The Legal Side of Real Estate

[swami]

Sir, I am indeed a lawyer, or at least I was, until Atty. Myrna Feliciano, who was one of my teachers, bless her little black heart, came up with the MCLE.

 

Haha. yeah, i understand. Damn that MCLE! It's a freaking scam organized by retired justices so they could fleece their fellow sharks, err, colleagues in the legal profession. :thumbsdownsmiley:

[CumLady]

I badly need your opinion on this situation. I hope you can enlighten me what to do.

 

Sa isang socialized housing ng government sa Tondo, may isang "subdivision" under the CMP na approved na ang subdivision plan noon pang 2005.

Sabi ng NHA, matagal na dapat na-implement ang plano. Pero sa level ng HOA, wala pang directives as of August 11, 2009 para gumalaw ang mga miyembro kasi wala naman pang naging konsultasyon sa pagitan ng Board of Directors at iba pang miyembro.

 

Tapos may isang miyembro na "gumalaw" para ma-implement sa kanyang bahagi ang mapa na wala pang directive from the HOA. Nagharap sa baragay yung gumalaw at yung direktang apektado sa paggalaw. Ang rason nung gumalaw o umusog ay dahil sakop niya ang area na iyon. Ang tanong na lang eh kung may directive from the HOA. Dahil walang naipakita ang taong iyon, nag-set ng panibagong meeting. Na-invite ang presidente ng asosasyon. During the meeting, may binasa ang president na isang Board Resolution na nagsasabi na pwede nang gumalaw. Pero resolution na iyon ay ginawa lamang nila a day bago nungpagharap niya sa barangay. (Question: May offense ba ang presidente or ang board of directors sa aspetong ito?)

 

Sa meeting na iyon, napagkasunduan na since base sa mapa ang paggalaw ng isang member kahit wala pang directive o consultation from HOA members, nagsabi ang presidente pwede na ring buksan na rin lang ang totoong daan nung apektadong miyembro. August 21 naganap ang kasunduan. Nagsabi na rin at pinayagan ng presidente na buksan na ng apektadong miyembro ang pader niyang gagawing pinto para sa main access niya.

Ang access niya ay may lapad lamang na 1.2 meters at may kahati pa siya ditong isang member na katabing bahay.. (Question: Di po ba substandard ang sukat ng footpath since sa BP 220, ang minimum ay 2 meters dapat. Pwede pa po bang i-contest ito kahit approved na ang subdivision plan?)

 

Naipagawa na po ang pinto pero yung bahay sa likod ay nakaharang pa rin ang pader ng tinayo nilang make shift dun sa footpath. base sa napag-usapan with the president noong August 21, naipatanggal na ito. (Question: May offense po ba ang presidente sa aspetong ito?

 

Nagkaroon po ulit ng pag-uusap sa kasama ang nakatira sa likod, ang apektadong miyembro, pati some officers ng asosasyon. INvited din ang dating officer ng asosasyon na nakaupo nung time na ginagawa pa lang ang mapa. Yung dating officer pinatunayan na ang footpath na iyon ay access lamang nung dalawang miyembro. at ang daan nung miyembrong nasa likod ay hindi sa gilid pero sa harap facing the "main road" which measures 2-meter wide. Ang lot nung miyembro sa likod ayun sa mapa ay isang corner lot. may footpath sa magkabilang gilid niya which both measure 1.20 meters.

Sa kabilang footpath, two members lang din ang may access ayon sa mapa.

 

Sa pinakahuling hearing, biglag nagdesisyon ang board of directors na pwedeng magpinto ang nakatira sa likod kasi corner lot daw ito. at ayon daw sa abogado, nasa kamay ng board of directors ang decision. since ang footpath ay binabayaran ng asosasyon at hindi pag-aari ng sinuman. (Question

mas concern pa po ba ito kung ang pagkakaroon ng pangatlong member na dadaan sa footpath ay isang fire hazard na? at allowed ba na ang isang socialized housing member ay mayroong mahigit sa isa na magkaibang pinto? Magkaiba kasi yung sa main access nila sa harap ang daan ay yung mismong member ng asosasyon, samantalang yung dadaan at makikihati pa ng access sa dalawang members ay anak lang ng member?)

 

Sa kabilang asosasyon, nagpatunay ang presidente na hindi nila allowed na ang member ay may dalawang pinto pa. sa katulad na kaso, ang advice nila sa kanilang miyembro ay magbigay ng daan sa loob ng bahay o sa nasasakupan nila palabas sa kanilang main access at hindi sa gilid ng bahay o panibagong pinto pa.

