legal Free Legal Advice

[Aspire10]

winxp ba ang operating system mo? afaik, dapat detected sya sa winxp automatically.

but then, here is what you can do.

right click mo yung device manager mo na naka yellow na may ! mark.

click properties, go to the driver tab, and click update driver. your driver should be in the floppy. yun ang magiging source nya.

 

pag hindi gumana, remove the actual device sa device driver, reboot your pc, and try to have it automatically detected.

nagawa ko na po yon sinabi nyo.kaya lang di pa rin gumana.my laptop model is Acer Aspire 3004 WLMi.baka naman po meron makakatulong sakin pls. :hypocritesmiley: :goatee:

[deus]

How could one reformat and reinstall an OS on a hard drive if the optical drive of the computer is not working? Do I have to take out the HD?

 

Unless you have the software and knowledge to create a bootable flash disk using the boot image of microsoft, specify the number of loaded sector, supports iso 9660+joliet file system, and your motherboard has the instruction to boot using flash disks, then why not?

 

Easier way is buy/replace the cd-rom which is very cheap and easy to install.

[rocco69]

Thanks for the reply. The original owners of the house was my friend's grandparents. The grandparents built it on that lot with the landowner's permission several decades ago. The house was then given to my friend's parents. The house had underwent several renovations and is probably around 1.5 million pesos worth now.

 

Since their predecessor was permitted to build on the lot, they can most probably be classified as "builders in good faith." Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code:

 

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

 

Clearly, it is the option of the landowner whether 1) to appropriate the house upon payment of necessary and useful expenses; or 2) oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. In other words, the landowner can really force your friend to buy the lot if the price therefore is not markedly disproportionate to the price of the building. Since the price being asked by the landowner (P2M) is quite near to the value of the house (P1.5) I think your friend's refusal to buy puts them, in this situation, on the wrong side of the law.

 

Likewise, it is my understanding that once the landowner properly exercises his option (choosing either Option 1 or Option 2) and the builder refuses to comply with the wishes of the owner, the owner is now allowed to have him evicted and the structure removed (see Sarmiento v. Agana, 129 SCRA 122). In fine, your friend may be evicted by the new owner for their failure to comply with Art. 448

[Google]

nagawa ko na po yon sinabi nyo.kaya lang di pa rin gumana.my laptop model is Acer Aspire 3004 WLMi.baka naman po meron makakatulong sakin pls. :hypocritesmiley: :goatee:

 

 

hmmm....

please try to install that device in another PC using WinXP.

if it works, then probably, your operating system has some problem.

if it does not, then the device can be defective.

[fauxhead]

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

 

Since their predecessor was permitted to build on the lot, they can most probably be classified as "builders in good faith." Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code:

 

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

 

Clearly, it is the option of the landowner whether 1) to appropriate the house upon payment of necessary and useful expenses; or 2) oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. In other words, the landowner can really force your friend to buy the lot if the price therefore is not markedly disproportionate to the price of the building. Since the price being asked by the landowner (P2M) is quite near to the value of the house (P1.5) I think your friend's refusal to buy puts them, in this situation, on the wrong side of the law.

 

Likewise, it is my understanding that once the landowner properly exercises his option (choosing either Option 1 or Option 2) and the builder refuses to comply with the wishes of the owner, the owner is now allowed to have him evicted and the structure removed (see Sarmiento v. Agana, 129 SCRA 122). In fine, your friend may be evicted by the new owner for their failure to comply with Art. 448

[author]

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

 

Fauxhead and rocco 69, sirs, thanks a lot for the replies. I talked to my friend again and he said that from the start, their family have been paying a monthly rent to the lot owners. They have been renting the lot for a few decades now so they really are not 'squatters.' Would this work in their (my friend's) favor? I mean, do they stand a chance in court just in case? And do the owners really have the right to force them to buy the land or evict them if they refuse?

 

The day the owner told them that they have to buy the lot or else, they would be evicted, they(the lot owners) even collected the monthly rent from them. I'm not sure of this but I think the lot owners want them to pay in cash, just in case they decide to buy the land.

[Dr_PepPeR]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

That's great! Now all we have to do is educate the Metro Manila traffic law enforcers about this and tell the Binay Yellowshirts and their deputies that Makati IS part of Metro Manila.

[Butsoy]

Hi!

 

How can you cancel a Phil. Passport pag impostor ang gumamit ng pangalan mo? Kaya di ako ma release-release ng aking passport application, eh may gumamit daw ng pangalan o identity ko (siyempre ibang picture). Pang apat na beses akong pumuntang DFA.

 

Please help. Salamat!

 

 

Just PM me if you need any legal help before the Passport division

 

Butsoy

[Aspire10]

hmmm....

please try to install that device in another PC using WinXP.

if it works, then probably, your operating system has some problem.

if it does not, then the device can be defective.

salamat po,sa reply.i will try it. sana maayos na

[M16A2]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

While reading your first sentence I noticed that you used the word "may" instead of "shall". So does this mean if I am caught by a policeman it is up to his discretion whether he confiscate my driver's license or not? How about PNCC enforcers, can they validly confiscate your driver's license?

