Short answer. Generally no. Under Article 1648, a lease of real estate may be recorded in the Registry of Property, and unless it is recorded, it shall not be binding upon third persons. So a later buyer who is a genuine third person is ordinarily not bound by a lease that was never registered against the title.
What the law says
Every lease of real estate may be recorded in the Registry of Property. Unless a lease is recorded, it shall not be binding upon third persons.
Civil Code, Article 1648 — Recording of Leases. Read the full provision →
Recording is what binds the outside world
Article 1648 sets a clear rule for leases of land or buildings: Every lease of real estate may be recorded in the Registry of Property. Unless a lease is recorded, it shall not be binding upon third persons. Registration is what carries the lease beyond the two people who signed it. A lease is always binding between the landlord and the tenant themselves, recorded or not. But as against strangers to the contract — most importantly someone who later buys the property — the lease reaches them only if it was entered in the registry, where anyone dealing with the land can discover it before parting with money.
Why a buyer is a 'third person'
A person who buys the property later did not agree to the lease and is, in law, a third person to it. The registry exists so that such a buyer can check the title and see what claims already burden the land. If the lease is recorded, the buyer takes the property subject to it and must respect the tenant's remaining term. If it is not recorded, the buyer generally takes the land free of a lease he had no way of knowing about from the title, and is not compelled to honour it. This protects buyers who rely on a clean title from hidden long-term commitments made by the previous owner.
The limits of the rule
The protection is for a genuine third person, and buyers do not always qualify. A purchaser who actually knew of the lease when he bought — because the tenant was visibly in possession, or the buyer was told, or the sale was expressly made subject to existing tenancies — cannot always hide behind the lack of registration, since the point of recording is to protect those who had no notice. Special laws on particular tenancies may also give occupants rights that do not depend on this article. The general rule favours an unaware buyer, but real knowledge of the lease weakens his claim to take free of it.
Practical protection for a tenant
For a tenant, the lesson is direct: a long or valuable lease of real estate is far safer once recorded in the Registry of Property, because registration is what makes it stick against a future buyer. An unrecorded lease leaves the tenant exposed to losing the arrangement if the owner sells. Registering it, or at least ensuring the tenant's possession is open and known, reduces that risk. For an owner selling burdened land, honesty about existing leases avoids later claims. Article 1648 does not void an unrecorded lease between the original parties; it simply decides who, among outsiders, must live with it — and the answer usually turns on recording.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Land Bank of the Philippines vs. AMS Farming Corporation, G.R. No. 174971, October 15, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Jose V. Lagon vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Bernardo and Florina Mercader & Dr. Juan Y. Maderazo vs. Development Bank of the Philippines (Cebu Branch), etc., et al, G.R. No. 130699, May 12, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Florencia T. Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 95897, December 14, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →