QuestionsQuestions (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 772)
It is Presidential Decree No. 772, dated August 20, 1975, and it takes effect immediately upon issuance.
Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or by taking advantage of the landowner’s absence or tolerance, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of another against the owner’s will for residential, commercial, or any other purposes.
1) Using force, intimidation, or threat; or 2) taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, leading to occupation or possession against the owner’s will.
It must be against the will of the landowner (the person/entity whose property is being unlawfully occupied or possessed).
For residential, commercial, or any other purposes.
Imprisonment ranging from six months to one year, plus a fine of not less than PHP 1,000 nor more than PHP 5,000 at the discretion of the court.
The decree provides subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency of the fine; the specific computation is governed by the relevant rules on subsidiary imprisonment under Philippine law.
If the offender is a corporation or association, the maximum penalty is up to five years of imprisonment and a fine of PHP 5,000, imposed upon the president, director, manager, or managing partners.
Up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of PHP 5,000 (imposed on specified corporate officers).
No. PD 772 alternatively covers cases where the offender takes advantage of the landowner’s absence or tolerance to succeed in occupying or possessing the property against the owner’s will.
That the offender “succeeds in occupying or possessing” the property of the landowner against the latter’s will, for the covered purposes.
The decree focuses on occupation or possession “against his will.” Thus, if the occupation is not against the landowner’s will (e.g., consent/tolerance in the sense of granting permission, not merely absence), the element may be contested—though the decree also addresses “absence or tolerance” as a circumstance of exploitation.
It states that squatting remains a major problem despite prior government directives; it highlights that many unlawful occupants belong to the affluent class and that the government must intensify its drive against the practice.
It cites Letter of Instructions No. 19 (Oct. 2, 1972), directing various officials to remove illegal constructions, including those on and along esteros and river banks, along railroad tracks, and those built without permits on public and private property.
Section 1 penalizes occupying the “property of the latter” (the landowner) against his will; the preamble and historical context emphasize both public and private land, but the operative text is framed around the landowner’s property.
It indicates that PD 772 became enforceable right away upon approval, without a waiting period.