The 99-Year Land Lease Law for Foreign Corporations in the Philippines: Long-Term Site Control Without Risky Land Ownership Workarounds
Introduction: why the 99-year lease matters for foreign investors
Foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines often face a recurring commercial problem: they need stable, long-term control of a project site, but Philippine law generally restricts foreign ownership of land. Historically, some investors tried to “solve” this through complicated ownership arrangements—such as nominee setups, layered corporate structures, or long leases paired with controls that resemble ownership. These approaches can create legal exposure and can be challenged as attempts to evade constitutional and statutory limits.
In 2025, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025), amending the Investors’ Lease Act (Republic Act No. 7652, June 4, 1993). The major change is the recognition of a longer maximum lease term—up to ninety-nine (99) years in the aggregate for qualified foreign investors—designed to offer stability comparable to multi-generational investment horizons while keeping land ownership in Filipino hands.
Policy backdrop: land ownership restrictions and why “lease” is treated differently
Philippine policy has consistently favored keeping land ownership in Filipino hands. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this nationalization policy and has invalidated arrangements where ownership is effectively transferred to foreigners over time, even if papered as something else.
The important distinction is this: a lease is not ownership. Leasing grants the right to possess and use the land for a defined period, while ownership transfers title and the full bundle of rights.
As early as 1954, the Supreme Court recognized that foreigners disqualified from owning land are not automatically barred from leasing, as leasing does not transfer ownership—so long as the lease stays within permitted limits. This principle was discussed in Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd. v. Registrador de Titulos de Davao (G.R. No. L-7084, 1954).
Governing laws: Republic Act No. 12252 and the amended Investors’ Lease Act
Republic Act No. 7652 (June 4, 1993), the Investors’ Lease Act, originally allowed qualified foreign investors to lease private land for a long term (commonly understood as 50 years, renewable for 25 years), subject to limitations and investment-related conditions.
Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025) updated this policy by expanding the maximum allowable lease term for qualified foreign investors. The amendment signals a legislative intent to strengthen investor confidence while remaining consistent with constitutional patrimony protection.
What changed in 2025: the move to an aggregate 99-year lease
Under Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025), qualified foreign investors may lease private lands subject to conditions, including that the aggregate period of the lease contract shall not exceed 99 years. The law also allows the President—upon recommendation of the Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB) or other relevant agencies—to impose a shorter lease period for investments in vital services or industries considered critical infrastructure, in the interest of national security or consistent with development priorities.
This extension is significant for industries with long payback periods (e.g., manufacturing, logistics hubs, industrial estates, certain tourism developments, and large-scale agro-industrial operations). It addresses a frequent investor concern: whether their right to remain on the land will survive beyond a single business cycle.
Who may qualify: “foreign investors” and approved or registered investments
The long-term lease framework is meant for foreign investors investing in the Philippines, not ordinary foreign lessees. Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025) requires, among others, an approved and registered investmentunder recognized investment frameworks (such as the Foreign Investments Act and CREATE/CREATE MORE regimes) or compliance with investment requirements of the appropriate Investment Promotion Agency.
In short, the 99-year regime is positioned as an investment-linked privilege, not a blanket permission for any foreign entity to lease private land on that duration.
Core conditions and compliance requirements under the amended law
Based on the statutory text reflected in Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025), a compliant long-term lease typically requires the following:
- Term cap: The aggregate lease term must not exceed 99 years, subject to possible shortening for national security/critical infrastructure considerations upon proper recommendation.
- Purpose limitation: The land must be used solely for the purpose of the approved and registered investment, subject to the parties’ agreement.
- Area reasonableness and legal constraints: The leased area should be only what is reasonably required for the approved project and remains subject to laws such as agrarian reform and local government-related limitations.
- Registration and annotation: The lease contract must be registered with the Registry of Deeds and annotated on the certificate of title covering the leased property.
These requirements are not mere formalities. They are designed to prove legitimacy, prevent misuse, and make the lease enforceable against third parties through proper registration and annotation.
Renewals and termination risks: stability comes with ongoing compliance
Even with longer terms, stability is tied to continued compliance. Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025) preserves a strong enforcement posture where withdrawal of the approved and registered investment within the lease period, or use of the land for unauthorized purposes, can result in ipso facto termination of the lease—without prejudice to the lessor’s claim for damages.
The amendment also clarifies how “renewable at the option of the lessee” clauses should be treated: such provisions are interpreted to mean renewal only upon mutual agreement, preventing one-sided extensions that could resemble perpetual control.
Tourism projects: special investment threshold remains relevant
For tourism projects, the law keeps an investment floor: lease of private land by qualified foreign investors is limited to projects with an investment of at least USD 5,000,000, with 70% infused within three (3) years from signing of the lease contract. This limitation is reflected in both Republic Act No. 7652 (June 4, 1993) and the amended limitations in Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025).
Why a 99-year lease can be safer than risky “ownership-like” structures
The legal risk in many “creative” arrangements is not simply technical noncompliance—it is that the structure may be characterized as an attempt to transfer land ownership or control in a manner inconsistent with constitutional policy. The Supreme Court has invalidated not only outright transfers but also arrangements where ownership rights are gradually shifted to foreigners.
In Philippine National Oil Company, et al. v. Keppel Philippines Holdings, Inc. (G.R. No. 202050, 2016), the Court reiterated the constitutional policy keeping land in Filipino hands and noted that arrangements can be struck down when they effectively transfer incidents of ownership to foreigners. This serves as a caution against structures where a long lease is paired with restrictive covenants and purchase options that, taken together, operate like ownership.
Common scenarios where the 99-year lease is a better fit
Below are typical situations where a properly documented long-term lease is often more defensible than ownership workarounds:
- Industrial estates and manufacturing plants that require decades to recoup capital expenditures and need continuity for expansion and reinvestment.
- Logistics, cold chain, and warehousing facilities that depend on location permanence near ports, highways, and growth corridors.
- Renewable energy and utilities-related sites (subject to sectoral rules), where land control is critical but land ownership may be restricted.
- Foreign-led real estate development models where the developer needs site control but must avoid land ownership issues.
Condominium and project development on leased land: an SEC perspective
Regulators have also recognized the lease/ownership distinction. In SEC-OGC Opinion No. 08-27 (2008), the SEC explained that a foreign-owned corporation may develop and operate a condominium project on leased land, as long as it does not acquire ownership of the land and remains compliant with applicable conditions. This highlights a lawful pathway: own improvements or units (where allowed), lease the land, and avoid land-title transfer issues.
Compliance checklist: how to structure a defensible long-term lease
For foreign corporations seeking multi-decade stability, the following are commonly essential risk controls under the amended Investors’ Lease Act framework:
- Confirm qualification: Ensure the lessee meets the definition of “foreign investor” and has the required approved and registered investment under relevant investment laws and/or through an Investment Promotion Agency process (Republic Act No. 12252, September 3, 2025).
- Use a purpose-tied lease: Describe the approved project and align permitted uses to the registered investment to avoid termination risk for unauthorized use.
- Keep term and renewal clauses compliant: Ensure the aggregate term does not exceed 99 years, and draft renewal language consistent with “mutual agreement” interpretations in the statute (Republic Act No. 12252, September 3, 2025).
- Register and annotate: Register the lease and annotate it on the title to strengthen enforceability and notice to third parties (Republic Act No. 12252, September 3, 2025).
- Avoid “ownership in disguise” provisions: Be cautious with options to buy, negative covenants restricting the lessor, or controls that collectively resemble a transfer of ownership, given Supreme Court scrutiny of such arrangements (G.R. No. 202050, 2016).
Table: 99-year lease vs. land ownership workarounds
| Topic | 99-year lease under Republic Act No. 12252 (Sept. 3, 2025) | Risky ownership-like structures (nominees, disguised conveyances, overly restrictive options) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal footing | Expressly recognized by statute for qualified foreign investors; subject to defined conditions | May be attacked as circumvention of constitutional policy on land ownership |
| Control of site | Long-term possession and use; stability up to 99 years aggregate | Often aims at de facto ownership control, increasing invalidation risk |
| Documentation priorities | Investment registration, compliant term clauses, registration and annotation | Complex layering; may leave enforceability uncertain if structure is challenged |
| Dispute outcomes | Generally more defensible if within statutory limits and consistent with purpose restrictions | Greater exposure to being voided or recharacterized; can produce costly unwind scenarios |
Lawyer and notary caution: professional responsibility implications
Philippine jurisprudence also shows that lawyers can face discipline for preparing or notarizing contracts that clearly violate statutory limitations, including lease restrictions for aliens. In Kupers v. Hontanosas (A.C. No. 5704, 2009), the Supreme Court treated the drafting of noncompliant lease arrangements as serious misconduct. For counsel, the 99-year lease regime is not a license to be aggressive with prohibited clauses; it is an invitation to draft within the statute and avoid provisions that could be treated as circumvention.
Final observations and recommendations
Republic Act No. 12252 (September 3, 2025) strengthens a lawful, investment-oriented route for foreign corporations that need long-term land tenure without acquiring land ownership. It is most effective when treated as a compliance framework: qualify properly as a foreign investor, keep the land use aligned with the registered investment, register and annotate the lease, and avoid contract provisions that may look like ownership transfer by another name.
For foreign-led industrial and long-horizon projects, a well-structured 99-year lease can reduce uncertainty, protect continuity across business cycles, and lessen the temptation to adopt arrangements that may later be challenged under constitutional policy and Supreme Court doctrine.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