 

pasensya na po kung mahaba ah....

[SINless]

As much as I'd like to help, I got lost in the translation somewhere, could you please repost that in English?

 

I badly need your opinion on this situation. I hope you can enlighten me what to do.

 

Sa isang socialized housing ng government sa Tondo, may isang "subdivision" under the CMP na approved na ang subdivision plan noon pang 2005.

Sabi ng NHA, matagal na dapat na-implement ang plano. Pero sa level ng HOA, wala pang directives as of August 11, 2009 para gumalaw ang mga miyembro kasi wala naman pang naging konsultasyon sa pagitan ng Board of Directors at iba pang miyembro.

 

Tapos may isang miyembro na "gumalaw" para ma-implement sa kanyang bahagi ang mapa na wala pang directive from the HOA. Nagharap sa baragay yung gumalaw at yung direktang apektado sa paggalaw. Ang rason nung gumalaw o umusog ay dahil sakop niya ang area na iyon. Ang tanong na lang eh kung may directive from the HOA. Dahil walang naipakita ang taong iyon, nag-set ng panibagong meeting. Na-invite ang presidente ng asosasyon. During the meeting, may binasa ang president na isang Board Resolution na nagsasabi na pwede nang gumalaw. Pero resolution na iyon ay ginawa lamang nila a day bago nungpagharap niya sa barangay. (Question: May offense ba ang presidente or ang board of directors sa aspetong ito?)

 

Sa meeting na iyon, napagkasunduan na since base sa mapa ang paggalaw ng isang member kahit wala pang directive o consultation from HOA members, nagsabi ang presidente pwede na ring buksan na rin lang ang totoong daan nung apektadong miyembro. August 21 naganap ang kasunduan. Nagsabi na rin at pinayagan ng presidente na buksan na ng apektadong miyembro ang pader niyang gagawing pinto para sa main access niya.

Ang access niya ay may lapad lamang na 1.2 meters at may kahati pa siya ditong isang member na katabing bahay.. (Question: Di po ba substandard ang sukat ng footpath since sa BP 220, ang minimum ay 2 meters dapat. Pwede pa po bang i-contest ito kahit approved na ang subdivision plan?)

 

Naipagawa na po ang pinto pero yung bahay sa likod ay nakaharang pa rin ang pader ng tinayo nilang make shift dun sa footpath. base sa napag-usapan with the president noong August 21, naipatanggal na ito. (Question: May offense po ba ang presidente sa aspetong ito?

 

Nagkaroon po ulit ng pag-uusap sa kasama ang nakatira sa likod, ang apektadong miyembro, pati some officers ng asosasyon. INvited din ang dating officer ng asosasyon na nakaupo nung time na ginagawa pa lang ang mapa. Yung dating officer pinatunayan na ang footpath na iyon ay access lamang nung dalawang miyembro. at ang daan nung miyembrong nasa likod ay hindi sa gilid pero sa harap facing the "main road" which measures 2-meter wide. Ang lot nung miyembro sa likod ayun sa mapa ay isang corner lot. may footpath sa magkabilang gilid niya which both measure 1.20 meters.

Sa kabilang footpath, two members lang din ang may access ayon sa mapa.

 

Sa pinakahuling hearing, biglag nagdesisyon ang board of directors na pwedeng magpinto ang nakatira sa likod kasi corner lot daw ito. at ayon daw sa abogado, nasa kamay ng board of directors ang decision. since ang footpath ay binabayaran ng asosasyon at hindi pag-aari ng sinuman. (Question

mas concern pa po ba ito kung ang pagkakaroon ng pangatlong member na dadaan sa footpath ay isang fire hazard na? at allowed ba na ang isang socialized housing member ay mayroong mahigit sa isa na magkaibang pinto? Magkaiba kasi yung sa main access nila sa harap ang daan ay yung mismong member ng asosasyon, samantalang yung dadaan at makikihati pa ng access sa dalawang members ay anak lang ng member?)

 

Sa kabilang asosasyon, nagpatunay ang presidente na hindi nila allowed na ang member ay may dalawang pinto pa. sa katulad na kaso, ang advice nila sa kanilang miyembro ay magbigay ng daan sa loob ng bahay o sa nasasakupan nila palabas sa kanilang main access at hindi sa gilid ng bahay o panibagong pinto pa.

 

pasensya na po kung mahaba ah....

[Dr_PepPeR]

As much as I'd like to help, I got lost in the translation somewhere, could you please repost that in English?

 

It sounds like a right-of-way dispute being adjudicated by a Homeowner's Association. Other than that I'm equally clueless.

[Leray]

Salamat sa reply. Pano naman po kung ang owner na nasa US gumawa at pumirma ng special power of attorney para sa pagbenta ng lote thru her father pero ipanonotary sa pinas at hindi sa Phil consul sa US, magiging valid ba yung document?

[Dr_PepPeR]

Salamat sa reply. Pano naman po kung ang owner na nasa US gumawa at pumirma ng special power of attorney para sa pagbenta ng lote thru her father pero ipanonotary sa pinas at hindi sa Phil consul sa US, magiging valid ba yung document?

 

If I were you, knowing that the owner was in the US, I would not accept the SPA if it was notarized in the Philippines. Why? When you deal with an agent, you do it at your own risk. And if the owner can prove that he was in the US on the date that it was notarized, then he can claim his signature was forged. To me it's not a question of validity, since your question seems to indicate that it was indeed signed by the owner and in all likelihood it will be accepted by the Registry of Deeds for the transfer, it's really a question if you are willing to take the risk.

[Bitoy]

Guys, I need some advise on how to go about our situation.

 

My mother wants to buy a house but because of her advanced age, she wants to put the house ownership under me and my siblings. There are three of us. The intention is that when she is already gone, the three of us get equal shares on the house.

 

There is some complication since my brother is married while me and my sister are single. Therefore there should be some "married to" clause in the part of my brother in the title. Does this complicate the division of ownership (should be equal shares for the 3 siblings)?

 

Another complication is that my brother and his wife are in the U.S. so they won't be physically available for document signing. I know that for the case of selling a property, we need an SPA from them to sign on their behalf. Do we also require an SPA for buying a property? Is there any other (faster/cheaper) alternative?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Red light]

LOL, that's because they are all SIN-FULL people, they should emulate the SINless one. That deadline is a bunch of hooey, report them to the HLURB already and have them penalized.

 

Masters, as expected, the deadline was is a hooey. They were even surprised that the moment I called was the actual date of the deadline which they set themselves. Obviously they were doing no follow ups, hence the surprise. By the way, I have'nt sign the DOS yet, because as per my teleconversation with them the past few months, they'll give me a call if the title is ready, so I can sign the DOS then procure the lot title in one go (I'm a bit far from their office). Question is, in a worse case scenario where I'm settling matters with this big player in court, can they use the unsigned DOS as an alibi for not releasing my title yet?

[daddydrew]

Can anyone here enlighten me as to whether or not I, being American national can own a house and lot in the Philippines? I plan to marry and live there, but I want our home to be in my name as well, that I have controlling interest.

[Dr_PepPeR]

Can anyone here enlighten me as to whether or not I, being American national can own a house and lot in the Philippines? I plan to marry and live there, but I want our home to be in my name as well, that I have controlling interest.

 

Foreigners are not allowed to own land in the Philippines. Having said that, the title can still be in the name of your wife, if she is a Filipino citizen, and your name will appear too, as it will state that the property is owned by 'Wife X married to Husband Y'. The other way is to buy a condminium unit under your name, as long as at least 60% of the condominium building is owned by Filipino citizens.

[Dr_PepPeR]

Guys, I need some advise on how to go about our situation.

 

My mother wants to buy a house but because of her advanced age, she wants to put the house ownership under me and my siblings. There are three of us. The intention is that when she is already gone, the three of us get equal shares on the house.

 

There is some complication since my brother is married while me and my sister are single. Therefore there should be some "married to" clause in the part of my brother in the title. Does this complicate the division of ownership (should be equal shares for the 3 siblings)?

 

Another complication is that my brother and his wife are in the U.S. so they won't be physically available for document signing. I know that for the case of selling a property, we need an SPA from them to sign on their behalf. Do we also require an SPA for buying a property? Is there any other (faster/cheaper) alternative?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

My advice is not to put the title under so many co-owners. The reason is when you have to transact the property e.g. sell it or mortgage it, you will need all the signatures of the owners. That may be difficult considering one of the proposed co-owners is living abroad. Later on, disputes may occur on who has the right to live there, who should pay for the taxes, maintenance and other expenses. It might be better to agree with your siblings for one to buy all the others out so that there will only be one owner.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Dr_PepPeR

[daddydrew]

Foreigners are not allowed to own land in the Philippines. Having said that, the title can still be in the name of your wife, if she is a Filipino citizen, and your name will appear too, as it will state that the property is owned by 'Wife X married to Husband Y'. The other way is to buy a condminium unit under your name, as long as at least 60% of the condominium building is owned by Filipino citizens.

