Table of Contents

Chapters Pages

I. Legal Requirements of Property Ownership

II. Code of Ethics & Responsibilities

III. Fundamentals of Property Ownership

IV. Real Estate Brokerage Practice

V. Subdivision Development

VI. Condominium Concepts & other types of Real Estate Holdings

VII. Real Estate Finance & Economics

VIII. Basic Principles of Ecology

IX. Urban& Rural land use

X. Planning, Development & Zoning

XI. Legal Aspects of Sales, Lease & Mortgage

XII. Documentation & Registration

XIII. Real Property Laws & Taxation

XIV. Other related topics

Basic Principles of Real Estate Appraisal

Site Location & Maps Reading

Public land survey

Salient features of Pag-ibig Housing Financing (HDMF)

Q&A

I

Fundamentals of Property Ownership

REGALIAN DOCTRINE

All Lands of the public domain belong to the state*. "All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential

energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.

With the exception of agricultural lands and all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration

development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The

State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-

sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose

capital is owned by such citizens.

x x x" [Sec. 2. Art. XII]

I. RIGHT TO OWN LAND

The right to own real estate in the Philippines is governed by: A. Constitution [1987 Philippine Constitution] and

Art.XII. Sec. 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Art. XII. Sec.4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their

act or omission they are deemed, under by law, to have renounced it.

Art.XII. Sec.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. Art. XII. Sec.8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of the article, a natural- born citizen of the

Philippine citizenship may be transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. B. Other Special or Pertinent Laws

II. LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 1. Lands of the public domain are classified into:

(1) agricultural,

(2) forest or timber,

(3) mineral, and

(4) national parks.

2. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. 3. Private corporations and associations may hold such alienable lands of the public domain only by lease,for a

period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years, and not to exceed 1,000 has.

4. Filipino citizens may lease not more than 500 hectares, or acquire not more than 12 hectares by purchase,

homestead, or grant.

III. STEWARD CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP Ownership carries with it a distinct social obligation. As stewards of their land, owners are obliged to use their

properties to promote not only their properties to promote not only their interest but also the general welfare.

When a person's landholdings exceed the requirements of his needs, or their utilization is not conducive to general

welfare, the state may exercise its power to regulate and control ownership.

IV. BUNDLE OF RIGHTS THEORY

This refers to the rights or attributes which are inherent in, or appurtenant to ownership, and include

the rights.

to possess

to use,

to the fruits,

to dispose, and

to recover

V. RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS TO BUNDLE OF RIGHTS

1. Government or Legal:

a. Zoning - refers to use restrictions in particular areas or the delineation of allowable uses in

particular areas.

b. Subdivision Regulations - requirements which must be complied within subdivision

specifications, etc.,

c. Police Power - the power of the state to regulate the use of the property d. Building Code - regulations pertaining to specifications such as height, setbacks

e. Eminent Domain - the power of the State to take the private property for public use upon

payment of just compensation. f. Escheat - the reversion of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just

compensation. g. Taxation - power of the State to impose and collect tax and other charges. 2. Contractual or Voluntary: a. Lease Contract - the temporary surrender of the right to possess, use and enjoy in favor of

person who pays a consideration. b. Right of Way Easement - the right given to an owner of an adjoining land to pass or have

access thru another land. c. Usufruct - conveyance of the right to enjoy the fruits of the property.

d. Use Restrictions in Subdivision Contract

BUNDLE

OF

RIGHTS

VI. ESTATE AND REAL ESTATE Estate - refers to the totality of the assets owned by a person which includes real estate

and personal properties.

Real State - refers to the land and all permanent improvements thereon.

VII. CONCEPT OF TITLE

"TITLE" is not synonymous with the Torrens Certificate of Title. It is a term which means evidence or proof of

ownership, such as tax declaration, realty tax receipts, deed of sales, and Torrens Certificate of Title.

The best evidence of ownership of title is the Torrens Certificate of Title because it is imprescriptible and

indefeasible. A person is deemed to have title to a property when he can exercise or has the bundle of rights over

it.

