GREENFIELD, BROWNFIELD AND GRAYFIELD SITES FOR BUILDINGS AND SITE

DEVELOPMENTS (AS DEFINED IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT).

A “greenfield” site is undeveloped land in an urban or rural area that is primarily used for agriculture
(including grazing land and fishponds), or land that is left in its natural state (including those
considered as natural heritage areas), and where such land is usually agricultural (including irrigable
or irrigated lands that may be subjected to the State’s power of eminent domain), agro-forest/
reforested land/ forest farms, ancestral lands, conservation areas, municipal waters for local fishery
activities, air rights and sub-grade rights of the public domain, and the like, in its present use and
that is already being considered for partial or substantial conversion to some form of settlement or
urban-related function e.g. agricultural land/ greenfield site conversion into a farm estate or
settlement, municipal waters conversion into a reclamation site or into a port zone or tourism estate,
designated evacuation areas and parks and recreational open spaces (if and only if other sites could
be found to replace the same), buffer zones (including land designated for mandated legal
easements for which specific types of structures/ developments can be permitted), and the like;

A “brownfield” site refers to built-up land intended for the expansion/ conversion or the
redevelopment of an existing cluster of land uses/ building occupancies, or the reuse/ adaptive reuse
of the same but which may be complicated by the presence (or potential presence) of hazardous
substances, pollutants, contaminants e.g. abandoned mining sites that must undergo remediation,
coastal areas affected by oil spills, conflict area, post-conflict area with unexploded/ buried ordnance
or with some historical significance, and the like;

A “grayfield” site is a built-up area or a resource-depleted land that has become idle/ unutilized or
underutilized, and therefore considered unproductive or of relatively low value/ importance, for
reasons other than the presence (or potential presence) of hazardous substances, pollutants,
contaminants or even of potentially hostile occupants e.g. ghost settlements/ long-unoccupied built-
up areas and old rights-of-way (ROWs) or transit alignments, abandoned industrial-transportation-
utility-mining sites (including old airfields), sites occupied by informal settlements, sites considered
sacred by indigenous peoples, burial places, disaster sites (including those declared as horizontal
no-build zones), residual land, and the like. (2018, Alli, EnP, PH)
THE PH ARCHITECT/ BUILDING DESIGNER’S CIVIL LIABILITY MAY NOT END ON YEAR
FIFTEEN (15), PARTICULARLY IF SOMETHING UNTOWARD HAPPENS TO THE BUILDING (OR
TO ANY OF ITS PARTS) OR IF SOMEBODY GETS PHYSICALLY HURT DUE TO TRACEABLE
DESIGN FAULTS, AT ANYTIME DURING THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) YEAR.
THE PREJUDICED/ INJURED PARTY CAN STILL FILE A CIVIL COMPLAINT (TO RECOVER
DAMAGES) AGAINST THE ARCHITECT/ DESIGNER AT ANYTIME DURING THE NEXT TEN (10)
YEARS (YEARS 16 THROUGH 25).
If the design engineers of a building that failed are under the direct employ of the Architect, the Architect can
be held civilly liable. As such, it is always good practice for design engineers to be independently
commissioned (contracted) by the building owner so that their civil liability is not passed on to the Architect.
In cases of total building collapse (requiring full replacement of the building), both the Architect/ Building
Designer and the Constructor may be held equally liable for the cost of the building replacement.
The PH Architect’s civil liability as stated under the PH new (1949) Civil Code (R.A. No. 386) is set out under
Art. 1723 of said law, viz:
“Article 1723. THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO DREW UP THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR A BUILDING IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IF WITHIN FIFTEEN YEARS FROM THE
COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE, THE SAME SHOULD COLLAPSE BY REASON OF A DEFECT
IN THOSE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR DUE TO THE DEFECTS IN THE GROUND. The
contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of
defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation
of the terms of the contract. IF THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT SUPERVISES THE CONSTRUCTION,
HE SHALL BE SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, DOES NOT imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason
of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN TEN YEARS FOLLOWING THE COLLAPSE OF THE
BUILDING.

