legal Free Legal Advice

[koala1]

Please give me your opinion:

 

Premises:

1. Only Filipino citizens can own land in the Philippines.

2. Natural-born Filipinos have to renounce their Philippine citizenship when they apply and take up American citizenship.

3. The US does not allow for Dual Citizenship.

 

Questions:

1. Is it not illegal therefore for a natural-born Filipino who took up American citizenship to continue to own land in the Philippines?

2. If it is legal, then does that not mean that foreigners (which the natural-born Filipino now is because of his US citizenship) can own land in the Philippines (which is against premise #1 which is in the constitution?)

3. If it is not legal, who now owns the land that the natural-born Filipino (now American) owned prior to his acquiring American citizenship?

3B. Is there a prescriptive period to dispose of the land?

 

Thank you in advance for your inputs.

 

Cheers!

[bigbang theory]

Guys,

 

Look at the attachment po.

 

sa tingin nyo po ba reversed na yung ruling ng santiago v. comelec?

 

pwede na ba tayong mag-propose ng initiative? may enabling law na ba tayo?

 

thank you and God bless us all.

 

 

ahem, after a long absence, its nice to be back.... GREETINGS TO ALL A-HORNEYS OUT THERE!!!

 

anyway, para OT tayo, the proponents of the people's inititiative have filed a second motion of reconsideration( which i think is procedurally flawed).. the premise of their second MR is moreso because CJ panganiban is due to retire on dec. 6 (?) and a possible replacement sympathetic to Malacañang can spell the reversal they are praying for.

 

as of date, there is no enabling law still.

[bigbang theory]

ahorney jake, tindi ng mga advise mo nung nagback thread read ako a...mukhang matindi na ang practice mo dito ... dami mo na sigurong loyal clients...

Edited November 27, 2006 by lionwing

[rocco69]

1. Is it not illegal therefore for a natural-born Filipino who took up American citizenship to continue to own land in the Philippines?

 

Sa ilalim ng Section 7 ng Constitution:

 

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.

 

Makikita dito na ang pagmamay-ari ng pribadong lupa ay depende sa kakayahan sa pagmamay-ari ng public land (at dahil Pilipino lang ang pwedeng magmay-ari ng public land, Pilipino din lang ang pwedeng magmay-ari ng pribadong lupa.

 

Pero exception ang minanang lupa (save in cases of cases of hereditary succession), kaya legal para sa isang dating Pilipino na magmana ng lupa sa Pilipinas, KAYA MAY EXCEPTION dun sa premises mo na "only Filipino citizens can own land in the Philippines."

 

Tsaka, Section 8 of the Constitution also provides:

 

Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost its Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

 

Ang batas dito ay ang Batas Pambansa 185 at RA 8179 pero limited to a maximum of 1000 sq. meters (residential purposes) at 5000 sq. meters (commercial/investment purposes) respectively. Di puwedeng lumampas sa maximum na ito kung sa ilalim ng batas na ito ang pag-aacquire ng property ng dating Pilipino.

 

Ang dalawang instances na ito ang exception sa rule na "only Filipinos can own land in the Philippines."

 

2. If it is legal, then does that not mean that foreigners (which the natural-born Filipino now is because of his US citizenship) can own land in the Philippines (which is against premise #1 which is in the constitution?)

 

Exception ito sa general rule, and remember, limited ito sa former natural-born citizens. This was inserted in the Constitution to the wish of former Filipinos who were living abroad "not only to own residential land but also to participate in the development of the country" (See Bernas, the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 447, 1988 ed.)

 

3. If it is not legal, who now owns the land that the natural-born Filipino (now American) owned prior to his acquiring American citizenship?

 

Para sa mga lupa na pagmamay-ari ng mga hindi natural-born Filipino, tsaka yung lupa ng natural-born Filipino acquired by means other than hereditary succession in excess of the maximum allowed by law, ito ay pag-aari ng Estado. The transaction is null and void ab initio (from the beginning). Depende sa circumstances, the general rule is that while the transaction is null and void ab initio, the Filipino transferor cannot question the sale due to the pari delicto rule (may kasalanan din siya kaya di siya pagbibigyan ng korte na mabawi ang lupa). The only person who can question the transaction is the State, who should file reversion proceedings so that the property goes back to its rightful owner, the State (not the seller, who has lost his right to the property by selling it to an unqualified person).

