Short answer. Yes. The Revised Penal Code punishes entering the closed premises or fenced estate of another while uninhabited, where the prohibition to enter is manifest and the owner or caretaker gave no permission. It is a light offence, but it is a crime.
What the law says
shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or both of them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof
Revised Penal Code, Article 281 — Other Forms Of Trespass. Read the full provision →
Four things must all be present
This offence is narrower than most people assume. The place entered must be closed premises or a fenced estate — an open, unenclosed field does not qualify. It must be uninhabited; if people are living there the conduct falls under trespass to dwelling instead, which is a graver offence with a different penalty. The prohibition against entering must be manifest, meaning visible and unmistakable to anyone approaching: a locked gate, a wall, signage, an obvious barrier. And the entrant must have had no permission from the owner or the caretaker. Remove any one of these and the article does not apply.
What "manifest prohibition" really requires
Most disputes turn on this element. A fence that has collapsed, a gate habitually left open, a lot people have crossed for years without objection — these weaken the claim that the prohibition was manifest to the person who walked in. Conversely, a padlocked gate or a clearly posted no-entry sign leaves little room for argument. The permission element is equally practical: a caretaker can give it, not only the registered owner, so an entrant who was waved in by the person minding the property has an answer even if the owner never knew. Honest mistake about the boundary is a real defence, since the article punishes deliberate entry past an evident barrier.
The penalty, and the 2017 amendment
The penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱40,000, or both. That ₱40,000 figure is the current one, set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the peso values and fines throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions of the Code — including many still circulating online and in reference copies — print the 1930 figure of ₱200 for this article. If a source shows you the small pre-2017 amounts, it is out of date. Note also that this is a light penalty: the criminal exposure is modest, and property owners often find the civil and injunctive remedies more useful.
What it does not cover, and what to do
This provision addresses the act of entering, not what happens afterwards. Taking anything, damaging the fence, structures or crops, or building on the land are separate wrongs with their own and considerably heavier consequences. Neither does it settle who owns the land — someone who honestly believes the lot is his, or who holds a right of way over it, is contesting a property question that a criminal complaint will not resolve. An owner facing repeated entries should record the dates, photograph the barrier and signage, and put the intruder on written notice; an accused should preserve evidence of how the property actually looked. Have the situation assessed with counsel before filing.