legal Free Legal Advice

[banglord69]

sPOLARIum mas magandang nung nirevive ng Imago!!!! :goatee:

[rocco69]

With all due respect, there seems no basis to consider rickyV's father to still be a Filipino citizen. Assuming that he was a Filipino at birth, his naturalization as an American would have divested him of Filipino citizenship. Unless he applied for dual citizenship under RA9225, he should be considered an American decedent, governed by the law of his State.

 

Thus, the validity of his will should be governed by his State law. If his State law follows lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place where the will was made), and if the will was made in the Philippines, its invalid. If it was made somewhere else, look at that place's law. Ultimately, this question will be decided by the decedent's State law.

 

However, blackwolf is correct in saying that there is no point in requiring a business plan or trust fund. Firstly, the assets are to be divided equally between the five children. As owner of your 1/5th share, your sister has no say in what you do with it. Secondly, this 1/5th is being given to you, NOT YOUR CHILDREN, hence it should not be placed in a trust fund for your children.

 

But in the final analysis, to compel your sister to do what is right, you still have to go to the US to enforce your rights, kaya ang hirap pa rin. I suggest that you reason with your sister to convince her to give you your share, otherwise wala kang magagawa kundi magkaso.

 

Since your father is also a Filipino citizen, Philippine laws are applicable. It seems that what you said is a notarial will and under our law, unless there are witnesses, an attestation caluse or acknowledgement before a notary public, which is a formal requisite, the will is void. If your will is void, then intestate succession rules will apply. the term guardian used here is that your sister will be the administrator of the estate of the your father. however, please know that an assignment of an administrator is only valid if there is a valid will. In this case, your will is void so your sister cannot be considered as the admiinistrator. There are five of you right? assuming your father has no debts and you and your siblings are the survivors, the whole amount should be divided equally. I just dont see the point kung bakit kailangan pa ng business plan at trust fund.

[rocco69]

Note that if the error in the surname is a typographical error (an obvious mistake like misspelling, like the surname that appears is "Santoz", when your real surname is "Santos"), sa Civil Registrar ka lang magfa-file at P1000++ lang ang bayad at mga 2-3 mos. lang dapat ang procesing nyan. Kung di siya typographical error, sa korte talaga yun (like the surname that appears is "Santos" when your real surname is Dela Cruz") and you have to hire a lawyer.

 

Depende kasi kung saan mo gagamitin yung birth certificate mo. Kung tatanggapin naman ang Affidavit of Discrepancy in Birth Certificate (kung saan sinasabi mo na that name and this name referes to one and the same person) do ganun na lang. Kaya lang kasi, may mga paggagamitan na kailangan talaga yung birth certificate ang susundin, kaya you really have to change the birth certificate. Nasa yo na yun.

 

right now ang mali na lang is yung sa surname ko....which is i think hindi din naman ganun kalaki yung problema... nangapa lang ako kasi i dont even hav an idea on how to fix it ng mabilis.... i was thinking of going to nso nga to ask e kaso may nagsabi naman na ipanotary ko na lang.... in anyways pwede ko nman siguro gawin kaso ang gusto ko lang yung mas madali.... thanks for the advice din po.... really appreciated it....

[rickyv]

yun na nga sir eh, kailangan pa ako pumunta ng us para lang magkaso sa kapatid ko, eh ang hirap pa naman kumuha ng visa.

There is no reasoning with my sister maybe because she might have self interest in the money. sakit sa ulo.

[jake_roxas]

hi guys. sorry for the short hibernation. i was busy with work. and still is. i hope everything doing well with you all.

[spishoxxx]

kakasawa na... yung mymp lahat ata ng kanta nila revival tapos patweetums pa....

kaya siguro hindi naapreciate ni ely buendia yung ultraelectromagnetic jam na tribute sa kanila

kasi ang panget ng pagkakanta nung ibang kanta...

[skipp3r]

Help - RE: Land Title

 

may question lang ako mga sirs. Pwede ba ipabago yung nakasulat sa land title na civil status?

Ex. juan dela cruz, married to xxx - gagawing juan dela cruz, single :boo:

 

complicated ba yun?

[rocco69]

Kailangan mong magsampa ng petisyun sa korte para ipabago yan. Kasi sabi ng Sec. 108 ng PD1529

 

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. [now Regional Trial Court]... A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property... may apply by petition to the court upon the ground... that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected...

 

Aarkila ka ng abugado at gastusan din to.

 

Help - RE: Land Title

 

may question lang ako mga sirs. Pwede ba ipabago yung nakasulat sa land title na civil status?

Ex. juan dela cruz, married to xxx - gagawing juan dela cruz, single :boo:

 

complicated ba yun?

[skipp3r]

Kailangan mong magsampa ng petisyun sa korte para ipabago yan. Kasi sabi ng Sec. 108 ng PD1529

 

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. [now Regional Trial Court]... A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property... may apply by petition to the court upon the ground... that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected...

 

Aarkila ka ng abugado at gastusan din to.

 

 

Magkano po kaya ang gagastusin? saka gano katagal ang process?

[b_9904]

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.

Raul_Lambino_V._Comelec__Appeal_.pdf

[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).