VIII. MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE 1. Private Grant - voluntary transfer or conveyance such as sale or transfer. 2. Public Grant - acquisition of alienable public land by homestead patent, free patent,

sales patent, or other government award. 3. Involuntary Grant - acquisition against consent of owner, such as foreclosure or executive

sale. 4. Inheritance - acquisition by hereditary succession. 5. Reclamation - filling of submerged land subject to government regulations and

existing laws.

6. Accretion - acquisition of land adjoining banks of rivers due to gradual deposit of

soil.

7. Prescription - acquisition of title by actual, open continuous and uninterrupted

possession for a period of time under claim of title.

- Ten (10) years in good faith and

- Thirty (30) years if in bad faith. IX. GENERAL RULE ON OWNERSHIP OF LAND 1. Only Filipino citizens

1. By birth 2. Naturalization Process 3. Act of Congress 4. Repatriation 5. Dual Citizenship

2. Corporations or partnership at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos are

entitled to acquire land in the Philippines.

.

NOTE: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF HOUSE/IMPROVEMENTS A foreigner may own a house and improvements, which may be constructed on the land owned by a

Filipino [e.g. under lease] EXCEPTIONS

1. As exceptions to the general cases to the rule, alien acquisition of real estate in the Philippines is allowed in the

following cases.

a) Acquisition before the 1935 Constitution;

b) Acquisition by hereditary succession [LEGAL HEIR] ;

c) Purchase by aliens of not more than 40% of the units in a condominium project;

d) Purchase by former natural-born Filipino citizens, subject to the by law requirements or

limitations prescribed.

Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 185 (B.P. 185)

aa) Acquisition shall not exceed

- 1,000 square meters for urban land or

- 1 hectare for rural land to be used solely for residence of the buyer WHAT IS URBAN LAND?

Urban land shall refer to land located in an urban area. The urban areas shall include:

(1) In their entirety, all municipal jurisdictions which, whether designated or not as chartered cities,

provisional capitals, have population density of at least 1,000 persons per square kilometer;

(2) Poblaciones or central districts of municipalities and cities which have a population density of at least

500 persons per square kilometer;

(3) Poblaciones or central districts (not included in 1 and 2 above) regardless of population size which

have the following:

(a) A street pattern, i.e., a network of streets in either at parallel or right angle orientation; and

(b) At least six establishments (commercial, manufacturing, recreational and/ or personal

services); and

(c) At least three of the following:

1. A town hall, church or chapel with religious services at least once a month;

2. A public plaza or cemetery;

3. A market place or building where trading activities are carried on at least once a week; and

4. A public building like a school, hospital, puericulture and health center or library.

(d) Barangays having at least 1,000 inhabitants which meet the conditions set forth in the

preceding subparagraph [sub-par. (3)] and in which the occupation of the inhabitants is

predominantly other than farming or fishing.

Rural lands shall refer to land located in a rural area. The rural areas shall refer to all the areas of the Philippines

which do not meet the conditions set forth in the definition of urban areas in the immediately preceding paragraph

(par. 3) of this Section. (Sec. 1. IRR. BP 185)

bb) In case of married couples, one or both of them may avail of the privilege provided that the total area shall

not exceed the maximum limit.

cc) When the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purpose, he shall be entitled to acquire

additional urban or rural land for residential purpose which, when added to those already owned by him shall not

exceed maximum area allowed by law.

BP 185: Mechanics for registration of transfer

No deed of conveyance in favor of a transferee under Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 shall be registered by the Register

of Deeds unless accompanied by a sworn statement showing the;

1. date and place of the transferee's birth;

2. names and addresses of his parents, of his spouse and children if any;

3. area, location and mode of acquisition of his landholdings in the Philippines if any;

4. his intention to reside permanently in the Philippines;

5. date he lost his Philippine citizenship, and

6. country of which he is presently a citizen.