 

I appreciate the counseling and advice. With my name being on the title as you have stated, would this give me any control of the property in any case something happens to our marriage? Just trying to protect my investment.

[Bitoy]

My advice is not to put the title under so many co-owners. The reason is when you have to transact the property e.g. sell it or mortgage it, you will need all the signatures of the owners. That may be difficult considering one of the proposed co-owners is living abroad. Later on, disputes may occur on who has the right to live there, who should pay for the taxes, maintenance and other expenses. It might be better to agree with your siblings for one to buy all the others out so that there will only be one owner.

Thanks Dr. Pepper. At this time, we don't have the option of single ownership due to other factors (my mom has the money, and none of us siblings can afford at the moment to buy the others out).

Edited September 15, 2009 by Bitoy

[TheSmilingBandit]

Masters, as expected, the deadline was is a hooey. They were even surprised that the moment I called was the actual date of the deadline which they set themselves. Obviously they were doing no follow ups, hence the surprise. By the way, I have'nt sign the DOS yet, because as per my teleconversation with them the past few months, they'll give me a call if the title is ready, so I can sign the DOS then procure the lot title in one go (I'm a bit far from their office). Question is, in a worse case scenario where I'm settling matters with this big player in court, can they use the unsigned DOS as an alibi for not releasing my title yet?

You are fully paid? They should release the title, if they try claim that you didn't sign the DoS as an alibi, sign it right there and then. Once more I urge you to complain to the HLURB.

 

Can anyone here enlighten me as to whether or not I, being American national can own a house and lot in the Philippines? I plan to marry and live there, but I want our home to be in my name as well, that I have controlling interest.

Foreigners are not allowed to own land in the Philippines. Having said that, the title can still be in the name of your wife, if she is a Filipino citizen, and your name will appear too, as it will state that the property is owned by 'Wife X married to Husband Y'. The other way is to buy a condminium unit under your name, as long as at least 60% of the condominium building is owned by Filipino citizens.

I appreciate the counseling and advice. With my name being on the title as you have stated, would this give me any control of the property in any case something happens to our marriage? Just trying to protect my investment.

A condominium, you can purchase, however a house and lot is a big no-no. However, provided you do not sign any waiver of conjugal rights, neither can she sell that house and lot even if it were in her name without your approval. Still, the safest bet is to go the condominium route as laird and maester Dr_PepPeR has said.

 

Guys, I need some advise on how to go about our situation.

 

My mother wants to buy a house but because of her advanced age, she wants to put the house ownership under me and my siblings. There are three of us. The intention is that when she is already gone, the three of us get equal shares on the house.

 

There is some complication since my brother is married while me and my sister are single. Therefore there should be some "married to" clause in the part of my brother in the title. Does this complicate the division of ownership (should be equal shares for the 3 siblings)?

 

Another complication is that my brother and his wife are in the U.S. so they won't be physically available for document signing. I know that for the case of selling a property, we need an SPA from them to sign on their behalf. Do we also require an SPA for buying a property? Is there any other (faster/cheaper) alternative?

 

Thanks in advance.

My advice is not to put the title under so many co-owners. The reason is when you have to transact the property e.g. sell it or mortgage it, you will need all the signatures of the owners. That may be difficult considering one of the proposed co-owners is living abroad. Later on, disputes may occur on who has the right to live there, who should pay for the taxes, maintenance and other expenses. It might be better to agree with your siblings for one to buy all the others out so that there will only be one owner.

Thanks Dr. Pepper. At this time, we don't have the option of single ownership due to other factors (my mom has the money, and none of us siblings can afford at the moment to buy the others out).

Your brother cannot sign the deed of sale, then you can't even purchase the aforementioned property. The best bet would be to incorporate, with yourself and your siblings having equal shares (33.33% each). Just don't neglect to file your no income declaration with the BIR and the SEC annually.

[Kropekhagen]

hi, patulong po mga sir

 

yung lupa ng bahay namin ngayon, nakapangalan pa din sa deceased parents ng father ko, 5 silang magkakapatid (1 dead,4 surviving), gusto ko sana

asikasuhin yung transfer ng title under all of their names. panu po ba magsisimula sa ganito? ok naman ang tax neto, updated.

 

thanks in advance. :thumbsupsmiley: