Maximum Land Ownership

Is it possible to own a 200 hectare land by an individual under one title (name)?

I hope someone else can answer much better than I

I have only a VAGUE memory of there is restriction about some type of FARMland. (Rice ? 3 ha ?)

Thanks for the reply Luncan. I am wondering if there is a limitation on land ownership, how come  there are a lot of individuals who claim to own hundreds of hectares of land which are   being offered by brokers/agents for sale.  

Optimus Prime wrote:Thanks for the reply  Luncan. I am wondering if there is a limitation on land ownership, how come  there are a lot of individuals who claim to own hundreds of hectares of land which are   being offered by brokers/agents for sale.  

I have seen such too. At least many of them are "raw" (=undeveloped) land. Was any of them you saw good RICE land?
If I remember corect the limitation I read concern only land best for RICE farming.

In one of the hard working Filipino families I know, did the now dead father buy several not connected lands. Totaly it's over 15 hektar, most of it farmland, but NOT so good for rice. (Most are upland.) They have titled most of the parts just a few years ago.

There is a "Land reform" law, but I haven't read it.
But I know there was a project at Bohol a few years ago. Then the government developed dams and irrigations to improve RICE production. Each family got 1 hektar, I believe for 40 000p. (Plus grown up kids could get one hektar each. I know one "family" had 7 hektare. I don't know if they were many grown up children or if they included cousins

RA 6657 - CARP 10 June 1988

SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.

Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

Thanks a lot gvaetax Lunkan.  Most likely these individuals (owning hundreds of Has lots) were "going around" the law and/or "bending" the rules  and  not breaking the law. Perhaps they found creative solutions to this ownership/retention clause.
Given the above situation( as discussed) , Is it safe to transact business in this way? (Buying/selling properties which is more than the limit as specified by the law)

i think they interpose the Corporate or family trust structure and justify to develop the land for commercial gains..

please note that the above limitation applies to agricultural lands..

so if you reclassify a ricefarm for subdivision development and owned by a corporation that will exempt it from this law..

i m not a lawyer so check this out with a lawyer...

remember the lands owned by the Aquinos and Binays..

note in the exposé the structure of ownership... ie. not in their personal names but through corporations owned by them and other corporations also majority owned ... you ll learn this trick from listening to the exposé in Congress...