The sworn statement herein above mentioned shall be in addition to the documentary requirements prescribed as

prerequisites for the registration of titles under existing law and regulation. (Sec.4, IRR. BP 185)

Under Foreign Investments Act of 1991

e) Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter

into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land.

aa) up to a maximum area of five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or 3

hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other purposes.

bb) In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: provided that if

both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.

cc) In the case of the transferee already owns urban or rural land for business or other purposes, he shall

still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land for business or other purposes which when

added to those already owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized.

dd) A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two (2) lots which should be situated in

different municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines: Provided. That the total land area thereof

shall not exceed

- five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or

- three (3) hectares in the case of rural land

- for use by him for business or other purposes.

A transferee who has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from acquiring rural land and

vice versa".(Sec.10. RA 7042 as amended by R.A 8179. Approved March 28,1996)

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF RA 7042 (As amended by Republic Act No.8179)

SECTION 5. Land acquired under this Act shall be primarily, directly and actually used by the transferee in the

performance or conduct of his business or commercial activities in the broad areas of

1. agriculture

2. industry and

3. services,

4. including the lease of land.

but excluding the buying and selling thereof.

A transferee shall use his land to engage in activities that are not included in Negative List or in those areas

wherein investment rights have been granted to him under this Act.

2. A Filipina who married an alien retains her Philippine Citizenship (unless by her act or omission she is

deemed under the laws to have renounced her Philippine Citizenship) and may therefore acquire real estate in the

Philippines.

3. A former natural-born citizen of the Philippines who became of another country and reacquires Filipino

citizenship under R.A. No. 9225(Dual Citizenship Law).

d. DUAL CITIZENSHIP LAW [REPUBLIC ACT NO.9225 ]

AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN

CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63 AS

AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of

2003."

SEC.2.Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the state that all Philippine citizens who

become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the

conditions of this Act.

SEC.3. RETENTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP - Any provision of law to contrary notwithstanding,

natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization

as citizens of a foreign country hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the

following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

"I , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and depend the Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines:

and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true

faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation

or purpose of evasion."

Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country

shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

SEC. 4 Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of

those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizens of the

Philippines.

SEC. 5 Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under this

Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under

existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under

Sec.1,Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as the, "The

Overseas Absentee Voting Act of2003".and other existing laws. (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such

public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws, and at the time of the filing of the certificate of

candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all the foreign citizenship before any public

authorized to administer an oath;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the

Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of

office: Provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took

that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper

authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and

(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be

exercised by, or extended to, those who:

(a) Are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which

they are naturalized citizens; and/or

(b) Are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the

armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.

SEC.6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other

or provision not affected thereby shall remain valid and effective.

SEC. 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this

Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC.8. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the

Official Gazette or two newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.

EFFECTIVITY : SEPTEMBER 18, 2003

PUBLICATION : SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 (Manila Times and Today)

APPROVED BY GMA : AUGUST 29, 2003

X. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF WAIVER

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS

KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

PANGASIWAAN SA PATALAAN NG LUPAIN

(LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY)

East Avenue cor. NIA Road

Quezon City

In RE: Consulta

REGISTRAR of DEEDS FOR

PUERTO PRINCESA CITY,

Petitioner. CONSULTA No. 3543

CONSULTA No. 3554

X***********************X

R E S O L U T I O N

May a Filipina who contracted marriage with an alien husband after the passage of the Family Code and

has acquired real property in the Philippines through a Deed of Absolute Sale register the same in her own

exclusive name? This is the very issue that this consulta seeks to resolve.

The instant case actually involves two months (2) consultas. These consultas were consolidated

considering they were mistakenly docketed separately, they actually involve the same issues, the same set of

documents sought to be registered, the same property and the same parties.

From the records of case, the facts are as follows:

On April 27, 1999,Nelly Rodriguez, A Filipino citizen, and Estratios N. Varsamos, a Greek national got

married without an ante-nuptial agreement at the Greek Embassy in the country of Abu Dhabi. That, sometime in

July 4, 2002,Nelly Rodriguez-Versamos bought a parcel of land described as Lot No. 3787 of Pls - 1117-D with

an area of 30,355 sq. m. located at Brgy Luzvminda, Puerto Princesa City, covered by OCT No. 568 issued by the

Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City. The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the registered owner, Joseph

Ibanez Genon dated July 4, 2002 in favor herein petitioner, was presented for registration to the Register of Deeds

who however entertained doubts as to its registrability in view of Consulta No. 2738 promulgated on June

30,2000,wherein this Authority ruled against the registration of a sale in favor of a Filipina who is married to a

foreigner on the ground that, under the Family Code, in the absence of an agreed property regime, the spouses are

deemed to have adopted an absolute community property regime. Under this system, which supposedly makes the

foreigner spouse a co-owner of real property acquired by the Filipino spouse, the constitutional fiat prohibiting

aliens from acquiring lands in the Philippines should apply.

Hence, this Consulta.

The seeming complication was brought about by the advent of Article 93 of the Family Code which

pertinently provides that;

Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that

it one of those excluded therefrom.

From the aforequoted provision of law, it is clear that under the regime of absolute community, all properties

acquired during marriage are presumed to belong to the community. Pescinding from the basic principle. It is

axiomatic, that all properties acquired by either spouse during the existence of that absolute community, shall be

presumed to be co-owned by both spouses, such that a foreigner husband married to a Filipina wife shall be a co-

owner with respect to that property. That presumption of co-ownership is however merely created by fiction law.

As a matter of fact, Article 90 of the Family Code even provides that: "The provision on co-ownership shall

apply to the absolute community of property between the spouses in all matters not provided in this Chapter".

However, that "[T]he partnership having been created by law, it has no object and it is unsafe to extend it on

pretext of tacit consent."(Gutierrez, 3d Ed., vol. 1,p. 579, cited in Nable Jose,41 Phil. 713) "Which means that

either of the spouses holds merely an inchoate right over the co-owned property, a mere right of expectancy,

because of it will be discovered during the liquidation of the marriage that there is no absolute community

property to be divided, there will be no share for either husband or the wife" (supra). Moreover, as Article 93 of

the family Code further provides, the presumption of co-ownership of properties acquired during the existence of

the absolute community is a rebuttable one, "unless it is proved that it is one of those (properties) excluded there

from." Thus, if a Filipina spouse buys a certain real property in the Philippines under her name she acquired the

same in her personal individual capacity and intends to put the same under her individual name, not under the

legal fiction of the Absolute community. Stated otherwise, her marriage to an alien spouse merely created a legal

presumption of co-ownership which will not in anyway deprive her of her right to acquire real properties in the

Philippines in her own right.

A natural born citizen's right to acquire real property is a basic right enshrined in the constitution. In this

regard, the interplay of four (4) basic constitutional provisions should be enlightening, thus:

Art.XII. Sec.3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Art.XII. Sec.4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or

omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Art.XII. Sec. 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

Art.XII.Sec.8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.7 of this article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who

has lost his Philippine citizenship may be transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.

Certainly in the case at bar, there is no showing that the registrant Filipina spouse is not qualified to own real

property in the Philippines nor it is shown that she possesses any of the disqualification. The fact that she

married a Greek husband does not automatically make her Greek. The Constitution requires a positive act of

renunciation of citizenship, i.e, by naturalization in a foreign state or by taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign

country, before a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship. None of these conditions are obtaining in the instant

case.

Applying now these constitutional provisions in relation to the provisions in the relation to the Family Code

provision cited above, it goes without saying that if we deny registration of a Deed of Sale of land in favor of the

Filipina spouse by mere reason that it shall ultimately redound to the benefit of the absolute community which as

discussed earlier, is a mere legal fiction of co-ownership. Certainly this is an absurd spectacle. A regime of

absolute community of property has no citizenship. This is not within preview of the constitutional prohibition

against aliens owning lands in the Philippines. We should not be confused that here, it is the Filipina wife who is

buying the land and not the absolute community regime.

It is so fundamental in our jurisdiction that a mere statutory provision of law cannot constrict, delimit or

otherwise expand a basic constitutional principle. To deny the Filipina wife the registration of her Deed of Sale is

a direct affront on her basic constitutional right as it will unnecessarily constrict and unjustly deprive her of her

right to own lands in the Philippines. The Family Code cannot prevail over the constitution in view of the basic

principle in law that the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land, all other laws must be subordinate to it.

In addition, the denial of registration of a Deed of Sale of land in favor of the Filipina spouse married to a

foreigner is a great inequity which evens the Constitution looks upon with disfavor. In this regard, it is apropos to

mention Section 8 &Art.XII of the Constitution, which provides that even natural born Filipino citizen who has

lost his/her citizenship may still acquire lands or be a transferee of private lands in the Philippines, subject to

limitations provided by law. A still valid law - Batas Pambansa Bilang 185- implements the constitutional

provision as it allows a former Filipino citizen who has lost and or renounced his Filipino citizenship, to be a

transferee of private land in the Philippines, subject to certain limitations. Applying the statutory provision in the

case at bar, we will be placing the Filipina registrant who has not lost her citizenship nor renounced her Filipino

citizenship at a rather iniquitous and lesser standing if we deny registration of her title.

The Authority is not unaware in the past, it has accepted practice that before a Filipino a wife married to an

alien husband registers a real property under her name , the Registrar of Deeds, as a matter of pre-requisite,

requires that an "Affidavit of Waiver of Rights" executed by the foreigner spouse must also be presented. This

authority finds that such requirement finds no basis in law as it directly collides with Article 89 of the Family

Code which provides that "no waiver of rights, interests, shares and effects of the absolute community of property

during the marriage can be made except in judicial separation property" or "after the marriage has been dissolved

or annulled". This provision precisely applies to voluntary waiver, the reason being to avoid undue influence

between the spouses, and does not, therefore, affect judicial transfers. Thus, in the light of the foregoing

ratiocination, we opine that the requirement of such "Affidavit of the Waiver of Rights" has become a mere

surplus age as it serves no useful purpose, other than being void.

WHEREFORE, in view hereof, this Authority rules and so holds that the Deed OF Absolute Sale covering

transfer of lot No. 3787, Pls-1117D with an area if 20,355 sq. m. located at Luzvminda, Puerto Princesa City,

covered by OCT No. 568 in favor of Nelly Rodriguez Versamos, is registrable, provided that all requirements for

its registrability are complied with.

Consulta No. 2738 and all other consultas inconsistent with this ruling are deemed to be abandoned and or

superseded.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, March 12, 2003

HON. BENEDICTO B. ULEP

Administrator

XI. SELECTED SUPREME COURT CASES

ACQUISITION OF LAND BY FOREIGNERS

1. G.R. No. L-630 November 15, 1947

ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY

OF MANILA, respondent and appellee.

PERTINENT PORTIONS OF DECISION IN KRIVENKO vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS

"Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:

Save in the 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.

Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence,

they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands. The primary purpose of the constitutional provision is the

conservation of the national patrimony. In the case of Krivenko v Register of Deeds, the Court held:

Under section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural

land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino

citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may

easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens.

It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included in Article XIII, and it reads as follows;

"Sec.5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except

to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the

Philippines."

This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural resources may leak into

aliens' hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all,

they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens. x

x x

x x x x

If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly

agricultural, the result would be that " aliens may freely acquire and possess not only residential lots and houses

for themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and that " they may validly buy and hold in

their names lands of any area for buildings homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools, health

and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are

not, in appellant's words strictly agricultural." (Solicitor General's Brief, p.6.) That this is obnoxious to the

conservative spirit of the Constitution is beyond question."

- - - - - - - - - -0- - - - - - - - - -

2. BORROMEO VS. DESCALLAR

G.R. No. 159310, February 24, 2009

"WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF A FOREIGNER WHO ACQUIRED LAND VS. FILIPINA GIRLFRIEND IN

WHOSE NAME THE TCT WAS PLACED UNDER

This is the issue discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Borromeo vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310,

February 24, 2009.