 

However, in some instances, the Court has relaxed this rule and allowed the seller to recover [see PBC v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52] (pero minsan lang to tsaka dapat unequal yung position ng parties - tipong dapat eh kapit sa patalim yung seller kaya ibenenta).

 

3B. Is there a prescriptive period to dispose of the land?

Since null and void ab initio, walang prescriptive period. No rights flow from a void act, nor does it have any legal effects (altho actually may effect siya dahil sa pari delicto rule, kung di magrereklamo ang Estado, yung lumalabas na me-ari yung foreigner).

 

 

Please give me your opinion:

 

Premises:

1. Only Filipino citizens can own land in the Philippines.

2. Natural-born Filipinos have to renounce their Philippine citizenship when they apply and take up American citizenship.

3. The US does not allow for Dual Citizenship.

 

Questions:

1. Is it not illegal therefore for a natural-born Filipino who took up American citizenship to continue to own land in the Philippines?

2. If it is legal, then does that not mean that foreigners (which the natural-born Filipino now is because of his US citizenship) can own land in the Philippines (which is against premise #1 which is in the constitution?)

3. If it is not legal, who now owns the land that the natural-born Filipino (now American) owned prior to his acquiring American citizenship?

3B. Is there a prescriptive period to dispose of the land?

 

Thank you in advance for your inputs.

 

Cheers!

[koala1]

Thank you rocco69 for your reply.

It was quite helpful in explaining how a person can legally acquire land.

 

However, I probably did not present my basic question as clearly as I had hoped and I'd like to try again:

 

Question: If I am a natural-born Filipino citizen and I already owned land in the Philippines, and then I take up American citizenship, do I lose the right to the land I own in the Philippines?

 

A) If I don't lose the right to the land that I originally owned in the first place, then this would be an example of a non-Filipino citizen owning land neither by inheritance or as transferee.

 

If I do lose the right to the land, then who has the right to it and how am I compensated for it as the previous (now non-qualified) owner of said land?

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Cheers!

 

1. Is it not illegal therefore for a natural-born Filipino who took up American citizenship to continue to own land in the Philippines?

 

Sa ilalim ng Section 7 ng Constitution:

 

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.

 

Makikita dito na ang pagmamay-ari ng pribadong lupa ay depende sa kakayahan sa pagmamay-ari ng public land (at dahil Pilipino lang ang pwedeng magmay-ari ng public land, Pilipino din lang ang pwedeng magmay-ari ng pribadong lupa.

 

Pero exception ang minanang lupa (save in cases of cases of hereditary succession), kaya legal para sa isang dating Pilipino na magmana ng lupa sa Pilipinas, KAYA MAY EXCEPTION dun sa premises mo na "only Filipino citizens can own land in the Philippines."

 

Tsaka, Section 8 of the Constitution also provides:

 

Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost its Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

 

Ang batas dito ay ang Batas Pambansa 185 at RA 8179 pero limited to a maximum of 1000 sq. meters (residential purposes) at 5000 sq. meters (commercial/investment purposes) respectively. Di puwedeng lumampas sa maximum na ito kung sa ilalim ng batas na ito ang pag-aacquire ng property ng dating Pilipino.

 

Ang dalawang instances na ito ang exception sa rule na "only Filipinos can own land in the Philippines."

 

2. If it is legal, then does that not mean that foreigners (which the natural-born Filipino now is because of his US citizenship) can own land in the Philippines (which is against premise #1 which is in the constitution?)

 

Exception ito sa general rule, and remember, limited ito sa former natural-born citizens. This was inserted in the Constitution to the wish of former Filipinos who were living abroad "not only to own residential land but also to participate in the development of the country" (See Bernas, the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 447, 1988 ed.)

 

3. If it is not legal, who now owns the land that the natural-born Filipino (now American) owned prior to his acquiring American citizenship?

 

Para sa mga lupa na pagmamay-ari ng mga hindi natural-born Filipino, tsaka yung lupa ng natural-born Filipino acquired by means other than hereditary succession in excess of the maximum allowed by law, ito ay pag-aari ng Estado. The transaction is null and void ab initio (from the beginning). Depende sa circumstances, the general rule is that while the transaction is null and void ab initio, the Filipino transferor cannot question the sale due to the pari delicto rule (may kasalanan din siya kaya di siya pagbibigyan ng korte na mabawi ang lupa). The only person who can question the transaction is the State, who should file reversion proceedings so that the property goes back to its rightful owner, the State (not the seller, who has lost his right to the property by selling it to an unqualified person).

 

However, in some instances, the Court has relaxed this rule and allowed the seller to recover [see PBC v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52] (pero minsan lang to tsaka dapat unequal yung position ng parties - tipong dapat eh kapit sa patalim yung seller kaya ibenenta).

 

3B. Is there a prescriptive period to dispose of the land?

Since null and void ab initio, walang prescriptive period. No rights flow from a void act, nor does it have any legal effects (altho actually may effect siya dahil sa pari delicto rule, kung di magrereklamo ang Estado, yung lumalabas na me-ari yung foreigner).

[rocco69]

Aaah! Sooorry!

 

Question: If I am a natural-born Filipino citizen and I already owned land in the Philippines, and then I take up American citizenship, do I lose the right to the land I own in the Philippines?

 

No, you do not lose the land which you owned. Under Section 7, Art. XII of the Constitution, what is prohibited is the TRANSFER or CONVEYANCE of private lands to individuals, corporations, or associations not qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. By changing your citizenship, you neither TRANSFER or CONVEY your land to someone else, hence you remain the owner.

 

A) If I don't lose the right to the land that I originally owned in the first place, then this would be an example of a non-Filipino citizen owning land neither by inheritance or as transferee.

 

Yes, it is. Note however, that what is actually prohibited under the Constitution is the TRANSFER or CONVEYANCE to non-Filipino citizens, not ownership of land per se, as in fact, there are instances when non-Filipinos can validly own land in the Philippines.

 

Note also that while you remain the owner of the land, you can only transfer it by sale or other conveyance to a Filipino, or to your children or other heirs as part of their inheritance (note that this is intestate succession, not by will, hence you cannot give the property by will to someone else).

 

If I do lose the right to the land, then who has the right to it and how am I compensated for it as the previous (now non-qualified) owner of said land?

 

Given the answer in the affirmative to question (A), this becomes moot.

 

Thank you rocco69 for your reply.

It was quite helpful in explaining how a person can legally acquire land.

 

However, I probably did not present my basic question as clearly as I had hoped and I'd like to try again:

 

Question: If I am a natural-born Filipino citizen and I already owned land in the Philippines, and then I take up American citizenship, do I lose the right to the land I own in the Philippines?

 

A) If I don't lose the right to the land that I originally owned in the first place, then this would be an example of a non-Filipino citizen owning land neither by inheritance or as transferee.

 

If I do lose the right to the land, then who has the right to it and how am I compensated for it as the previous (now non-qualified) owner of said land?

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Cheers!

[koala1]

Thank you very much for your reply.

I found it responsive and enlightening to the question I had.

 

Cheers!

 

Aaah! Sooorry!

 

Question: If I am a natural-born Filipino citizen and I already owned land in the Philippines, and then I take up American citizenship, do I lose the right to the land I own in the Philippines?

 

No, you do not lose the land which you owned. Under Section 7, Art. XII of the Constitution, what is prohibited is the TRANSFER or CONVEYANCE of private lands to individuals, corporations, or associations not qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. By changing your citizenship, you neither TRANSFER or CONVEY your land to someone else, hence you remain the owner.

 

A) If I don't lose the right to the land that I originally owned in the first place, then this would be an example of a non-Filipino citizen owning land neither by inheritance or as transferee.

 

Yes, it is. Note however, that what is actually prohibited under the Constitution is the TRANSFER or CONVEYANCE to non-Filipino citizens, not ownership of land per se, as in fact, there are instances when non-Filipinos can validly own land in the Philippines.

 

Note also that while you remain the owner of the land, you can only transfer it by sale or other conveyance to a Filipino, or to your children or other heirs as part of their inheritance (note that this is intestate succession, not by will, hence you cannot give the property by will to someone else).

 

If I do lose the right to the land, then who has the right to it and how am I compensated for it as the previous (now non-qualified) owner of said land?

 

Given the answer in the affirmative to question (A), this becomes moot.

[molato]

To all the bright legal minds of mtc can you please help me with this legal problem. Thanks in advance. Here it is:

 

Ana was the only daughter of rich parents. When her parents died, they left her a huge fortune. In 1965, Ana married Ben. Ben did not have any properties at all. Ana and Ben begot 2 children named Conrad and Dennis. During their marriage Ben and Ana did not acquire any properties at all either by themselves or separately.

 

Subsequently Ben had an affair with Eve. Ben and Eve begot 2 illegitimate children named Francis and Gigi.

 

In 1999 Ana died intestate. Her estate was never settled. In 2000 Ben married Eve.

 

In 2005, Ben also died intestate.

 

How will the estate of Ben be divided among his heirs?

 

How much is the total estate of Ben?

 

A friend of mine has this solution:

 

When Ana died intestate, her estate according to the Civil Code will be divided 1/3 each among Ben, Conrad and Dennis, considering that the estate of Ana is purely her paraphernal properties. No need to divide the estate of Ana into two since her estate is purely paraphernal. (Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children)

 

Supreme Court ruling: “As already shown, the disputed lot was paraphernal. Since Petra Unating did not leave any other property, will or debt upon her demise in 1948, the property in question was thus inherited by her children, Felix and Catalina Villar; and her husband, Aquilino Villar. The two children were entitled to two-thirds of their mother’s estate, while the husband was entitled to the remaining one-third.” (Pisueña, vs. Heirs Of Petra Unating And Aquilino Villar, Represented By Salvador Upod And Dolores Bautista, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999)

 

 

Assuming that the paraphernal property is worth 90, Ben would then have 30.

 

When Ben died intestate, his surviving spouse Eve would get half of the estate left by Ben as part of her share in the absolute community property. The other half of Ben’s estate would be divided among Eve, Francis, Gigi, Conrad and Dennis according to the Family Code. Eve would have the same share as that of a legitimate child and the illegitimate would have ½ share as that of a legitimate child.

 

total estate of Ben = 30

 

half goes to Eve=15

 

remaining half (15) is to be divided among Eve, Francis, Gigi, Conrad and Dennis according to the Family Code

 

Eve = 3.75

Francis = 1.875

Gigi= 1.875

Conrad= 3.75

Dennis= 3.75

 

Is this the right solution?

Thank you so much.

[rocco69]

Your friend is correct up to the point were he says that Ben's share is 30.

 

However, he is in error in supposing that when Ben married Eve in 1999, the property regime between them is absolute community of property. Notably, after Ana died intestate, her estate was never settled, hence Art. 130 of the Family Code governs.

 

Note: Ana and Ben are governed by the property regime of "conjugal partnership of gains", having married each other before the effectivity of the Family Code.

 

Art. 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

SHOULD THE SURVIVING SPOUSE CONTRACT A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOREGOING REQUIREMENTS, A MANDATORY REGIME OF COMPLETE SEPARATION OF PROPERTY SHALL GOVERN THE PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE. (Emphasis supplied)

 

Thus, the property relations between Ben and Eve is complete separation of property, so that when Ben died, his estate is 30, not 15, Eve having no share therein.

 

How will the estate of Ben be divided among his heirs?

 

Ben's heirs are:

 

Eve: Surviving Spouse (SS)

Conrad: Legitimate Child (LC)

Dennis: LC

Francis: Illegitimate Child (IC)

Gigi: IC

 

1/2 of the estate goes to the LC as legitime, thus:

Conrad - 7.5

Dennis - 7.5

 

SS gets same share as that of each child (see Art. 996 and 999)

Eve - 7.5

 

IC gets half the share of a legitimate child, so:

 

Francis - 3.75

Gigi - 3.75

 

TOTAL: 30

 

To all the bright legal minds of mtc can you please help me with this legal problem. Thanks in advance. Here it is:

 

Ana was the only daughter of rich parents. When her parents died, they left her a huge fortune. In 1965, Ana married Ben. Ben did not have any properties at all. Ana and Ben begot 2 children named Conrad and Dennis. During their marriage Ben and Ana did not acquire any properties at all either by themselves or separately.

 

Subsequently Ben had an affair with Eve. Ben and Eve begot 2 illegitimate children named Francis and Gigi.

 

In 1999 Ana died intestate. Her estate was never settled. In 2000 Ben married Eve.

 

In 2005, Ben also died intestate.

 

How will the estate of Ben be divided among his heirs?

 

How much is the total estate of Ben?

 

A friend of mine has this solution:

 

When Ana died intestate, her estate according to the Civil Code will be divided 1/3 each among Ben, Conrad and Dennis, considering that the estate of Ana is purely her paraphernal properties. No need to divide the estate of Ana into two since her estate is purely paraphernal. (Art. 996. If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left, the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of each of the children)

 

Supreme Court ruling: “As already shown, the disputed lot was paraphernal. Since Petra Unating did not leave any other property, will or debt upon her demise in 1948, the property in question was thus inherited by her children, Felix and Catalina Villar; and her husband, Aquilino Villar. The two children were entitled to two-thirds of their mother’s estate, while the husband was entitled to the remaining one-third.” (Pisueña, vs. Heirs Of Petra Unating And Aquilino Villar, Represented By Salvador Upod And Dolores Bautista, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999)

Assuming that the paraphernal property is worth 90, Ben would then have 30.

 

When Ben died intestate, his surviving spouse Eve would get half of the estate left by Ben as part of her share in the absolute community property. The other half of Ben’s estate would be divided among Eve, Francis, Gigi, Conrad and Dennis according to the Family Code. Eve would have the same share as that of a legitimate child and the illegitimate would have ½ share as that of a legitimate child.

 

total estate of Ben = 30

 

half goes to Eve=15

 

remaining half (15) is to be divided among Eve, Francis, Gigi, Conrad and Dennis according to the Family Code

 

Eve = 3.75

Francis = 1.875

Gigi= 1.875

Conrad= 3.75

Dennis= 3.75

 

Is this the right solution?

Thank you so much.

[molato]

thank you very much rocco69 for the reply.

[duarda]

pwede po ba ako magtanong bago lang po kse ako d2 eh?!my cousin po kase ako and nagpakasal sya when she was only 17 dinaya po ung age nya and eventually naghiwalay din cla nung guy.my question is valid po ba yung kasal nila?

[rocco69]

Assuming na age lang ang problema, depende kung kelan sila ikinasal.

 

If she got married before Aug. 3, 1988, valid yung kasal (before this date, ang umiiral na batas ay Civil Code at sa ilalim nun, ang babaeng 14 años pataas at lalaking 16 años pataas ay puwede na magpakasal).

 

Kung Aug.3, 1988 or later siya ikinasal, void ang kanyang kasal (kasi sa ilalim ng Family Code, na pumalit sa Civil Code starting Aug. 3, ang edad para sa pagpapakasal ay 18, mapa-lalaki o babae).

 

pwede po ba ako magtanong bago lang po kse ako d2 eh?!my cousin po kase ako and nagpakasal sya when she was only 17 dinaya po ung age nya and eventually naghiwalay din cla nung guy.my question is valid po ba yung kasal nila?

[Kurtsky Keigee]

QUESTION

 

How do you remove hardcoded subtitles from a divx avi file?

Its like its already within the avi movie file

 

Its kinda distracting its a foreign language sub in a very good english movie

Pls how do I remove it, I f I use logoaway theres a block in the movie where the subtitles where.. It ruins it.. thanks

[Guest Leviticus]

question: there is one computer where the user has "restrictions" but the user is an administrator; disabled ang taskbar, cannot access run, etc. when I create another user the restrictions are not present. how do I solve the restrictions on the original user? ive checked the user profiles and indeed, administrator yung user. please help

[fauxhead]

You failed to consider Art 178 of the Family Code which states "Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation."

 

Under this, the subsequent marriage of Ben and Eve would make Francis and Gigi legitimate.

 

Thus, Ben's estate should be divided between 4 legitimate children and the surviving spouse.

 

Your friend is correct up to the point were he says that Ben's share is 30.

 

However, he is in error in supposing that when Ben married Eve in 1999, the property regime between them is absolute community of property. Notably, after Ana died intestate, her estate was never settled, hence Art. 130 of the Family Code governs.

 

Note: Ana and Ben are governed by the property regime of "conjugal partnership of gains", having married each other before the effectivity of the Family Code.

 

Art. 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

SHOULD THE SURVIVING SPOUSE CONTRACT A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOREGOING REQUIREMENTS, A MANDATORY REGIME OF COMPLETE SEPARATION OF PROPERTY SHALL GOVERN THE PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE. (Emphasis supplied)

 

Thus, the property relations between Ben and Eve is complete separation of property, so that when Ben died, his estate is 30, not 15, Eve having no share therein.

 

How will the estate of Ben be divided among his heirs?

