Builder/planter/sower in good faith. Rights to reimbursement under Civil Code Arts. 448, 546–548.
Long-time possessor (imperfect title). Judicial/administrative confirmation may be available if the land is A&D and possession meets the law (see §9).
Indigenous peoples within ancestral lands/domains. Rights anchored on the IPRA (RA 8371); eviction requires compliance with IP safeguards (e.g., FPIC) and respect for CADT/CALT.

3) Co-ownership among family members (heirs)

Core rules (Civil Code):

Equal right to possess and use the whole, in proportion to hereditary shares (Art. 486).
Fruits, income, and expenses are shared pro rata. Necessary repairs can be advanced by one co-owner and reimbursed by the others (Arts. 488–497).
Acts of administration (e.g., hiring a caretaker, leasing at ordinary terms) need a majority of shares.
Acts of ownership/alteration (e.g., selling the whole, building permanent structures that change the property) require unanimity.
Sale by one co-owner of the entire property does not bind the shares of others; the buyer steps into the seller’s shoes only to the extent of that seller’s share.
Prescription among co-owners. Possession by one is presumed for all; a co-owner cannot acquire the shares of the others by prescription without a clear, open, and communicated repudiation of the co-ownership (and the prescriptive clock runs only from that repudiation).
Right to partition at any time (Art. 494), unless:
- The property is indivisible (or would be seriously impaired by division),
- Partition is temporarily prohibited (e.g., donor/testator bars it for up to 20 years), or
- There’s a legal impediment (e.g., pending estate debts).

Partition options:

Extrajudicial settlement (Rule 74) if there’s no will and no debts—documented, notarized, published in a newspaper, and followed by tax/transfers.
Judicial partition (Rule 69) if there’s disagreement, minors/incapacitated heirs, or complicated issues. Court may order physical division or sale and division of proceeds.

If one heir occupies the land exclusively: The remedy of other heirs is usually partition and accounting, not ejectment—because the occupant is a co-owner, not an intruder. If the occupant refuses any access or profits exclusively, the others can seek accounting of fruits and reasonable rent/compensation from the time of demand, plus partition.

4) Eviction: who can be removed—and how

A) Against strangers/informal settlers on private family land

General rule: Owner/authorized co-owner may bring ejectment (Rule 70) to recover physical possession.
Two summary actions (1-year window):
- Forcible entry: Entry by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; sue within one year from entry (or discovery in cases of stealth).
- Unlawful detainer: Possession was initially lawful (e.g., tolerance); turns unlawful upon written demand to vacate; sue within one year from last demand/last day to vacate.
If more than one year has lapsed:
- File accion publiciana (recovery of possession) in the RTC, or
- Accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership and possession) if you anchor on ownership. (Choice depends on evidence, strategy, and time elapsed.)

Urban poor safeguards (UDHA, RA 7279): Even owners must respect Section 28 standards—eviction/demolition is a last resort; requires prior written notice, genuine consultation, presence of LGU reps, observance of humane conditions, and, in many cases, relocation or financial assistance in accordance with law and local guidelines. Demolitions generally need a court order. “Professional squatters” and “squatting syndicates” are treated differently and may face penalties, but labeling must meet statutory definitions.

Barangay conciliation: If parties reside in the same city/municipality, most ejectment and property disputes must first go through Katarungang Pambarangay (Lupon/conciliation) under the Local Government Code, before filing in court. There are exceptions (e.g., government as a party, lack of jurisdiction, parties live in different cities/municipalities, urgent legal relief), but don’t skip this step unless clearly exempt.

B) Against relatives by tolerance (not co-owners)

If a sibling/cousin was merely allowed to stay, serve a clear written demand to vacate. If they refuse, unlawful detainer lies in the MTC (within one year). If the occupant claims co-ownership, the court may still hear the case; MTCs can resolve ownership provisionally to settle physical possession. However, if bona fide co-ownership is established, the more fitting route is partition and accounting, not expulsion.

C) Against a co-owner/heir in exclusive occupancy

You generally cannot evict a co-owner from the common property. File partition; ask for accounting of fruits and, when warranted, compensation for exclusive use from the time of demand. Courts may also regulate use pending partition.

