AB Agosto

Why Expert Witnesses are Crucial in Modern Litigation

In the resolution of civil disputes in the Philippines, courts are increasingly confronted with cases involving factual and technical issues that fall outside the competence of judges or laypersons. In such instances, the assistance of expert witnesses becomes indispensable. Expert reports—submitted by persons possessing special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field—help the courts understand, assess, and decide on matters requiring specialized inquiry. These reports are commonly used in civil litigation involving businesses, medical negligence, engineering defects, property valuation, environmental compliance, intellectual property disputes, accounting and taxation issues, financial rehabilitation proceedings, actions to quiet title, and assessment of actual or consequential damages.

The admissibility and evidentiary value of expert reports in the Philippine legal system are governed by Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as amended by A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC (2020). Section 22 authorizes the reception of expert opinion on matters requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training, provided the witness is properly qualified. Section 23 further clarifies that an expert’s opinion is not inadmissible merely because it touches on the ultimate issue to be decided by the court. Section 24 permits experts to base their opinions on personal knowledge or on data made known to them prior to the hearing—even if such underlying facts are not independently admissible—so long as they are of a type reasonably relied upon by professionals in the field. These provisions affirm the judiciary’s recognition of expert testimony as an essential tool in the adjudication of fact-intensive and technical disputes.

In practice, expert reports are submitted through judicial affidavits pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC. These affidavits must identify the expert’s credentials, state the matters covered by the opinion, explain the data and methodology relied upon, and present the conclusions reached. During trial, the expert must be presented for direct and cross-examination, thereby allowing the opposing party and the court to test the validity, accuracy, and credibility of the findings. The report itself may be offered as documentary evidence, provided it is properly identified, authenticated, and formally offered in accordance with the rules on evidence.

Philippine jurisprudence strongly supports the admissibility and evidentiary weight of expert testimony. In National Power Corporation v. Sps. Saludares (G.R. No. 183053, January 13, 2016), the Court held that valuation reports carry probative weight if they apply recognized standards and methodologies. In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Heirs of Deleste (G.R. No. 195838, March 12, 2014), the Court accepted the use of formula-based valuation reports, affirming the relevance of expert input. Beyond valuation, in People v. Manalansan (G.R. No. 194844, February 10, 2014), the Court acknowledged that expert testimony is vital in matters involving scientific or medical evidence that judges are not expected to understand without professional assistance.

In complex civil forfeiture cases, such as Republic v. Corona, where the state seeks to recover allegedly ill-gotten wealth, expert witnesses—specifically forensic accountants or financial analysts—are indispensable due to the voluminous and intricate financial data involved. Their crucial role encompasses reconstructing and analyzing financial transactions, aggregating diverse financial documents, calculating wealth discrepancies by comparing income with acquired assets, and explaining complex financial concepts (e.g., co-mingling funds, offshore accounts) to the court. They are vital for identifying inconsistencies, presenting findings clearly, and even rebutting defense arguments. Without their specialized expertise, it would be virtually impossible for the court to navigate the technical barriers of financial information, prove key elements like “unexplained wealth,” and bridge the knowledge gap between raw financial data and the legal framework, ultimately transforming complex financial patterns into comprehensible evidence.

Another clear example of the value of expert testimony is found in Tortona v. Gregorio (G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018), where the Supreme Court upheld the annulment of a notarized deed of sale based on the expert findings of an NBI fingerprint examiner. The examiner concluded that the thumbmarks on the deed did not belong to the deceased owner. While the Court of Appeals relied on the presumption of regularity in notarized documents, the Supreme Court ruled that the expert’s analysis constituted “clear and convincing evidence” sufficient to rebut such presumption. The Court emphasized that when issues involve technical matters beyond common understanding, credible expert opinion may be given controlling weight.

Expert testimony also plays a vital role in cases involving taxation, rehabilitation, and complex financial disputes. For instance, in tax litigation, an expert in tax compliance or accounting may be necessary to explain corporate records, reconcile audit findings, or assess alleged deficiencies. In petitions for corporate rehabilitation or liquidation under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA), expert financial analysts or restructuring professionals help the court evaluate feasibility studies, business plans, or asset schedules. In land disputes involving conflicting titles or boundary issues, land surveyors or geodetic engineers offer clarity on technical descriptions and mapping inconsistencies. In actions for damages, whether contractual or quasi-delictual, economic experts or forensic accountants may be called upon to quantify actual loss, opportunity cost, or lost profits with precision. In all these scenarios, the expert’s role is to provide clarity and credibility to otherwise complex matters, enabling the court to make an informed and just decision.

In line with this, Mr. Gus Agosto—a licensed real estate practitioner and economist—has served as an expert witness in various court proceedings, offering professional opinion on matters involving taxation, business forecasting, property valuation, and applied economics. His independent analyses have supported judicial determinations in numerous cases, including those involving corporate rehabilitation, tax assessments, and property disputes. His experience underscores the crucial role that credible and well-grounded expert opinions play in bridging technical complexity and judicial understanding.

The weight accorded to expert reports depends on the qualifications of the witness, the soundness of the methodology used, and the extent to which the conclusions are anchored in factual and reliable data. While expert opinions are not binding on the court, they may be given substantial persuasive value. Courts may disregard expert testimony if it is speculative, methodologically unsound, or tainted by bias. Nevertheless, when grounded in proper expertise and presented with clarity and integrity, expert evidence often proves pivotal in resolving factual controversies.