 

Ben's heirs are:

 

Eve: Surviving Spouse (SS)

Conrad: Legitimate Child (LC)

Dennis: LC

Francis: Illegitimate Child (IC)

Gigi: IC

 

1/2 of the estate goes to the LC as legitime, thus:

Conrad - 7.5

Dennis - 7.5

 

SS gets same share as that of each child (see Art. 996 and 999)

Eve - 7.5

 

IC gets half the share of a legitimate child, so:

 

Francis - 3.75

Gigi - 3.75

 

TOTAL: 30

[fauxhead]

Ooopppss, my bad.

 

The original solution is correct. Was thinking of adoption of illegitimate children which is usually done by those who subsequently married to make their illegitimate children legitimate. Legitimation pertains only to children who were begotten when their parents did not have any impediment to marry.

 

 

You failed to consider Art 178 of the Family Code which states "Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation."

 

Under this, the subsequent marriage of Ben and Eve would make Francis and Gigi legitimate.

 

Thus, Ben's estate should be divided between 4 legitimate children and the surviving spouse.

[blueboy]

Has anyone of you or people you know tried using a continuous ink system (CIS) for inkjet printers?

 

CIS vendors say you can save 90+ percent on your ink costs with such a system installed in your printer coz you buy the ink in bulk and you get to choose specific colors of ink you're low on. The printer's warranty is supposedly preserved since nothing is physically altered on the printer itself.

 

I'm contemplating about getting one to take advantage of the huge savings but my paranoid side tells me I might not realize the savings that much or that soon coz I'm not a heavy user, so the ink might dry up from non-continuous use, or some other problem I can't/don't foresee at present.

 

What are your or your friends' experiences on CIS? Which vendor did you/they buy it from?

 

Are you/they satisfied with it? What are the usual problems encountered? Is the supplier reliable in terms of solving those problems?

 

Btw, a CIS looks somethin like this:

[Samhain13]

hi anu ba sortware para wmv,mpeg para gagawin 3gp ?

 

http://www.erightsoft.com/SUPER.html

 

Try this. It converts media files into various other formats like what you're asking. And as far as I know, it's free.

[<"Blood Burst">]

gud pm mtc computer experts!

tanong ko lang w/c brand among d 3 ang maganda as laptop pc?

1 dell

2 fujitsu

2 toshiba

 

tnx..

Edited November 30, 2006 by <"Blood Burst">

[duarda]

Assuming na age lang ang problema, depende kung kelan sila ikinasal.

 

If she got married before Aug. 3, 1988, valid yung kasal (before this date, ang umiiral na batas ay Civil Code at sa ilalim nun, ang babaeng 14 años pataas at lalaking 16 años pataas ay puwede na magpakasal).

 

Kung Aug.3, 1988 or later siya ikinasal, void ang kanyang kasal (kasi sa ilalim ng Family Code, na pumalit sa Civil Code starting Aug. 3, ang edad para sa pagpapakasal ay 18, mapa-lalaki o babae).

 

 

 

thank u po sa reply.as far as iknow may 1997 po cla ikinasal sa civil and july 1997 po cla ikinasal sa church,and she was only 17 during that time,void pa dn po ba yun kahit twice cla ikinasal???

[_Pabling]

gud pm mtc computer experts!

tanong ko lang w/c brand among d 3 ang maganda as laptop pc?

1 dell

2 fujitsu

2 toshiba

 

tnx..

 

wag dell bossing. ibook ka nlng. :thumbsupsmiley:

[<"Blood Burst">]

wag dell bossing. ibook ka nlng. :thumbsupsmiley:

salamat sir pabs..

 

kaya pala dell ang mga desktop pc dito sa office.

:boo:

mga a lil' less than 400 units..

[_Pabling]

salamat sir pabs..

kaya pala dell ang mga desktop pc dito sa office.

:boo:

mga a lil' less than 400 units..

 

d2 rin sir Blood Burst.

[jake_roxas]

DOUBLY VALID hahahhaaha

[Tantarado]

Pwede po magtanong regarding credit card billing,

 

HSBC is trying to collect an amount of php400,000 plus back payment,& i was wondering how does it comeup to that amount when my card limit is just php15,000, covered period is aug 1999 to dec 2006. Another thing that caughts my attention, comparing it with my citybank (which is already paid) with the card limit of php30,000, i was only charge php34,000+ with the same covered period... can somebody enlight me on this....that fcuking six digit amount is eating up my sanity and is making me restless....