D) Against agricultural tenants/lessees

Agrarian law confers security of tenure. Eviction requires statutory grounds (e.g., nonpayment of lease rentals without just cause, landowner’s bona fide need under strict conditions) and DAR processes. Do not file ejectment in the MTC if the relationship is agrarian; jurisdiction lies with DAR/DARAB.

E) If the land is still public (not yet private)

If the parcel remains unclassified or non-A&D, private parties lack ownership; the State may enforce removal subject to due process and, where applicable, UDHA protections for genuine urban poor. If the land is A&D residential or agricultural, long possessors might qualify for free patent or judicial confirmation (see §9), which can change the legal calculus.

5) Occupant defenses and money claims

Better right to possess. An occupant can defeat ejectment by showing a superior possessory right (e.g., earlier possession; written permission not yet revoked; co-ownership).
Builder in good faith (Arts. 448, 546–548). If the occupant built/ planted in good faith (believing they had the right), the owner must choose either to appropriate the improvements upon payment of indemnity (necessary/useful expenses; sometimes full value less depreciation) or compel the builder to buy the land occupied if the landowner is not in bad faith and if the land portion is proper to be sold; otherwise, removal without damage may be ordered.
Reimbursement & retention. A good-faith possessor has a right of retention until reimbursed for necessary/useful expenses. A bad-faith possessor gets only necessary expenses and no retention, but may remove separable improvements if this causes no damage.
Accounting and set-off. If one party exclusively enjoyed the fruits (e.g., rent, harvest), the other can seek accounting and share of net fruits, with legal interest, less proven expenses.

6) Evidence you should gather (either side)

Tax declarations & official receipts (multiple years; in whose name; continuity).
CENRO/Provincial DENR certifications that land is A&D (for titling/confirmation).
Approved survey plan (geodetic engineer), vicinity map, photos.
Affidavits from adjacent owners/long-time residents on the family’s possession.
Estate documents (death certificates, family tree, prior deeds/wills).
Demand letters (dates, receipt).
Leases/tenancy evidence (if any): receipts, sharing arrangements, DAR records.
Barangay records: mediation invitations, settlement minutes.

7) Informal settlers and UDHA safeguards (RA 7279)

Evictions are last resort; require meaningful consultation.
Prior written notice (e.g., at least 30 days is commonly required under implementing rules/guidelines).
Court order is generally needed for demolition; LGU/NHA presence and humane procedures are mandatory.
Relocation or financial assistance may be required, depending on status and programs.
Professional squatters/syndicates are excluded from certain benefits and may face penalties—but the legal definitions must truly apply before invoking this label.

8) Special regimes that can block or alter eviction

Agrarian reform (RA 3844; RA 6657 as amended): agricultural lessees and beneficiaries (EP/CLOA holders) enjoy strong tenure; disputes are agrarian.
Ancestral domain/land (RA 8371): areas under CADT/CALT require respect for ICC/IP rights and procedures (e.g., FPIC).
Right-of-way or expropriation: Government may take private land for public use upon due process and just compensation (e.g., RA 10752 for national projects).

9) Turning long possession into title

There are two principal tracks:

Judicial confirmation / land registration
- Governed by PD 1529 (Land Registration Decree), Sec. 14, and CA 141 (Public Land Act), Sec. 48, as amended (notably by RA 11573, 2021).
- Today, a possessor of A&D land may apply if they and/or their predecessors have had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under a bona fide claim of ownership for the statutory period (RA 11573 shortened prior cutoffs; check current period and documentary requirements).
- Courts still require DENR proof that the land is A&D and competent surveys.
Administrative free patents
- Agricultural and residential free patents exist under the Public Land Act and special laws (e.g., RA 10023 for certain residential lands), subject to A&D status, area limits, and occupancy requirements.
- Process runs through DENR/CENRO/PENRO/LMB with surveys, possession proofs, and barangay/LGU clearances as required.

No prescription against registered (Torrens) land. Adverse possession cannot defeat a valid Torrens title (PD 1529, Sec. 47). Prescription may operate only on unregistered/private lands or A&D public lands that become private by operation of law/confirmation.

10) Typical scenarios and best-fit remedies

A. Heir lives on the property; siblings want “eviction.”

Treat as co-ownership. File for partition (extrajudicial or judicial). Ask for accounting of fruits and compensation from date of demand if exclusive use continues. Consider a use agreement pending partition.

