history | Real Appraisal

When government takes private property for public use, the Constitution guarantees one thing: just compensation.
But what exactly is “just”?

In Philippine jurisprudence, this question has sparked more than a century of debate. From the early 1900s to today’s agrarian and infrastructure cases, the Supreme Court has wrestled with one timeless principle — that fairness means equivalence.

From Payment to Parity

The power of eminent domain is one of the most profound expressions of state authority. It allows the government to acquire land for public welfare — roads, bridges, and social reform. Yet this power is tempered by an equally powerful right: that property owners must be made whole.

This idea is rooted not in economics alone, but in law and philosophy.
Roman jurists called it restitutio in integrum — restoring a person to their original condition. Over centuries, this became the principle of equivalence, the legal duty to return an equal value for what was taken.

In 1915, the Philippine Supreme Court expressed this in Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez:

“Compensation means an equivalent for the value of the property taken… it must be real, substantial, full, and ample.”

Those words have guided generations of expropriation cases — from the distribution of farmlands to the construction of expressways.

The Three Dimensions of Fairness

My research, titled “Restoring the Whole: Just Compensation in Philippine Agrarian and Right-of-Way Law ” shows how the Supreme Court has built an evolving framework for justice in takings. It rests on three interconnected dimensions:

1. Economic Equivalence

The amount must equal the true market or replacement value of the property.
In Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi (1974) and Pasay v. Arellano University (2025), the Court held that assessor’s values or zonal prices are not controlling — only credible, market-based evidence counts.

2. Temporal Equivalence

Justice delayed is value denied.
In Apo Fruits v. Land Bank (2010), the Court ruled that prompt payment is an element of just compensation. If payment is delayed, interest becomes a constitutional right, not a mere penalty.

3. Evidentiary Equivalence

Fairness requires truth.
Courts demand credible proof — not presumptions or formulas — to ensure that compensation reflects real economic conditions. As Mandaue Realty (1996) declared, valuation “cannot rest on speculation or administrative fiat.”

Together, these dimensions form the doctrine I call Judicial Equivalence:
the judiciary’s active role in ensuring that the owner’s loss equals the State’s gain.

Why This Matters

At stake is not merely money, but trust in justice.
When land is taken for reform or progress, owners must see that the law gives back its full worth. Otherwise, expropriation becomes confiscation by another name.

The Supreme Court’s modern rulings — from Small Landowners (1989) to Pasay v. Arellano (2025) — show a growing recognition that just compensation is a constitutional act of restoration, not a fiscal transaction. It ensures that progress does not trample property rights, and that social justice remains anchored in fairness.

Toward a Fairer Future

To strengthen this balance, the study proposes three reforms:

Codify judicial standards into a single Expropriation Code reflecting modern jurisprudence.
Create a registry of court-accredited appraisers to enhance valuation integrity.
Integrate law and valuation education — because justice and economics should speak the same language.

The law must remember that fairness has a price — and that price is equivalence.
When the State takes, it must also give — fully, promptly, and truthfully.

In Philippine real estate practice, a professional may wear multiple hats: appraiser, broker, consultant, or property manager. 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.