Land protest

I am in Cebu today, October 24, 2008.
I took the morning flight from Manila, and in a couple of minutes will be hopping on a return flight.
I attended a hearing, a land dispute among relatives.
The land is located in Daanbantayan Cebu.
But our hearing is in the Provincial Environment and anatural Resources Office.
My clients' predescessors own the land, having bought is in 1920.
However, in 1980, some of my clients' relatives who were allowed to live on the land, claimed a portion of it.
They applied for a free patent.
A free patent is grant given by the government allowing beneficiaries to own a piece of public land.
My clients protested, alleging that the land is not properly subject of free patent because it is private land.
The adversaries then rely on a deed of sale purportedly exected by my clients' predescessors, and claimed it was conveyed to them.
My cleints now say which is which?
Are the relatives claiming the land to be public, in which case, they claim it via free patent proceedings?
Or are the relatives claiming the land is prviate, thereby claiming it via a deed of conveyance?
It cannot be both.
The land is either public or private.
Nothing in between.

Adverse claim

An adverse claim is a legal remedy for any person who may have a stake or claim upon registered property.
A person who has a claim upon a certain real property will make a sworn statement and file it with the register of deeds.
The register of deeds will inscribe the claim in the title so that the entire world will be informed that there is a person making a claim over a certain property.
The adverse effects of any adverse claim is that persons will be wary in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
Banks for instance, will not easily approve loans where the collaterals are registered property with an adverse claim.
Actually banks won't.
The general rule is that an adverse claim serves as a warning to people to be careful in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
But my client, Manny, a real estate broker says this general rule is not always applicable and there are exceptions.
He said that registered properties in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig for instance have adverse claims from the city of Makati.
This means that for every title of real property in Taguig, the city of Makati registered an adverse claim.
Manny says people dealing with real properties in Taguig always make sure that the titles have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
If there is no such adverse claim, a doubt ensues on the authenticity of the title.
Manny says people feel more secure if the titles of properties in Fort Bonifacio have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
This means that the property is genuine.
It means the property is valuable.It is coveted.
Weird, right?

Got Broker ID

I just got my real estate broker ID.

It is issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection.

In Makati City, the Department of Trade is a major department that is located in various buildings along Jupiter Street.

So it quite confusing, if you don't know your way around.

There is a DTI office along Jupiter Street, and another in a building a ferw blocks away. Still another (National Capital Region) at Trafalgar, dela Costa Street.

The practice of real estate brokers are regulated by the government.

However, my impression is that the regulatory laws lack teeth, to such extent that there is really no difference between a licensed real estate broker and a non-licensed.

I am not aware of any person who acted as a broker despite not having any license, and was penalized.

As I said, anybody can act as broker.

Just get a special power of attorney from the seller.

If there are going to be more effective regulations to the practice of real estate brokerage, then there have to be tougher laws against unlawful practice.

Real estate cases

Last Friday, I attended two court hearings, both of them relating to real estate.
In one case, I am acting as legal counsel of a mortgagor, owner of a land whose land has been foreclosed.
I am asking the court to annul the mortgage.
My client's contention is that the bank breached their loan agreement for over-charging her on her monthly amortizations.
The over-charge was passed off as Value Added Tax collection, when at that time, the banks were non-VAT enterprises, meaning, banks were not supposed to collect VAT.
In the other case, my client, a real estate developer was included as a defendant by homeowners.
The homeowners were complaining that the landowner adjacent to their lots was harrassing them, claiming the lots encroached on the neighbor's land.
The homeowners, seeking an injunction, claim they are buyers in good faith.
The inluced my client the developer since it was the one who sold the lots to them in ---can you believe this--- 1983.
My client's defense: laches.
Whatever it is that the neighboring landower is claiming against the homeowners, it slept over it for the last twenty five years.
The titles of the homeowners are indefeasible.