[kenji_1989]

Tanong lang guys. Yung current PC ko kasi (AMD setup), ang nadedetect lang ng Windows ay 137GB. Sabi daw, kailangan SP2 ng WinXP para madetect yung buong 160GB. Yung installer ko kasi ng XP, wala siyang integrated na SP2. Kapag bumili ba ako ng Windows XP na may SP2 Integrated, automatic na niya ba madedetect yung buong hard disk size? Yaw ko kasi magpartition sana e hatiin sa tig 80GB. Sayang.

[psyfher]

recommended laptops and notebooks::

 

intel core 2 duo processors po.. thx

 

pwd po makikilagay na rin ng price range and kng san po available thx

[rocco69]

While reading your first sentence I noticed that you used the word "may" instead of "shall". So does this mean if I am caught by a policeman it is up to his discretion whether he confiscate my driver's license or not? How about PNCC enforcers, can they validly confiscate your driver's license?

 

Sorry for the confusion, but it should be mandatory for a policeman NOT TO CONFISCATE YOUR LICENSE when you are in Metro Manila (although as pointed out by Dr. Pepper, we do need to educate law enforcers about this, in other words, makikipag-away ka talaga at makikipagmatigasan muna sa pulis tungkol dito, kasi karamihan sa kanila di alam ito).

 

As for PNCC enforcers, following the rules enunciated by the Supreme COurt, pag labas na ng Metro Manila, pwede na silang magconfiscate.

[rocco69]

Thanks, fauxhead, for enlightening me on this one. It does seem that the situation where a person, out of the goodness of his heart, without any other obligation whatsoever, allows someone else to live on his lot (and to build his residence thereon) is a precarium, which under Art. 1950, does not give him the right to be reimbursed for whatever he builds on the lot.

 

As a sidebar, though, in Pajuyo v. CA, the SC said that if there are obligations expected of the builder (in said case, to maintain the property in good condition), it cannot be a commodatum. This pronouncement could be impt. since in most situations, the builder is expected to be a "caretaker" of the lot that he builds on.

 

Anyway, according to author, his friend has been paying rentals on the property from the beginning, hence the situation would actually be governed by the provisions of lease - which under Art. 1678 of the Civil Code - states that if there are improvements on the property leased, the lessor must pay 1/2 of the value of the improvements, otherwise the lessee can remove this improvement.

 

And, assuming that there is no written lease agreement, the lease terminates at the end of each month (since rentals are on a monthly basis) thereby authorizing the owner, or his buyer, if he sells it later on, to evict the tenants on the land (although they still have the right to be reimbursed 1/2 of the value of the building). The fact that they have been living there for over 40 years do not make them owners of the land (in fact, by paying rentals, they admit that they are not owners of the land) nor does it give them more rights other than this. The waiver being asked by the owner is actually superfluous, as correctly pointed out by fauxhead.

 

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

[emergc]

Wala bang makakabigay ng siguradong solution?

 

In my experience, nawawala yun laman ng My Documents at bumabalik sa dati or default setting ang Windows when a user's profile is "unreadable" or may problem. Dito kasi sa user profile naka store yun mga settings na specific sa isang tao na nagla login sa Windows. Kasama na dito yun My Documents folder by default.

 

Normally, ang user profile mo ay nasa C:\Documents and Settings na folder. Kung ang username mo sa Windows, for example ay SPIDERMAN, ang user profile mo ay nasa c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN. Yun naman My Documents mo ay nasa c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN\My Documents na folder. Gagamitin natin ito as an example.

 

So pag nasira or hindi ma load ng Windows yung c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN na folder, babalik sa default yung Windows at mag a appear na nawala yun My Documents mo. Kung ang habol mo ay makuha yung contents ng My Documents mo, pwede ka mag login as a different user to examine yung c:\Documents and settings na folder. Check mo kung nandon yung SPIDERMAN na folder, or in your case, yun folder na kapangalan ng username mo. Kailangan lang mag login ka as a user na may administrative rights sa lahat ng folder sa drive C. Otherwise, hindi mo mao open kahit nandun pa yung folder mo.

 

Once makita at ma open mo yung c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN\My Documents (example lang ito remember), pwede mo na i copy sa ibang folder or sa ibang drive yung contents. Pag nagawa mo yun, solve na problem mo.

So paano kung wala yun c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN na folder? Kailangan mo na gumamit ng unerase program para subukan ma retrieve yun files mo. Pwede dyan yung freeware na PC Inspector File Recovery or yung may bayad na GetDataBack for NTFS or GetDataBack for FAT depende sa type ng file system ng Windows mo. Pero ang important thing to remember ay hwag mo i install ang mga program na ito sa drive na dating kinalalagyan ng files mo. Lalo mo lang hindi maibabalik ang My Documents mo or files na gusto mo ma recover pag na overwrite sila ng new programs.

 

Eh paano naman kung nandun nga yun profile mo pero hindi mo naman ma open? Kailangann i -check mo yung access rights mo dun sa folder. Kaya very important na mag login ka as an administrator sa Windows para magawa mo ito. Yung administrator lang at yung owner lang nung folder by default ang pwede kasi gumawa nun.

 

Sana nakatulong kahit paano.

 

 

For more information, FREE articles and answers visit freeboxofinfo.com