One of the landmark reforms in the Philippine criminal justice system is Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. The law was enacted to encourage witnesses to testify in criminal cases by granting them immunity from prosecution and providing protection and benefits that ensure their safety and livelihood. At the heart of this reform is the central role of the Department of Justice (DOJ), whose authority was tested in the high-profile case of Webb v. De Leon (G.R. Nos. 121234, 121245, 121297, August 23, 1995).
Under Section 12 of R.A. 6981, the DOJ has the power to admit witnesses into the program. Once admitted, the certification issued by the DOJ must be given full faith and credit by public prosecutors. This means that prosecutors are barred from including the admitted witness in any criminal complaint or information, and if the witness has already been charged, the prosecutor is duty-bound to move for his or her discharge. Admission also grants the witness immunity from prosecution for the related offenses, together with access to rights and benefits such as security, relocation, subsistence, and employment assistance.
This provision was challenged by petitioner Hubert Webb, who argued that only the courts, under Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, have the authority to discharge an accused as a state witness. He claimed that allowing the DOJ to decide on the admission of witnesses intrudes upon judicial prerogatives and violates the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the prosecution of crimes is fundamentally an executive function, anchored on the constitutional duty of the executive branch to “faithfully execute the laws.” The discretion to determine whether, what, and whom to charge—including who may be used as a state witness—properly belongs to the DOJ as part of its prosecutorial power. The Court clarified that while Rule 119 empowers courts to discharge an accused once jurisdiction has been acquired, this authority is jurisdictional rather than inherent. It ensures that proceedings remain orderly, but it does not strip the DOJ of its primary role in deciding witness admissions under R.A. 6981.
The decision underscores the delicate balance between the branches of government: the executive determines who to prosecute and who to use as a state witness, while the judiciary supervises proceedings once a case is filed. By upholding the DOJ’s role, the Court strengthened the Witness Protection Program as a vital tool for combating crime. As the DOJ itself pointed out, many cases in the past had been dismissed due to witnesses refusing to testify out of fear or economic dislocation. R.A. 6981 and its interpretation in Webb directly address this challenge by protecting witnesses and ensuring their cooperation.
The Webb v. De Leon ruling affirms that the DOJ’s role in the Witness Protection Program is constitutionally sound and crucial for the administration of criminal justice. By empowering the DOJ to certify and immunize state witnesses, the law tackles one of the biggest obstacles in criminal prosecutions: the silence of those who know the truth. In a justice system often hampered by fear and intimidation, the law sends a clear message—witnesses will be protected, and their courage will not be in vain.
Senator Erwin Tulfo’s recent statement during the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the flood control mess — that sometimes you have to “bend the law” to heed the people’s cry for restitution — has drawn both applause and criticism. Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla affirmed his sentiment, but some quarters now warn that such remarks suggest moving outside the Constitution.
In my view, there is no need to bend the law at all. The law itself, through both the Constitution and the Civil Code, already mandates restitution.
Accountability in the flood control mess does not stop with public officials. Even private contractors who enriched themselves from irregular projects are bound by law to return the money. The Civil Code, through Articles 19 and 22, prohibits unjust enrichment, while the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 27) commands the State to take effective measures against graft and corruption. Restitution therefore, is not a bending of the law — it is the law itself at work.
The Civil Code reinforces this duty through two key provisions:
Article 19: “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.”
Article 22: “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”
Taken together, these make restitution a legal requirement. It is not a technicality, nor a concession to public clamor. It is the natural consequence of unjust enrichment.
When protesters at Luneta shouted “Ibalik ang pera ng bayan,” they were not demanding that the law be ignored or bent. They were, perhaps unknowingly, demanding that the law be faithfully enforced. The people’s voice and the law’s command align perfectly here.
This is why I believe Senator Tulfo’s passion is not at odds with the rule of law. The better framing is this: the law itself already bends toward justice. To demand restitution is not to defy legal principles but to uphold them.
My take is simple: restitution is not just a moral duty, nor is it merely a populist cry. It is a constitutional and legal obligation. There is no conflict between the will of the people and the rule of law on this issue. Both demand the same thing: that what was wrongfully taken from the Filipino people must be returned.
We live in abnormal times when asking to return stolen money is treated as if it were illegal.
“In valuation, the fine print on the title can be as valuable—or as dangerous—as the land itself.“
In real estate appraisal, numbers alone do not tell the whole story. A property’s legal status—particularly the annotations and encumbrances appearing on its title or tax declaration—can drastically alter its worth. While some may view these legal markings as mere notarial footnotes, a seasoned property appraiser understands that such entries are crucial to determining the property’s true value, marketability, and risk profile. One of the most important but sometimes overlooked aspects of valuation is the presence of annotations and encumbrances on the property’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), Original Certificate of Title (OCT), or Tax Declaration. These annotations—whether involving tax delinquency, pending litigation, or other restrictions—can drastically alter a property’s value, marketability, and highest and best use (HBU). For the professional appraiser, understanding and correctly interpreting these legal markings is essential, not optional.
Why Appraisers Must Pay Attention
There are several compelling reasons why a diligent appraiser must care about annotations and encumbrances.
First, these legal burdens directly affect market value—the core product of any appraisal. Buyers in the open market are generally unwilling to pay full price for a property encumbered by unresolved claims, legal disputes, or forfeiture risks. Appraisers must therefore consider how each annotation may cause potential buyers to either walk away or demand a discount.
Second, legal risk translates to value risk. Annotations such as a lis pendens, adverse claim, or a writ of attachment signal potential issues with ownership, possession, or future usability. Even if a property looks physically sound, a legal cloud on its title will make it less attractive and inherently riskier. Prudent appraisers account for this by adjusting their valuation assumptions, often applying a discount or issuing a qualified opinion.
Third, these annotations frequently affect the property’s highest and best use (HBU)—a foundational concept in valuation. If a property is subject to restrictive covenants, reversionary clauses, or foreshore lease limitations, its legal permissibility for development or other productive use may be severely constrained. The appraiser must therefore revise the HBU analysis and its associated value estimate accordingly.
Fourth, annotations impair a property’s marketability. For instance, a property that has been auctioned off for tax delinquency but is still within the redemption period cannot be sold with confidence. Similarly, if a property was inherited but the title transfer is not yet perfected, there may be co-heir disputes or administrative delays. In both cases, the property may be legally transferable only in theory, but not in practice—at least not without cost or time delays.
Fifth, annotations affect the property’s loanable value or equity value. Banks and other financial institutions are wary of lending against titles that carry risks. For example, a property mortgaged beyond its current market value or encumbered with a lien from unpaid taxes may only be eligible for partial financing, or worse, may be rejected altogether as loan collateral. This has direct implications for the appraiser’s task in estimating not just market value, but the net realizable or mortgageable value.
Finally, ignoring these factors may violate the appraiser’s professional and legal responsibilities. Under the Real Estate Service Act (RA 9646), the appraiser is required to exercise due diligence and report all material conditions that affect the value of the property. International Valuation Standards (IVS) and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) similarly require full disclosure and the proper interpretation of legal burdens. Failing to do so may expose the appraiser to liability, loss of license, or reputational damage.
Understanding the Specific Impact of Common Annotations
To make these risks and responsibilities more concrete, let’s examine how common annotations and encumbrances impact valuation:
A Notice of Tax Delinquency or Forfeiture carries a negative impact on value and significantly impairs marketability due to the risk of government seizure. When a Certificate of Sale appears on the title—typically following a tax auction—the buyer only has conditional ownership until the redemption period lapses. This also warrants a discounted valuation and caution in reporting.
A Lis Pendens indicates that the property is subject to ongoing litigation. Its presence severely impairs marketability and imposes legal uncertainty, which in turn reduces value. An Adverse Claim similarly signals a third-party interest in the property that contradicts the titleholder’s claim. While not always litigated, it still creates hesitation for buyers and lenders, pulling values downward.
A Levy or Writ of Attachment represents a judicial restriction. Courts attach the property to secure a possible judgment, and while the property is not yet seized, its transferability is legally curtailed. This justifies a risk adjustment in the valuation.
If the title carries a Foreshore Lease or a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) annotation, it usually means that the property is within the public domain (such as coastal or reclaimed land). Ownership is limited to leasehold rights, not fee simple. This not only reduces the appraised value to the leasehold interest but also conditions its use based on government regulation.
An Affidavit of Loss or Reconstitution of title temporarily affects the property’s marketability, especially if the reconstitution process is incomplete. Although this may only have a neutral to slightly negative impact on value, it still warrants disclosure and may be included as a limiting condition in the report.
A Real Estate Mortgage (REM), if current and performing, generally has a neutral impact on market value, assuming the appraisal is for market purposes and not equity extraction. However, the appraiser must still distinguish between total market value and the equity portion when applicable.
An Easement or Servitude, such as a right of way or drainage restriction, slightly reduces the value and may condition the property’s utility. If the easement affects buildable area or accessibility, this becomes a material consideration.
Reversion clauses or restrictive covenants are more serious. These limit future development, prohibit certain uses, or allow the property to revert to a former owner under certain conditions. As these significantly constrain HBU and market flexibility, they usually result in a negative value adjustment.
Lastly, annotations involving Deeds of Donation, Inheritance, or Partition may suggest that the property was recently transferred or is part of a co-ownership arrangement. If the legal transfer is incomplete or the estate is unsettled, the title remains in flux. This affects both value and marketability, particularly if there is a risk of future claims or if the sale requires consent from multiple parties.
In real estate valuation, legal clarity is just as important as physical condition. Title annotations and encumbrances represent real risks, limitations, and burdens that influence the value of a property. Whether through discounted sales, delayed transactions, restricted use, or diminished loanability, these legal notations affect how market participants perceive and engage with real estate assets.
The professional appraiser must go beyond mere physical inspection and apply legal awareness, risk sensitivity, and valuation expertise to provide credible, well-supported opinions of value. Every annotation tells a story—of ownership, encumbrance, or uncertainty—and the appraiser must read, interpret, and reflect that story in the appraisal report.
In the meticulous world of real estate appraisal, one principle stands above all others: you cannot value what you cannot identify correctly. Whether working on a condominium in Makati, a farmland in Bukidnon, or a contested estate in Cebu, the first and most sacred duty of any appraiser is to accurately and defensibly identify the subject property. This is not just a technical requirement—it is the foundation of credibility, legality, and fairness in valuation. A mistake in property identification is not a small error. It invalidates every step that follows: the market comparison, highest and best use analysis, risk assessment, and final value estimate. Simply put, wrong property means wrong valuation.
Property identification involves several components. It means correctly determining the legal identity of the land—via Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), technical description, and lot number. It also means identifying the actual physical location and ensuring it matches the documents, zoning classification, and any physical improvements or encumbrances. Every valuation method—whether it’s the market approach, cost approach, or income approach—relies on this first step. If you appraise the wrong lot, all your calculations, assumptions, and conclusions become legally and factually meaningless.
This is why misidentification carries not only technical consequences but also legal and ethical ones. A wrong appraisal can lead to court rejection of the report, denial of loans by banks, and even legal liability for misleading courts or clients. Under Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, professionals have a duty to act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith. The Philippine Valuation Standards likewise emphasize that appraisers must exercise due diligence and care—beginning with accurate property identification.
Some of the most common pitfalls in this process include relying solely on the owner’s verbal claim without matching it against documentary evidence, misplotting technical descriptions, failing to check for easements or encroachments, and confusing adjacent lots with similar features. These errors are preventable with a disciplined and documented approach. A responsible appraiser will cross-check TCT data with the tax map and zoning ordinance, conduct field validation through site visits, use geotagged photos or drones, and even consult barangay officials or boundary markers when in doubt.
The risks of inaccuracy are very real. Imagine an appraiser tasked to value Lot 6 but instead inspects and reports on Lot 5. If Lot 5 is under threat of expropriation or prone to flooding, while Lot 6 is not, the valuation will be drastically wrong. In judicial proceedings, such a mistake may result in an unjust award of compensation or legal challenge. In lending, it may lead to defective collateralization. The appraiser’s name—and the integrity of the profession—are on the line.
I always emphasize that property identification is not just a preliminary step—it is the moral compass of professional practice. It sets the tone for the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of the entire report. Real estate is a high-stakes industry. The margin for error is slim, and the cost of error is great. That is why we say: Property identification is sacred. Wrong property is wrong valuation. Always.
“An expert witness is expected to assist the court in understanding technical evidence by providing independent, objective, and reasoned opinions based on established expertise.” — Tortona v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, Jan. 17, 2018
Appearing in court as an expert witness is a serious responsibility. It demands more than just professional qualifications—it requires thorough preparation, clarity in communication, and strict adherence to both legal and ethical standards. Whether in the field of real estate appraisal, engineering, accounting, or any technical discipline, the effectiveness of an expert witness lies in how well they understand their role and how clearly they can assist the court.
The preparation begins with a full understanding of the case. The expert must study the pleadings, judicial affidavits, motions, and any relevant reports to grasp the context of the legal dispute. This understanding helps frame the opinion the expert will give. Once the scope of the engagement is clear, the expert proceeds to draft and finalize their report. The report must be factual, supported by data, and rooted in accepted professional standards—such as the Philippine Valuation Standards for appraisers or the relevant codes of ethics and methodology in other professions. This report, along with the judicial affidavit required by the Rules of Court, becomes the backbone of the expert’s courtroom presentation.
Communication with counsel is vital. The lawyer and the expert must align on what issues the expert will testify to, what documents and evidence will be referred to, and how the expert can best support the legal theory of the case without overstepping their bounds. A good lawyer will also simulate a mock direct and cross-examination to help the expert anticipate difficult or technical questions, and practice answering in a way that is truthful, clear, and calm.
On the day of the trial, the expert must come prepared. This means dressing professionally, arriving early, and bringing all necessary materials—copies of the report, affidavits, supporting documentation, and visual aids such as charts or maps. During testimony, the expert is first qualified by the court. Once recognized as an expert in their field, they proceed to give their opinion under oath, guided by the direct examination of counsel. The expert must maintain composure during cross-examination, avoid defensive behavior, and be honest if they don’t know the answer to a question. Judges value precision and honesty over attempts to impress or advocate for one party.
Ultimately, the credibility of an expert witness rests not only on credentials but on the ability to explain complex matters in a straightforward and impartial manner. A well-prepared expert supports the truth-seeking function of the court. By grounding their opinion in verifiable data and presenting it clearly, the expert becomes a bridge between technical knowledge and legal judgment. Preparation, professionalism, and integrity are the foundation of any expert testimony that truly helps the court reach a just and informed decision.
Serving as an expert witness requires more than just subject matter expertise. It demands professionalism, preparation, and precision. Whether you’re a real estate appraiser, economist, forensic analyst, or valuation consultant, the courtroom is your stage to translate complex findings into reliable, understandable truth.
With proper preparation, your testimony can become the turning point in delivering justice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 upskillin 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.”
Real LexEcon 