B. Cousin allowed to stay refuses to leave.

Serve a written demand to vacate. If ignored, file unlawful detainer in the MTC within 1 year. Observe barangay conciliation first if required.

C. Long-time family possession of A&D land without title; third parties appear.

Consider judicial confirmation or free patent to secure a Torrens title. Meanwhile, preserve possession with ejectment (if within 1 year) or accion publiciana/reivindicatoria, backed by possession proofs.

D. Occupant built a home in good faith on family land.

Apply Art. 448/546–548: owner chooses to pay and appropriate or sell the land portion occupied (when legally feasible); otherwise, removal with indemnity rules. In co-ownership, courts may tailor relief to avoid inequity.

E. Agricultural tiller claims tenancy.

Do not file MTC ejectment. Proceed via DAR; verify if a tenancy relationship exists (essential elements include consent, agricultural land, personal cultivation, sharing/lease of harvests, etc.).

F. Land is forest/protected (not A&D).

Private titling is unavailable; focus on reclassification (if viable) or relocation/socialized housing options with LGU assistance; UDHA procedures still matter in urban contexts.

11) Practical playbook (owners & occupants)

If you want to remove someone:

Check status: Is the land private/A&D? Are they heirs or tenants?
Barangay conciliation if applicable.
Choose the right case:
- Within 1 year from illegal entry/tolerance revoked → Rule 70 ejectment.
- After 1 year → accion publiciana/reivindicatoria.
- Co-owner in possession → partition + accounting (not ejectment).
- Agrarian issue → DAR/DARAB.
Respect UDHA where applicable (notice, consultation, humane conditions, relocation/assistance).
Preserve evidence and serve clear demands in writing.

If you are the occupant and threatened with eviction:

Clarify your status (heir? tenant? good-faith builder? long possessor?).
Document everything (receipts, tax decs, surveys, photos, barangay papers).
Assert defenses (co-ownership, agrarian jurisdiction, builder in good faith, better possessory right).
Consider securing title (judicial confirmation/free patent) if eligible.
Engage in barangay settlement—many family disputes resolve via use schedules or buy-out.

12) Common pitfalls & misconceptions

“We pay the tax, so we own it.” Tax payments support but do not prove ownership.
“We can evict an heir because we’re more heirs than him.” Majority does not defeat a co-owner’s equal right to possess the whole; use partition, not ejectment.
“Anti-squatting covers this.” The old anti-squatting decree was repealed. Today, UDHA governs urban evictions; penalties target professional squatters/syndicates, not all informal settlers.
“Any judge can handle it.” Wrong forum kills cases. Agrarian disputes → DAR; ejectment (≤1-year window) → MTC; publiciana/reivindicatoria → RTC; partition → usually RTC (depending on value/relief).
“We’ve been here so long; we own it automatically.” Length of possession helps, but classification (A&D) and statutory requirements must be met; registered land cannot be acquired by prescription.

13) Quick legal map (for orientation)

Civil Code (Arts. 448, 484–501, 546–548, 1134–1137) – co-ownership; builders/planters/sowers; acquisitive prescription.
Rules of Court – Rule 69 (partition), Rule 70 (ejectment).
Public Land Act (CA 141) & PD 1529 – public land disposition; land registration; as amended (e.g., RA 11573) on possession periods/A&D proof.
UDHA (RA 7279) – urban evictions/demolitions; safeguards; relocation.
Agrarian laws (RA 3844; RA 6657 as amended) – agricultural tenancy, security of tenure, DAR jurisdiction.
IPRA (RA 8371) – ancestral lands/domains, CADT/CALT, FPIC.
Act No. 3344 – recording instruments affecting unregistered lands (constructive notice; not conclusive of ownership).
Local Government Code – Katarungang Pambarangay conciliation.

14) Bottom line

Identify the land’s legal status (private vs public; A&D classification) and the occupant’s true capacity (heir, tenant, tolerated possessor, informal settler, good-faith builder).
Match the remedy to the status (ejectment vs partition vs agrarian vs titling).
Respect UDHA and barangay conciliation requirements.
For long-time family holdings, secure title through judicial confirmation or free patent when eligible—this prevents nearly all future conflicts.

If you want, tell me your exact situation (who’s living there, how they got in, how long, whether anyone has paid taxes, and whether the land is A&D), and I can map the precise next steps and documents you’d likely need.