WHO IS THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OWNER (BO) AND OF SUCH A BO’s
INTERESTS?
1) THE CONSTRUCTOR (CONTRACTOR)? Most certainly NOT! The Constructor can NEVER be
considered a representative of the Owner. Construction is a business for profit (it has never been
considered a professional service since 1975, when the Philippine (PH) Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) removed constructing from the roster of State-regulated professions – because it
is clearly a business for PROFIT – it was never really undertaken for public service. Since then, it
has been under the PH Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), specifically under the PH
Constructors Accreditation Board (PCAB) of the DTI Construction Industry Authority of the PH
(CIAP). As such, the Constructor’s motivation is seen mainly as profit or some other form of self-
benefit. The Constructor supposedly signs an iron-clad contract (construction agreement) with the
building Owner because its interests are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to those of the Building
Owner. Ergo, the Constructor can NEVER represent the interests of the Building Owner; in instances
wherein the Constructor is also the Designer of the Building i.e. Design-Build Services (DBS) PH
engineering DBS model (in sharp contrast to the PH architecture DBS model where there is NO
Contractor), the more the Engineering-DBS entity MUST NOT represent the Building Owner’s
interest as there is apparently NO check and balance mechanism.
2) THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (CM)? Perhaps, BUT maybe NOT. The CM’s job is mainly to
oversee the Constructor’s fidelity to/ compliance with the Designer-issued plans and specifications
i.e. in the areas of cost/ time (resource) and quality control; oftentimes, the CM is called upon to
arbitrate disputes among the parties i.e. Constructor and its subcontractors/ suppliers, the building
designers, the building owner and even the Government entities involved; sometimes however, the
building Owner’s interests are compromised simply because the situation is resolved with dispute
avoidance in mind, rather than dispute resolution to protect the Building Owner’s interest; the
common CM stand/ notion that they have NO professional liability under the law is grossly misplaced
i.e. while the CM is not specifically mentioned in Article 1723 of RA386, the 1949 New Civil Code of
the PH, their covering professional regulatory laws (PRLs, such as RA9266 in the case of PH
architects and RA544, as amended by RA1582 in the case of civil engineers), make them
professionally responsible for their acts/ non-acts/ possible professional incompetence, while their
service contracts stipulate their civil liabilities. CM entities who fully understand the applicability of
the foregoing are also going to take steps to protect themselves first and the Building Owner’s only
next in line, when serious questions about the Project do come up. In many construction-related
cases (between Building Owners and Constructors), CMs sometimes prove to be the most difficult to
locate (as they probably believe they did not sign up for this part of the job). For building Owners
hiring CMs (through service agreements), it may be best to ensure their presence at construction-
related litigation or arbitration or mediation) in addition to other standard clauses that shall ensure
that the CM shall always act in the protection of the Building Owner/ BO’s interests e,g,
indemnification clause (for after all, the BO is the one who pays for the CM’s services). THUS, the
CM may also NOT be the ideal Owner’s representative;
3) THE BUILDING DESIGNERS (ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS)? MAYBE but it is also NOT a
firm guarantee that the Designers will work for/ always defend the Building Owner’s interests. After
all, the Building Designers will first look at protecting their own interests, particularly when questions/
concerns about professional responsibility and/or civil liability come up. PH Architects are however
constantly reminded that their 2006 Code of Ethical Conduct (part of the IRR of RA9266) mandates
that they look after (and hold) the Building Owner (as Client)’s interest ABOVE their own interests;
for building Owners hiring Designers (through service agreements), it may also be best to ensure
their presence at construction-related litigation or arbitration or mediation) in addition to other
standard clauses that shall ensure that the Designers shall always act in the protection of the
Building Owner/ BO’s interests e,g. indemnification clause (for after all, the BO is also the one who
pays for the Designer’s services).and
4) THE PROJECT MANAGER (PM)? YES, MOST DEFINITELY AS THE PM IS THE TRUE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING OWNER AND HIS/ HER/ ITS INTERESTS. The PM must
be on board the Building Project from its very inception through its occupancy, operation and
maintenance (O&M) and oversees/ closely monitors the actions of the Constructor/ the entire
construction team including the CM and the Building Designers/ the entire Design team including
outsourced consultants; The PM helps the Building Owner/ BO make decisions pertaining to
budgets/ resource allocations, timetables, marketing and sales/ leases (as applicable), operations
and maintenance (O&M) and perhaps even startup building administration activities, and various
other legal-related matters (including possible mediation, arbitration and litigation); the PM shares
with the BO all of the confidential matters pertaining to the building project and recommends action
on such (as called for); for building Owners hiring PMs (through service agreements), it may also be
best to ensure their presence at construction-related litigation or arbitration or mediation) in addition
to other standard clauses that shall ensure that the PM MUST always act in the protection of the
BO’s interests e,g, indemnification clause (for after all, the BO is the one who pays for the PM’s
services). For PH Architects, PM services are also detailed in their 2010 Standards of Professional
Practice (SPP, which is part of the IRR of RA9266). Thanks.

IT IS ALWAYS BEST TO SECURE A FIRE SAFETY CLEARANCE BEFORE FILING AN

APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT (ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR BUILDING/ DWELLING
HAS A FIREWALL)
The following is the gist of discussions with an incumbent Local Building Official (LBO).
Prior to Building Permit application/ approval/ issuance is the process of securing the Fire Safety
Clearance (FSEC) from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP, through the Office of the LGU Fire
Marshal) and under R.A. No. 9514 (the 2008 Fire Code of the Philippines/ FCP, a referral code/ RC
of P.D. No. 1096, the 1977 NBCP).
The BFP is the actual entity responsible for both the Passive and Active Fire Protection of the
building project. It is the BFP that checks the building plans, specifically the architectural plans, so
once FSEC is issued, the LGU Office of the Building Office (OBO) MUST concur.
As to the use of fire-rated glass blocks on firewalls, there is NO specific provision in the 2009 IRR of
the FCP other than its required fire rating i.e. at least 2hrs fire rating/ resistance regardless of the
base material of the glass blocks.
Compliance with the FCP and its IRR is the responsibility/ under the jurisdiction of the BFP and all
matters related to fire safety are under the BFP.
The OBO’s (and the LBO's) responsibility is only the NBCP and they are therefore NOT technically
qualified to make a separate decision on a matter already reviewed and approved by the BFP,
particularly if such is NOT based on ANY provision of the NBCP.
Such is an excellent qualification and distinction as to the functions of the BFP (LGU Fire Marshal)
and the LGU OBO (headed by the LBO), particularly on matters relating to the passive and active
fire protection of a building project (or of a pre-existing building targeted for renovation/ expansion/
rehabilitation/ conservation), including the introduction of fire-rated glass blocks (with a 2-hour
minimum fire rating) on a portion of the firewall.
There is also already a legal precedent in a recent Ombudsman case which unequivocably
established that matters relating to fire safety of a building or building project (and to the effects of
NON-compliance with such laws and regulations) are squarely within the responsibility of the BFP
(LGU Fire Marshal) and NOT of the OBO (and its LBO).