1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

large sum to phil

Discussion in 'Money Matters' started by RobH, Oct 30, 2017.

  1. RobH
    Offline

    RobH New Member

    Yes I think this is the one to go for it is expensive, but theres less messing around in the immigration offices, and they help with a lot of other things as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. DavidAlma
    Offline

    DavidAlma Active Member

    In response to earlier comments about not being able to own property in Philippines, that is not correct. You can as a foreigner own property, but not the land. The land title has to be in a citizens name.
    Why not jump on a plane to Philippines, visa on arrival, and open a bank account in your own name and transfer the funds from the sale of your house in UK directly to your own account in Philippines.
  3. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member

    So your house is on HER land and SHE wants you off and is prepared to file a case in a local court to get you off..SHE is also unwilling to sell HER land. Whats next?
    (Actually..The house is only 50% your`s if you are married.)
    For the most probable answer to that question ,check out the many court transcripts that are online today..
    If it saves you any time,I have never read one of them that has had a positive result for the Kano.
    I have seen transcripts from the lower court that have awarded favourably to foreigners but then SHE elevated the case to the supreme court where he loses it all.
    Not a pretty picture so buyer beware and arm yourself with facts before any major purchase is my advice.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. graham59
    Offline

    graham59 Well-Known Member

    ... Agree. Please THINK before you rush to spend spend spend in the Philippines.

    You will be treading a well-trodden path, and there will be plenty waiting back here to say 'I told you so'.

    Spend what you can comfortably afford to lose, without it destroying the rest of your life. Then at least you can relax and (hopefully) enjoy your retirement there.
  5. OTT
    Offline

    OTT Member

    Is it only the uk where any foreigner can easily buy and own land or property if they have sufficient money , or are other countries also that liberal ?

    I know Philippines and Thailand have the same policy regarding non nationals owning land , are there any others does anyone know ? Just out of interest .
  6. Jim
    Offline

    Jim Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Plenty of countries where foreigners can own land, just google.
  7. DavidAlma
    Offline

    DavidAlma Active Member

    You are correct that by her owing the land, she can obstruct my access to the house, which is obviously a major issue. However, I have discussed this subject with 2 independent lawyers, specializing in these matters and have been assured that providing I can prove that I provided all of the finances to build the house, then it is indeed 100% mine. In the UK, following a legal separation or divorce, the ex is entitled to at least 50% of the marital home and more if there are children involved plus her share of any other assets, bank accounts, savings etc etc. Ask me how I know, so I don't feel the risk here is all that much worse than back home.
  8. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member

    Ask your lawyers what "absolute community" means once married and ask them why they still think that you own 100% of the house!
    Lawyers here will often tell us what we want to hear..Just before we pay them!
    I`d be interested in what they have to say.


    https://jlp-law.com/blog/system-of-absolute-community-property-relations-in-marriage/

    What constitutes community property?


    Unless otherwise provided by law or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter. Property acquired during the marriage is PRESUMED to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom.

    What properties are excluded from the community property?

    (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title (by donation and by testate/intestate succession) by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;

    (2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;

    (3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Bootsonground
    Offline

    Bootsonground Well-Known Member

    Case Digest: MULLER vs MULLER


    IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY; MULLER VS. MULLER

    G.R. No. 149615, August 29,2006

    Doctrine:

    He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller and respondent Helmut Muller were married in Hamburg, Germany on September 22, 1989. The couple resided in Germany at a house owned by respondent’s parents but decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines in 1992. By this time, respondent had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal at the cost of P528,000.00 and the construction of a house amounting to P2,300,000.00. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of petitioner, Elena Buenaventura Muller.

    Due to incompatibilities and respondents alleged womanizing, drinking, and maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated.

    On September 26, 1994, respondent filed a petition for separation of properties before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The court granted said petition. It also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage. With regard to the Antipolo property, the court held that it was acquired using paraphernal funds of the respondent. However, it ruled that respondent cannot recover his funds because the property was purchased in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution.

    The respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the RTC. It held that respondent merely prayed for reimbursement for the purchase of the Antipolo property, and not acquisition or transfer of ownership to him. It ordered the respondent to REIMBURSE the petitioner the amount of P528,000.00 for the acquisition of the land and the amount of P2,300,000.00 for the construction of the house situated in Antipolo, Rizal.

    Elena Muller then filed a petition for review on certiorari.

    Issue:

    Whether or not respondent Helmut Muller is entitled to reimbursement.

    Ruling:

    No, respondent Helmut Muller is not entitled to reimbursement.

    Ratio Decidendi:

    There is an express prohibition against foreigners owning land in the Philippines.

    Art. XII, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “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.”

    In the case at bar, the respondent willingly and knowingly bought the property despite a constitutional prohibition. And to get away with that constitutional prohibition, he put the property under the name of his Filipina wife. He tried to do indirectly what the fundamental law bars him to do directly.

    With this, the Supreme Court ruled that respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly.
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page