The rule: private land is closed
Everything begins with one sentence of the 1987 Constitution. Article XII, Section 7 — quoted here as the Supreme Court itself reproduces it in Muller v. Muller (G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006), Matthews v. Taylor (G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009) and Beumer v. Amores (G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012) — provides:
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
The mechanism is indirect but airtight. Only Filipino citizens and corporations at least sixty percent Filipino-owned may acquire or hold lands of the public domain; therefore only they may receive private land. As the Court explained in Muller, aliens are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain, hence they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands, and the primary purpose of the provision is the conservation of the national patrimony. In Matthews the Court stated it at full strength: the rule is clear and inflexible, and aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions.
Why "it is only a house lot" does not help
Buyers often assume the ban targets farmland and plantations. That argument was made and rejected in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 (1947), under the 1935 Constitution's narrower wording. The Supreme Court has since reproduced the operative passage word for word in later cases; as quoted in Muller and again in Matthews, Krivenko reasoned:
If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that "aliens may freely acquire and possess not only residential lots and houses for themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and that "they may validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in appellant's words, strictly agricultural." (Solicitor General's Brief, p. 6.) That this is obnoxious to the conservative spirit of the Constitution is beyond question.
So there is no residential exemption, no subdivision exemption and no beachfront exemption. The 1987 text removed even the word "agricultural," leaving "no private lands." Nor is there a workaround through your Filipino spouse or partner: Civil Code Article 1453 on implied trusts is the provision buyers reach for, and Muller forecloses it, holding the disqualification absolute and that not even an ownership in trust is allowed. Doing it through a nominee is worse than useless — it is a crime under the Anti-Dummy Law.
What is genuinely open to you
The improvements, including the house. This is the distinction most buyers never hear. In Beumer, the Court held:
To be sure, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies only to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built thereon, such as the two (2) houses standing on Lots 1 and 2142 which were properly declared to be co-owned by the parties subject to partition.
Land and building are legally separable here. A foreigner may own the structure while the land underneath belongs to someone else or is held under lease — which is exactly why the documentation of a house purchase matters so much.
A condominium unit. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4726, the Condominium Act, is the one clean ownership route, and it works in two modes. Where the common areas are held by a condominium corporation, a transfer of a unit is invalid if the accompanying transfer of shares would push the alien interest in that corporation past the ceiling existing law allows — the source of the familiar forty percent figure, which appears nowhere in the section itself. Where the common areas are instead co-owned directly by the unit owners, units may go only to Filipino citizens or sixty-percent-Filipino corporations, except by hereditary succession, and there is no foreign headroom at all. Establishing which mode a project uses is a due-diligence step, not a formality. See the 40% rule explained.
A lease. A Filipino owner may lease land to a foreigner, and Matthews confirms she may do so validly on her own account — there, a 25-year Boracay lease signed by the Filipina owner alone was upheld and her foreign husband was held to have no standing to attack it. Be careful with the "50 plus 25 years" figure used in marketing: that term comes from Republic Act No. 7652, which by its own Section 5(1) applies only to foreigners actually investing in the Philippines as the Act defines it, and Section 7 makes an over-long lease void from the beginning and criminally punishable for both parties. Read how the lease route really works before signing one.
Inheritance. Hereditary succession is written into the same sentence as the ban. A foreigner may take Philippine land as an heir — see foreigners inheriting Philippine land. It is an exception for succession, not an estate-planning device: land bought now and characterised as an inheritance later does not qualify.
And if you were born Filipino
Article XII, Section 8 carves out a separate category, quoted verbatim by the Court in Borromeo v. Descallar (G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009):
Sec. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
The Supreme Court in Matthews records that Republic Act No. 8179 allows a former natural-born Filipino to acquire up to 5,000 square meters of urban land or 3 hectares of rural land, and to use it not only for residence but for business or other purposes. A balikbayan who has actually reacquired Philippine citizenship stands differently again: being a Filipino citizen, he is qualified to hold lands of the public domain, so the Section 8 caps do not bind him. Which of these three positions you occupy changes the whole transaction — see dual citizens and balikbayans.
Frequently asked questions
Can a foreigner buy a house and lot in the Philippines?
Not the lot. Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution bars the transfer of private land to anyone not qualified to hold lands of the public domain, and Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 (1947) settled that this covers residential lots, not only farmland. The house is a different matter: in Beumer v. Amores (G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012) the Supreme Court said the ban applies only to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built on it.
Is a condominium unit really open to foreign buyers?
Yes, within limits. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4726 works in two modes. Where the common areas are held by a condominium corporation, a transfer to a foreigner is invalid if it pushes the alien interest in that corporation beyond the ceiling existing law allows, which is the source of the familiar 40 percent figure. Where the common areas are co-owned by the unit owners themselves, units may go only to Filipino citizens or 60 percent Filipino corporations, except by hereditary succession, and there is no foreign headroom at all.
Can a foreigner inherit land in the Philippines?
Yes. Hereditary succession is written into the same sentence that creates the ban, in Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court in Matthews v. Taylor lists it first among the instances when aliens may acquire private land here. It is an exception for succession, not a planning device: buying land and calling it an inheritance does not work.
I was born Filipino but took another citizenship. Do the same rules apply to me?
Not the same rules. Section 8, Article XII lets a natural-born Filipino who lost Philippine citizenship be a transferee of private lands, subject to limits set by law, and the Supreme Court in Matthews records that Republic Act No. 8179 allows up to 5,000 square meters of urban land or 3 hectares of rural land, usable for residential, business or other purposes. If you reacquire Philippine citizenship instead, you are a Filipino citizen again and those area caps do not bind you.