Expert reports serve a vital function in civil litigation. They assist courts in resolving technical matters that demand professional judgment, supplement the court’s understanding of complex factual scenarios, and contribute to the just and efficient resolution of disputes. The Philippine Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize and regulate the role of expert witnesses with sufficient clarity and flexibility, enabling trial courts to benefit from specialized knowledge without abdicating their judicial function. For litigants and counsel, engaging a credible expert and presenting a well-structured report is not merely a procedural strategy—it is often an indispensable element in building a persuasive and well-supported case.

Expert witnesses are not merely helpful—they are often essential to proving or rebutting complex factual claims in civil litigation. Their testimony ensures that the court is not left to speculate on matters requiring specialized understanding. As jurisprudence affirms, when the facts are too complex for lay judgment, expert testimony becomes a cornerstone of a fair trial.

More Than Comparables: Rethinking How Appraisers Value Real Estate

The ongoing discussion surrounding Villar Land’s reported ₱1.5-trillion valuation has prompted a renewed focus on how real estate is valued in the Philippines. One of the most common criticisms is the absence of comparable sales data to support such a figure. While that concern is valid in many contexts, it also reveals a limited view of property valuation.

In professional practice, valuation is not confined to sales comparison alone. There are several internationally and locally recognized methods—each suited to a specific type of property and development scenario. Among these, the income approach stands as a credible and often more suitable alternative, particularly for large-scale, income-generating developments.

Valuation Is a Framework—Not a Formula

Valuation is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. Instead, it is guided by established professional standards and relies on three fundamental approaches:

1. Sales Comparison Approach

This method estimates value based on the sale prices of similar properties. It is most appropriate when there are recent, comparable transactions—such as in the case of finished residential or commercial properties.

2. Cost Approach

Used primarily for new or special-use assets, this approach determines value by summing the land value and the depreciated replacement cost of improvements.

3. Income Approach

The income approach is particularly useful when a property generates—or is expected to generate—income over time. It is frequently applied to investment properties, commercial developments, and large-scale estates. Under this approach, value is based on the present worth of future net income, typically using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model.

The Income Approach and Its Application

Critics of Villar Land’s valuation have asked: “Where are the comparables?” The question assumes that a comparable-based method is the only legitimate approach. However, for a 3,500-hectare master-planned estate like Villar City, the income approach may actually be the more appropriate tool.

There are few, if any, direct market comparables for a raw estate of this scale. The value of Villar City does not lie in what neighboring land is worth today—it lies in its future income-generating capacity. This includes revenue from land sales, residential development, commercial leasing, and integrated mixed-use components over a multi-year period.

In my more than decade-long career in property valuation, I encountered appraisal reports prepared by the Villar Group that rely on the income approach. In particular, these reports apply the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model, which estimates the present value of a development based on its projected income, discounted at a risk-adjusted rate.

The use of the income approach is not merely professionally valid—it is formally recognized across multiple valuation and legal frameworks, including:

Philippine Valuation Standards (PVS 103)
International Valuation Standards (IVS 105)
IAS 40 / PFRS 13, which govern the fair value of investment properties for accounting and financial reporting
The Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RPVARA) — a key reform law aimed at modernizing the country’s property valuation system, under which the income approach is mandated for income-generating properties

Under RPVARA, the income approach is to be applied by the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) and local assessors when valuing commercial and income-producing properties for purposes of fair taxation, land use planning, and asset management.

This legislative recognition further affirms the method’s relevance not only for market valuation, but also for public finance, infrastructure appraisal, and national property tax reform.

Transparency: The Core Obligation

While the income approach is methodologically sound, its application—especially in the context of a publicly listed company—requires a high degree of transparency. Under Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code), Villar Land and any similarly situated issuer must:

Disclose all material facts, including the valuation method and underlying assumptions (Section 17)
Avoid any false or misleading statements (Sections 24 and 26)
Ensure fair and accurate disclosures even in private placements (SRC Rule 10.1.2)

If a company relies on an income-based valuation to support reported profits or public market claims, it must disclose the basis of its projections, including:

Projected income streams and phasing schedules
Discount rate assumptions and market benchmarks
Sensitivity analyses showing value fluctuations under different scenarios
Infrastructure and development timelines
Independent appraisal reports or fairness opinions
Oversight by audit committees or external auditors (for fair value accounting under IAS 40)

Without these elements, even a professionally prepared valuation risks losing its credibility with investors, regulators, and the public.

The key message is this: valuation is not confined to comparables, and not all assets lend themselves to the same approach. The income approach, especially through a robust DCF model, is a recognized and appropriate method for valuing master-planned developments like Villar City.

However, the integrity of any valuation rests not only on the method chosen but on how transparently it is disclosed and explained. In capital markets and public discourse alike, methodology and transparency must go hand in hand. One without the other risks distorting—not informing—public perception of value.

In professional valuation, what matters is not just what number you arrive at, but how you got there—and whether the market understands it.

“Work to Learn, Then Earn”: An Appraiser’s Story

An excerpt from an interview with Appraiser Gus Agosto

In this special feature, a Bachelor of Science in Real Estate Management (BSREM) student sits down with Appraiser Gus Agosto to learn about his early journey into the world of real estate appraisal. From his first spark of interest to navigating the challenges of starting, Appraiser Agosto shares how his background in economics, passion for learning, and hands-on experience shaped his professional path. This insightful conversation offers valuable lessons and inspiration for students and aspiring appraisers alike.

Interviewer:

Welcome, Appraiser Gus Agosto. We’re excited to learn more about your journey into the world of real estate valuation. Let’s begin with your early inspiration.

1. What initially drew you to the field of real estate appraisal, and can you recall the moment you decided to pursue it as a career?

Appraiser Gus Agosto:

My journey into appraisal began during my time as a real estate salesperson and property investment specialist. More than a decade has passed since then. One vivid memory stands out: I was in a developer’s office when I met a gentleman who was reviewing for the appraiser’s licensure exam. I watched him work through a complex mathematical problem and admired the analytical skill involved. That moment sparked a deep curiosity in me, one that never left.

Later, during my broker’s review, I began to understand the nuances of the different professions within real estate. Our lecturers were very encouraging, and I gravitated toward appraisal because of its close ties to economics and mathematics—two subjects I’ve always been passionate about. Given my background as a researcher, writer, and a graduate in economics, the transition felt natural. That’s when I firmly decided to pursue a career in real estate appraisal.

2. How did your educational background or early professional experiences prepare you for the demands of property valuation work?

Appraiser Gus Agosto:

I hold a degree in economics and spent several years engaged in research before entering real estate. I conducted studies on local economies, enterprises, and development trends—work that laid the groundwork for the analytical mindset essential in valuation.

My stint as a real estate salesperson further broadened my understanding. I was exposed to different types of properties and transactions, attended seminars, and got to know the real-world workings of the industry. Steve Jobs once said, “You can only connect the dots looking backward.” In my case, those dots connected my work as a researcher, writer, lecturer, and a real estate practitioner, all of which converged toward a solid foundation in appraisal.

3. What challenges did you face when you were just starting out as an appraiser, and how did you overcome them?

Appraiser Gus Agosto:

Like many beginners in the field, I faced the usual questions: Where do I begin? How do I get clients? One piece of advice from a lecturer stuck with me—start with your “KKK”: Kamag-anak, Kliyente, at Kakilala—your natural network. That became my launching pad.

At one professional association event, I met a fellow appraiser who owned an appraisal firm. She invited me to join their Cebu branch, and I accepted without hesitation. It was a valuable opportunity. The company had a structured system, an established client base, and a culture of mentorship. We focused on the core operations—site inspections, analysis, and report writing. Each report we submitted was reviewed by seasoned appraisers, turning every assignment into a learning experience.

Later on, I had the opportunity to work with another appraisal firm in Metro Manila whose clients included major banks and large corporations. There, I learned the discipline of working in a highly coordinated team with tight turnaround times—often just three days per report. The volume of work was intense, but it sharpened my ability to deliver accurate reports under pressure, without compromising quality.

When I returned to Cebu, I reconnected with mentors who were among the pioneering appraisers in Visayas and Mindanao—back when there were only about five of them in the region. They welcomed me into their practice without formal discussions about fees. For me, the priority was learning. I was exposed to a different side of the profession: that of the individual practitioner. Besides Cebu and nearby provinces, I handled assignments even in remote areas such as Kapatagan in Lanao del Norte, Ozamis, and Clarin. I also had the opportunity to appraise properties of prominent Cebuano families and large-scale developments. That phase lasted for at least two years and deepened my understanding of valuation beyond the corporate environment.

Eventually, a batchmate invited me to serve as an appraiser for a nationwide cooperative, marking the start of my independent practice. I traveled to various locations, encountered a wide range of property types and development conditions, met people from all walks of life, and balanced time in the field with desk work in the office. Those routines became the rhythm of my early appraisal career.

In those formative years, I worked with at least three appraisal firms and three respected individual appraisers. My guiding principle was simple: “Work to learn, and earning will follow.” I was driven by a deep eagerness to grow in the profession, more than anything else.

Looking back, my journey—from economic researcher to real estate salesperson to hands-on valuation—was a kind of “gestation period.” Each phase played a vital role in sharpening my skills and shaping my professional identity as a full-fledged appraiser.

4. Looking back at your first appraisal assignment, what lessons did you learn that still guide your practice today?

Appraiser Gus Agosto:

I’ll never forget my first assignment—it was a warehouse in Pagsabungan, Mandaue. My buddy and I were eager and nervous. We did everything manually—measuring the structure, crawling into tight spaces, and sweating through the inspection. It was tough, but also rewarding.

The biggest lesson I learned was about trust. Clients allow us into their private spaces and rely on our judgment to assign value to their property. That responsibility has always stayed with me. I make sure to explain to my clients how I arrived at the valuation and why it’s fair. For me, valuation is not just about figures—it’s about credibility, integrity, and professionalism. Trust is the foundation of our practice, and I continue to uphold that principle in every report I sign.

Advice to Aspiring Appraisers:

Appraiser Gus Agosto:

To those just starting: “Work to learn first, not just to earn.” Be open to guidance, surround yourself with mentors, and never stop asking questions. This profession is built not just on numbers, but on experience, trust, and continuous growth. Stay curious, stay humble, and stay committed.

Interviewer Wrap-Up:
Thank you, Appraiser Gus Agosto, for that inspiring and grounded look into your journey. Your story is not only a blueprint for aspiring appraisers but also a testament to how passion, persistence, and purpose can shape a meaningful career.

Just Compensation Starts with Just Valuation

The right to just compensation is a cornerstone of constitutional property protection in the Philippines. But just compensation cannot exist without just valuation—an objective, market-based assessment of property value that respects both legal mandates and professional standards. This is the essential promise of Republic Act No. 12001, or the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RPVARA), enacted in 2024.

RPVARA introduces a uniform, professional standard for property valuation throughout the country. It mandates the use of the Philippine Valuation Standards (PVS), a comprehensive set of guidelines based on internationally recognized valuation principles. These standards are no longer optional. They are now the legal benchmark for determining real property values in the Philippines.

This legislative mandate gives flesh to Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” In numerous decisions, the Supreme Court has clarified that “just compensation” means payment equivalent to the fair market value of the property at the time of taking. RPVARA enforces this principle by defining fair valuation through a standardized, transparent system.

For lawyers, this law is particularly relevant in cases involving land acquisition, expropriation, estate settlement, and taxation. It is no longer enough to rely on outdated zonal values or arbitrarily assessed figures. The Constitution guarantees the right to just compensation, and RPVARA operationalizes this by requiring property valuations to reflect prevailing market values. Lawyers who fail to understand and assert the application of the PVS risk failing in their fiduciary duty to clients, particularly in expropriation cases where compensation is the core issue.

Judges and court-appointed commissioners are equally bound. In the past, some courts and referees have resorted to averaging methods or used outdated assessments in determining compensation. RPVARA now provides a clear and binding legal standard—market value as defined and measured by the Philippine Valuation Standards. Ignoring these standards may not only result in injustice but may also constitute a legal error that undermines the integrity of court decisions.

Local assessors and government appraisers face a professional turning point. RPVARA tasks the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) to adopt, maintain, and enforce the PVS, ensuring that local government units implement the new standards consistently. All valuation professionals in the public sector are now required by law to comply with these standards. Section 13 mandates that “all appraisers and assessors in LGUs, and other entities conducting valuation, shall conform with international valuation standards.” Section 14 further states that “all real properties shall be valued or appraised based on prevailing market values… in conformity with the PVS.”

These provisions echo the broader mandate of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which affirms the rule of law in all governmental actions. Likewise, Article XIII, Section 9, on urban land reform and housing, compels the State to respect the rights of small property owners—a promise that is only fulfilled when valuations are fair and legally grounded.

Non-compliance is not a mere technical oversight. RPVARA imposes administrative and even criminal liability on public officials or appraisers who deliberately disregard its mandates. This is reinforced by Sections 23 and 24 of the law, which provide for penalties in cases of violation. It also complements provisions in the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160), such as Sections 201 and 212, which require local governments to prepare schedules of fair market values—now understood to mean values determined through PVS-compliant methods.

The significance of RPVARA extends beyond legal compliance. It helps create a transparent and reliable valuation system that supports fair taxation, equitable compensation, and investor confidence. For property owners, this means more credible valuations in expropriation, taxation, and real estate transactions. For local governments, it means a more reliable source of revenue, better planning, and improved public services.

This reform also aligns the Philippines with global best practices, supporting responsible urbanization and land use policy. A valuation system based on internationally aligned standards helps attract investment, reduce disputes, and enhance the efficiency of public infrastructure projects.

RPVARA is more than a technical law. It is a vital instrument for ensuring fairness in property-related processes, whether in taxation, compensation, or estate administration. Understanding this law—and putting it into practice—is not just the responsibility of appraisers or assessors. It is a shared duty of lawyers, judges, government officials, and landowners alike.

Now is the time to become familiar with the Philippine Valuation Standards. By doing so, we uphold constitutional rights, professional integrity, and the rule of law.

Why Effective Report Writing Adds Value

In the practice of real estate appraisal, much emphasis is often placed on the technical process of valuation—data collection, market analysis, and the application of valuation approaches. However, as Mr. Gus Agosto emphasized in a recent lecture on Appraisal Report Writing, one of the most overlooked yet indispensable components of the appraisal process is the ability to clearly and effectively communicate its outcome. Effective appraisal, as he asserts, means effective reporting.

Drawing from over a decade of experience in the field, Mr. Agosto highlighted that writing an appraisal report is not merely a clerical task or an afterthought to technical valuation. It is the final product—the formal articulation of an appraiser’s professional opinion of value. This report must not only present data but must also comply with standards, reflect sound judgment, and demonstrate adherence to the legal and ethical expectations of the profession.

Some appraisal reports currently in circulation—particularly those used as templates—were created prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 9646, known as the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (RESA Law). Others are adapted from international formats that may not fully conform to Philippine legal and regulatory requirements. While these templates may serve as useful starting points, Mr. Agosto stressed that they are insufficient if not updated to reflect local laws and contemporary standards. Over the past decade, numerous laws and administrative issuances have been enacted, including the Philippine Valuation Standards (PVS), Data Privacy Act, Electronic Commerce Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, updates to BIR Revenue Regulations, and court procedural rules, which must now be reflected in appraisal report writing.

Under Section 3(g) of the RESA Law, a real estate appraiser is legally defined as a professional who “performs or renders, or offers to perform services in estimating and arriving at an opinion of or acts as an expert on real estate values,” and whose services “shall be finally rendered by the preparation of the report in acceptable written form.” This statutory requirement emphasizes that the report is not a mere formality; it is the legal expression of the appraiser’s findings and professional responsibility.

Further, Section 5(c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9646 mandates that licensed appraisers shall “prepare, sign, and issue a real estate appraisal report” in accordance with accepted principles and standards prescribed by the Board and the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). The PVS, aligns with the International Valuation Standards (IVS) but is tailored to Philippine law and practice. Reports must demonstrate transparency in methodology, accuracy in assumptions, and consistency in legal compliance.

Mr. Agosto also pointed out that appraisal reports are not generic in nature. They must be purpose-specific, as each type of valuation engagement—litigation, insurance, sales, taxation, lease, or expropriation—carries distinct reporting requirements, legal standards, and evidentiary burdens. Moreover, Mr. Agosto emphasized that the appraiser’s ability to communicate effectively, through proper grammar, structure, and clarity, is just as important as analytical rigor. A report written in poor language or filled with jargon may undermine its credibility, even if technically correct. Thus, he encourages appraisers to continually upskill in both technical and language proficiency, utilize digital tools, apply peer review, and align with style guides that enhance report readability and presentation.

Appraisal reports serve as vital documents in court cases, bank financing, taxation, and public policy. Thus, Mr. Agosto explained, they must be credible, compliant, and defensible. This requires not only legal and technical knowledge, but also proficiency in professional communication. The appraiser must be able to clearly convey complex data, defend conclusions logically, and eliminate ambiguity through proper grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary. In an era where reports are often read by legal, financial, and lay audiences alike, the precision and clarity of language can determine whether the report is useful—or even admissible.

Hence, appraisal report writing is not just a skill—it is a professional obligation grounded in law, ethics, and service to the public good. It transforms raw valuation data into a structured, credible, and actionable opinion of value. As Mr. Agosto aptly concluded: “Your report is your professional signature. It must speak with competence, integrity, and purpose long after you’ve signed it.”

One Hat at a Time: Ethical and Legal Boundaries in Real Estate Practice

In Philippine real estate practice, a professional may wear multiple hats: appraiser, broker, consultant, or assessor. With these roles come distinct legal obligations and ethical expectations. Among the most critical distinctions is the contrast between the appraiser’s duty of independence and the broker’s duty of agency. Understanding this distinction—and reconciling it—is essential to preserving public trust and professional credibility in the real estate industry. This article explores how the ethical and legal foundations of real estate practice, as rooted in the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines (R.A. 9646), guide practitioners in navigating these complex but complementary roles.

A real estate appraiser is a professional whose primary obligation is to render an independent, objective, and evidence-based opinion of value. The appraiser must act with impartiality, applying market data, sound valuation methodology, and professional judgment. The role demands a non-advocacy stance—the appraiser is not to promote the interests of any party, even the client. By contrast, a real estate broker functions under a legal agency relationship. As an agent, the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the client, which includes loyalty, obedience, diligence, full disclosure, confidentiality, and accountability. A broker is expected to promote and protect the client’s interests, even as they observe fairness and ethical conduct in dealings with others.

These differing roles raise a central ethical concern: how can a real estate professional reconcile the objectivity demanded of an appraiser and the loyalty expected of a broker, especially when licensed to perform both? The answer lies in the principle of professional role separation and ethical discipline. Each role must be exercised independently, with clear disclosure and without overlap that compromises impartiality or fiduciary duty. When acting as an appraiser, the practitioner must distance themselves from any client advocacy. When acting as a broker, they must zealously represent their client, but always within the bounds of the law and truthfulness. This ethical discipline—“wearing one hat at a time”—is crucial to maintaining credibility, avoiding conflict of interest, and upholding public trust.

First and foremost, the Real Estate Service Act of 2009 (R.A. 9646) formalizes the ethical obligations of appraisers, brokers, and other real estate professionals. Section 39 mandates that all practitioners be guided by a Code of Ethics and Responsibilities as adopted by the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service. This affirms the legal requirement to observe integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, and public accountability in all aspects of professional practice. Violations of these ethical mandates can result in administrative sanctions such as license suspension or revocation, in addition to possible civil or criminal liability.

The ethical standards expected of real estate professionals are enshrined further in Philippine civil law. Chapter 2, Book I of the Civil Code, on Human Relations, provides the normative foundation for conduct in both personal and professional spheres. Article 19 mandates that “every person must, in the exercise of his rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.” This provision is the cornerstone of professional ethics, requiring appraisers and brokers to act not merely within legal bounds, but with moral integrity, fairness, and honesty. Article 20 states that “every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.” A real estate professional may thus be held civilly liable for losses caused by misrepresentation, bias, or negligence, such as inflated valuations or failure to disclose material facts. Furthermore, Article 21 provides that “any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.” Even in the absence of a specific law or contract violation, acts against professional ethics or public trust may be actionable under this general clause on moral damages.

The Revised Penal Code supplements civil liabilities with criminal sanctions for unethical conduct that involves deceit, falsification, or breach of public trust. Article 171 on falsification of public documents and Article 172 on falsification by private individuals provide penalties for those who falsify data, signatures, or reports, particularly when such documents are submitted to government agencies for purposes such as taxation, loan application, or litigation. A real estate professional, acting dishonestly in the preparation or authentication of a report, may thus face criminal liability. Similarly, Articles 315 and 318, which address estafa and other deceits, penalize professionals who mislead clients or third parties for financial gain. This includes concealing defects, inflating values, or misrepresenting the true nature of a property transaction. These laws underscore that professional misconduct is not merely unethical—it can be criminal.

The real estate profession is grounded not only in technical competence but also in ethical clarity and legal responsibility. The roles of appraiser and broker may be different, but both demand honesty, fairness, and accountability. Whether providing an objective valuation or advocating for a client in a sale, the real estate professional must be guided by the legal duty to act with justice, good faith, and respect for others’ rights. Ultimately, the integrity of real estate transactions—and of the profession itself—depends on each practitioner’s ability to uphold their role with clear boundaries and an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct. In doing so, they not only comply with the law but also protect the public, the profession, and the value of their word.

Duterte’s Impeachment: A Closer Look at the Philippine Constitution

The Philippine political landscape has been abuzz with discussions about impeachment proceedings and the subsequent legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court. Among these cases is a petition for certiorari filed by the Vice President, seeking to halt or question the impeachment process arguing the one-year bar rule of the Philippine Constitution. The central question on many minds is: Will these cases prosper? To answer this, we must turn to the Philippine Constitution and the principles of separation of powers and judicial review.

The Constitutional Framework for Impeachment

The Philippine Constitution, in Article XI, Section 3, is clear: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” This provision establishes the Senate as the exclusive body responsible for conducting impeachment trials. Once the House of Representatives files articles of impeachment, the Senate takes over as the “court” that will hear the case and determine whether the impeached official should be removed from office.

This constitutional design reflects the principle of separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct roles. The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, while the Senate serves as the judge. The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is generally not involved in this process unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Why Is Impeachment in Article XI and Not in the Legislative Branch Provisions?

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) is a deliberate choice that reflects the unique nature and purpose of impeachment. There are various reasons such as the following:

Impeachment as a Check on Government Officials, Not a Legislative Function
Impeachment is not an ordinary legislative function. While it involves Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate), its purpose is not to create laws or policies but to hold high-ranking government officials accountable for serious offenses such as graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, or other high crimes. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the framers emphasized that impeachment is primarily a mechanism for accountability, not a routine legislative duty.
Separation of Powers and the Unique Role of Congress in Impeachment
The Constitution divides the impeachment process between the two houses of Congress:
- The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor, initiating the impeachment process by filing charges.
  - The Senate acts as the court, conducting the trial and deciding whether to convict or acquit the impeached official.
    This division of roles within Congress is unique and does not fit neatly into the general legislative functions outlined in Article VI. By placing impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution highlights that this process is a special power granted to Congress, distinct from its ordinary lawmaking responsibilities.
Impeachment as a Safeguard for Public Accountability
Article XI is titled “Accountability of Public Officers,” and its provisions focus on ensuring that public officials remain answerable to the people. Impeachment is one of the key mechanisms for enforcing this accountability, alongside other tools like the Ombudsman’s office and the Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court). By situating impeachment in this article, the Constitution reinforces the idea that impeachment is not just a political process but a constitutional safeguard against abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
Avoiding Overlap with Ordinary Legislative Functions
If the impeachment provisions were placed in Article VI (Legislative Department), it might create confusion or conflate impeachment with ordinary legislative activities. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial process, not a lawmaking one. By separating it into Article XI, the Constitution clarifies that impeachment is a special process with its own rules and procedures, distinct from the day-to-day work of Congress.
Historical and Comparative Context
The placement of impeachment in a separate article is also consistent with the structure of other constitutions, such as the U.S. Constitution, which similarly places impeachment provisions in a distinct section (Article II, Section 4, and Article I, Sections 2 and 3). This reflects a broader constitutional tradition that treats impeachment as a unique and critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity of government.
Emphasizing the Gravity of Impeachment
By isolating impeachment in Article XI, the Constitution underscores the gravity and solemnity of the process. Impeachment is not a routine political tool but a last resort for addressing serious misconduct by high-ranking officials. Its placement in a dedicated article highlights its importance as a constitutional remedy for preserving democracy and the rule of law.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the Philippines, has the power of judicial review. This means it can determine whether the actions of other government branches are consistent with the Constitution. However, this power is not unlimited. The Court has consistently held that it will not interfere in political questions—matters that the Constitution has assigned to other branches of government.

In the context of impeachment, the Supreme Court’s role is limited. It can only intervene if there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Grave abuse of discretion refers to actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the Constitution. Absent such abuse, the Supreme Court will defer to the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction over impeachment trials.

Sara Duterte’s Petition: Why It Will Not Prosper

Earlier today, a petition filed by the Vice President argued that the impeachment violated the one-year bar rule stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. However, the petition is unlikely to succeed based on established legal principles.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003), clarified that impeachment proceedings are initiated when an impeachment complaint is both filed AND referred to the House Committee on Justice.

This means that once an impeachment complaint has been formally referred to the committee, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against the same official within one year.

Also, in their brief (page 17) it is stated that the initiation of impeachment occurs through both the filing AND the referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice.

Since the One-Year Bar Rule on Impeachment was not violated, her petition lacks merit. If the first impeachment complaint was filed but not referred or endorsed, it does not constitute an initiated impeachment proceeding. Without a violation of the one-year rule, there is no constitutional basis to challenge the subsequent impeachment complaint.

The Cases Filed in the Supreme Court

Several cases have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the impeachment process, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari. A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to challenge the actions of a government body, arguing that it acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

In these cases, the petitioners are likely arguing that the House of Representatives or the Senate violated constitutional procedures or acted unfairly in initiating or conducting the impeachment process. However, for these cases to succeed, the petitioners must prove that there was indeed grave abuse of discretion.

Will These Cases Prosper?

Based on the constitutional framework, the answer is likely no. My answer is premised in the following:

Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Senate: The Constitution explicitly grants the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. This means that, as long as the Senate is acting within its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court cannot interfere.
Absence of Grave Abuse of Discretion: Unless the petitioners can demonstrate that the House of Representatives or the Senate acted with grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court will likely dismiss the cases. The Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in impeachment proceedings, respecting the separation of powers.
Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court generally practices judicial restraint in political matters, especially when the Constitution has clearly assigned a specific role to another branch of government. Impeachment is a political process, and the Court is unlikely to overstep its bounds unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

The cases filed in the Supreme Court, including the Vice President’s petition for certiorari, face an uphill battle. The Philippine Constitution clearly vests the Senate with the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. Barring such evidence, the Senate’s jurisdiction over the impeachment process will remain unchallenged, and the cases in the Supreme Court are unlikely to prosper.

The placement of impeachment provisions in Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) rather than Article VI (Legislative Department) reflects the framers’ intent to emphasize that impeachment is a special constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability, not an ordinary legislative function. This arrangement reinforces the separation of powers, clarifies the unique roles of the House and Senate in the process, and highlights the gravity of impeachment as a safeguard against abuse of power by public officials. It is a deliberate choice that aligns with the broader principles of constitutional governance and public accountability.

As the impeachment proceedings unfold, the nation will be watching closely, not only to see how the political drama plays out but also to witness the resilience of the constitutional principles that underpin Philippine democracy.

AB Agosto Attends the Economist Forum by the Asian Development Bank

Professor AB Agosto participated in the two-day Economist Forum organized by the Asian Development Bank, held on January 23-24, 2025, ADB Headquarter, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. The forum featured an engaging array of topics, including macroeconomics, electricity markets, migration trends, climate change, and other pressing global issues.

Having served as a consultant for the Asian Development Bank, where Professor Agosto was involved in research on housing financial initiatives aimed at addressing housing backlogs, this forum provided a meaningful opportunity to gain new insights. The sessions will greatly enhance and foster cooperation among ADB consultants, strengthening collaboration on shared goals.

The event provided an excellent platform for exchanging knowledge, sharing cutting-edge research, and fostering discussions among economists and experts from various countries. It highlighted key challenges and opportunities faced by nations while addressing complex economic, social, and environmental concerns.

Professor Agosto found the sessions particularly insightful, offering fresh perspectives and actionable ideas that could potentially inspire future research and policy development.

Implication of Trump’s Immigration Policy on Philippine Real Estate

The recent announcement by newly inaugurated U.S. President Trump, suggesting a move to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, has sparked widespread debate. The proposal, targeting children born on U.S. soil to non-citizens or undocumented immigrants, challenges the long-standing application of the jus soli principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the political and legal implications of this development have dominated headlines, the potential economic ripple effects are just as significant—not only in the United States but also for nations like the Philippines, where jus sanguinis governs citizenship by bloodline.

The jus soli principle grants citizenship to nearly anyone born within a country’s borders, while jus sanguinis, as applied in the Philippines, ties citizenship to one’s parents rather than birthplace. For Filipinos in the U.S., stricter birthright citizenship rules could mean diminished opportunities for their children to acquire U.S. citizenship automatically. This could deter future migration, affect job stability, and influence long-term investment behavior—including decisions to invest in Philippine real estate.

Filipino Migration and U.S. Immigration Data

As of 2022, about 4.1 million Filipino Americans lived in the United States, making up 17% of the nation’s total Asian American population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Philippine Ambassador to the United States, Jose Manuel Romualdez, recently highlighted that approximately 350,000 Filipinos are currently living illegally in the U.S. Since 2001, a total of 9,597,961 cases have been filed across all U.S. immigration courts, with only 25,301 of those involving Filipinos, including just 723 who entered without inspection (EWI). Of the 3,716,106 cases still pending in immigration court (most of which involve EWI), only 1,218 involve people born in the Philippines. This data reveals that despite Filipino Americans constituting roughly 1% of the U.S. population, they represent only 0.002% of deportation proceedings, which is a notably low percentage.

The majority of Filipinos in removal proceedings are facing deportation for overstaying their visas, with two-thirds (16,844) of these cases linked to visa overstay. An additional 3,342 are in proceedings due to committing aggravated felonies, and 3,955 have been convicted of other criminal charges. There are also 12 individuals charged with national security violations and one Filipino charged with terrorism.

The Housing Paradox and its Economic Impact

In the Philippines, the housing market is already dealing with the dual challenges of oversupply and a significant housing backlog—issues that have long plagued the country’s real estate sector. Despite efforts to address these concerns, access to affordable housing remains a critical issue. However, amid this ongoing struggle, the sector faces another blow. The potential changes in U.S. birthright citizenship policy will exacerbate the situation.

Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and Filipino Americans are major drivers of real estate demand in the Philippines, sending billions of dollars in remittances annually to finance property purchases. OFWs based in the United States were the leading source of remittances received by the Philippines in 2023, amounting to around 13.71 billion U.S. dollars. However, if U.S. policy changes reduce the economic security tied to citizenship for these communities, their capacity and willingness to invest in Philippine properties could decline. This could further exacerbate the existing inventory challenges faced by real estate developers.

A reduction in U.S.-based remittances could also impact housing affordability and market segmentation. Developers, already grappling with oversupply, may need to pivot towards affordable housing to cater to the domestic market—a sector marked by intense competition. The increased supply targeting this sector could drive price corrections, creating both opportunities and risks for local buyers and investors.

Beyond the market dynamics, stricter U.S. citizenship policies could have sociopolitical implications for the Philippines. If long-term U.S. migration is discouraged for Filipinos, a potential increase in skilled professionals returning to the Philippines may reshape urban housing demand. The rental market and demand for mixed-use developments could see shifts, though it may take years for these changes to offset the current oversupply.

This issue is critical for Filipinos because migration, remittances, and real estate are deeply interconnected. The Philippine government, developers, and financial institutions must consider the potential consequences of global policy shifts, as these could have far-reaching effects on the local economy and housing market.

Housing Paradox

In recent months, news reports have painted a troubling picture of Metro Manila’s condominium market. The oversupply of residential units has reached concerning levels, raising questions about market stability and prompting analysts to propose various recommendations. While analysts focus on strategies to address the oversupply, there has been little to no effort to connect this phenomenon with the broader issue of unmet housing needs. This creates a puzzling paradox -on one side of the real estate spectrum, developers are grappling with excessive inventory in urban centers. On the other side, millions of Filipinos still lack access to adequate, affordable housing.

The stark imbalance highlights a deeper, systemic problem within the housing sector: a misalignment between supply and demand, where the needs of the population are not being met despite the abundance of residential units.

Currently, the oversupply in the condominium market translates to about 34 months of inventory at the current sales pace—nearly three times the ideal benchmark of a 12-month supply. Urban centers like Quezon City, Ortigas, and Pasay are particularly affected, with thousands of unsold units. For example, Quezon City alone has 18,500 available units, followed by Ortigas with 13,500 and Pasay’s Bay Area with 10,500. Meanwhile, high-end areas like Makati and Bonifacio Global City maintain lower inventories, reflecting steadier demand in the luxury segment.

The reasons behind this oversupply are multifaceted. High interest rates, external economic pressures, and shifting consumer preferences towards single-detached homes in suburban areas have all played a role. Developers, driven by the high returns in the mid- to high-tier condominium market, have focused on urban centers, inadvertently creating a bubble of excess inventory in certain locations.

On the other side of this paradox lies the staggering national housing backlog of 6.5 million units. This deficit primarily affects low- to middle-income families who cannot afford the properties being developed. In Central Visayas alone, the housing need is over half a million units, and while government programs like the Pambansang Pabahay para sa Pilipino Program (4PH) aim to address the backlog, progress has been slow. For instance, in Central Visayas, the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) has set a modest target of 13,000 housing units under 4PH—far from the region’s actual needs.

This paradox underscores a severe mismatch between the type of housing being supplied and the housing people need. The oversupply is concentrated in mid- to high-tier condominiums in urban areas, which are unaffordable to most Filipinos. Meanwhile, the housing backlog affects families who struggle to find even basic, affordable shelter. Rapid urbanization has driven developers to focus on city centers, where demand for high-end properties has slowed, while the needs of provincial and low-income communities remain unmet.

This misalignment has wide-ranging implications. Developers face financial losses as unsold inventories pile up, while families without access to affordable housing continue to live in substandard conditions. The situation also affects the broader economy, as stagnation in urban property markets and inadequate housing solutions limit economic mobility and growth.

To address this complex challenge, a coordinated effort is needed. Policymakers, developers, and stakeholders must work together to realign the market. Incentivizing developers to prioritize affordable housing, particularly in areas with high backlogs, is essential. Improving transportation infrastructure to make suburban housing more accessible can also help ease the concentration of developments in urban areas. Additionally, accessible financing options for low- to middle-income families, public-private partnerships, and stricter regulations to prevent future oversupply are crucial steps.

The coexistence of housing oversupply and a massive backlog highlights fundamental flaws in the Philippine real estate market. Solving this paradox requires a shift in priorities—from catering mainly to profit-driven urban developments to addressing the genuine housing needs of the majority. By doing so, the sector can foster sustainable growth, improve living conditions, and create a more equitable future for all Filipinos.

The solution to the Philippine housing paradox lies not in shifting the focus of condominium developments to other regions but in prioritizing the unmet demand for affordable housing. The fundamental issue is not merely the geographic concentration of real estate projects but the failure to align supply with the genuine needs of the population. Addressing this misalignment is key to resolving both the oversupply and the housing backlog.

Augusto B. Agosto is a passionate blogger, economist, a university professor and thought leader in real estate and urban development. With extensive experience in analyzing economic trends and real estate dynamics, he offers insightful perspectives on pressing issues such as housing, land use, and property market trends in the Philippines.