The facts are stated in the decision are:

Jambrich, an Austrian arrived in the Philippines in 1983 being assigned in the country and was transferred to

Cebu and met and fell in love with a separated Filipina [herein referred to as respondent with two kids and who

had no means of livelihood. Thereafter, they bought their house and lots but the Register of Deeds refused

registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the ground that Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable

lands of the public domain and therefore his name was erased and the titles issued in the name of the Filipina.

In 1986, Jambrich sold his rights and interests in the said property to a Filipino buyer, Borromeo, [the petitioner in

this case] to pay for his debt but when Borromeo sought to register the deed assignment, he discovered that the

titles to the lots had been transferred to the name of the Filipina and that the same had been mortgaged.

The buyer, Borromeo then filed a complaint for recovery of the properties. The Filipina girlfriend claimed that she

bought it with her own funds and that Jambrich being a foreigner, was not entitled to own a land in the

Philippines. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the buyer and declared him to be the owner

of the properties since the facts show that the Filipina had no means of livelihood or funds to have bought the

property.

The Filipina appealed and the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals stating that the foreigner Jambrich,

could not have acquired land being a foreigner.

The buyer, Borromeo, appealed by way of petition to the Supreme Court which stated the issues;

1. Who purchased the subject properties?

2. What is the effect of registration of the properties in the name of the Filipina?

In upholding the decision of the lower court, the Supreme Court stated:

The evidence presented showed that Jambrich had all the authority to transfer all his rights, interests and

participation in the subject properties by the virtue of the Deed of Assignment to the buyer, Borromeo, as it was

shown that the funds to purchase the properties came from the Jambrich, who was therefore the true buyer of the

property, and

"Further, the fact that the disputed properties were acquired during the couple's cohabitation does not help the

respondent. The rule that co-ownership applies to a man and woman living exclusively with each other as

husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, but otherwise capacitated to marry each other does not apply.

In the instant case, the respondent was still legally married to another when she and Jambrich lived together. In

such adulterous relationship, no co- ownership exists between the parties. It is necessary for each of the partners

to prove his or her actual contribution in the acquisition of property in order to be able to claim any portion of it.

Presumptions of co- ownership and equal contribution do not apply."

As to the registration of the properties in the name of the Filipina, the Supreme Court said,

"It is settled that the registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a means of confirming the fact of

its existence with notice to the world at large. Certificates of title are not a source of right. The mere possession of

a title does not make one true owner of the property. This is the situation in the instant case. Respondent did not

contribute a single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She and her two properties were then fully

supported by Jambrich."

As to the capacity of Jambrich, being an alien, to acquire land, the Supreme Court said,

"xxxx the transfer of land to Jambrich, who is an Austrian, would have been declared invalid if challenged, had

not Jambrich conveyed the properties to petitioner who is a Filipina citizen. xxxxxx

The rationale behind the Court's ruling in the United Church Board for World Ministries, as reiterated in the

subsequent cases, is this - since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation's land for future generations of

Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino

citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is

already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected.

The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved."

3. MULLER VS. MULLER, G. R. No. 149625, August 29, 2006

IN REPITITION FOR

SEPARATION OF PROPERTY

ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER,

-versus-

HELMUT MULLER,

"Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence,

they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands. The primary purpose of the constitutional provision is the

conservation of the national patrimony. In the case of Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, the Court held:

xxxxxx

Thus, in the instant case, respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he

willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition.

Further, the distinction made between transfers of ownership as opposed to recovery of funds is a futile exercise

on respondent's part. To allow reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property

which he is not allowed to own. Thus, it is likewise prescribed by law. As expressly held in Cheesman v.

Intermediate Appellate Court:

4. CHEESEMAN VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991

THOMAS C. CHEESEMAN, petitioner, vs.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT:

Finally, the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973

Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed

except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain."

Petitioner Thomas Cheeseman was, of course, charged with knowledge of this prohibition. Thus, assuming that it

was his intention that the lot in question be purchased by him and his wife, he acquired no right whatever over the

property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right or interest in land, vicariously and

clandestinely, he knowingly violated the Constitution; the sale as to him was null and void. In any event, he had

and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory

that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain

such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be

declared conjugal, this would accord in the alien husband a not substantial interest and right over land, as he

would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not

permit him to have.

As already observed, the finding that his wife had used her own money to purchase the property cannot and will

not at this stage of the proceedings be reviewed and overturned. But even if it were a fact that said wife had used

conjugal funds to make the acquisition, the considerations just set out to militate on high constitutional grounds,

against his recovering and holding the property so acquired, or any part thereof. And whether in such an event, he

may recover from his wife any share of the money used for the purchase or charge her with unauthorized

disposition or expenditure of conjugal funds is not now inquired into, that would be, in the premises, a purely

academic exercise. (Emphasis added)

XII. LEASING OF REAL PROPERTIES BY FOREIGNERS [SALIENT FEATURES]

REPUBLIC ACT NO.7652

AN ACT ALLOWING THE LONG-TERM LEASE OF PRIVATE LANDS BY FOREIGN INVESTORS

Section 1. Title This Act shall be known as the "Investors' Lease Act".

Sec.2. Declaration of Policy It is hereby declared the policy of the State to encourage foreign investments consistent with the constitutional mandate to conserve and develop our own patrimony. Towards this end, the

State hereby adopts a flexible and dynamic policy of the granting of long-term lease on private lands to foreign

investors for the establishment of industrial estates, factories, assembly or processing plants, agro-industrial

enterprises, land development for industrial, or commercial use, tourism and other similar priority productive

endeavors.

Sec.3. Definitions For purposes of this act, unless the context indicates otherwise, the term: (1) "Investing in the Philippines" shall mean making an equity investment in the Philippines through actual

remittance of foreign exchange or transfer of assets, whether in the form of capital goods, patents,

formulas or other technological rights or processes, upon registration with the Securities and Exchange

Commission; and

(2)" Withdrawal of approved investment" shall mean either: (a) the failure to operate the investment project for

any three (3) consecutive years; or (b) outright abandonment of the investment project at any time during the

approved lease period: Provided, that failure to pay lease rental for three (3) consecutive months coupled with the

failure to operate the investment project for the same period shall be deemed as outright abandonment of the

project.

Sec.4. Coverage Any foreign investor investing in the Philippines shall be allowed to lease private lands in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines subject to the following conditions:

(1) No lease contract shall be for a period exceeding fifty (50) years, renewable once for a period of not

more than twenty-five (25) years;

(2) The leased area should solely for the purpose of the investment upon the mutual agreement of the parties;

(3) The leased premises shall comprise such area as may reasonably be required for the purpose of the

investment subject however to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and the Local Government Code.

The leasehold right acquired under long-term lease contracts entered into pursuant of this Act may be sold,

transferred, or assigned: Povided. That when the buyer, transferee, or assignee is a foreigner or a foreign-owned

enterprise, the conditions and limitations in respect to the used of the leased property as provided for under this

Act shall continue to apply.

Sec.5. Limitations (1) Foreign individuals, corporations, associations, or partnerships not otherwise investing in the Philippines as defined herein shall continue to be covered by Presidential Decree No. 427 and other existing

laws in lease of lands to foreigners.

(2) Withdrawal of the approved investment in the Philippines within the period of the lease agreement

entered into under this Act, or use of the leased area of the purpose other than that authorized, shall

warrant the ipso facto termination of the lease agreement without the prejudice to the right of the lessor to be

compensated for the damages he may have suffered thereby.

(3) Any lease agreement under this Act which is renewable at the option of the lessee subject to the same

terms and conditions of the original contract shall be interpreted to mean as renewable upon the mutual

agreement of the parties.

(4) In addition to the conditions for the renewal of a lease agreement after the period of fifty (50) years as

provided herein, the foreign lease shall show that it has made social and economic contributions to the

country.

(5) In the case of tourism projects, lease of private lands by foreign investors qualified herein shall be

limited to projects with an investment of not less than five million (5M) US dollars, seventy percent

(70% ) of which shall be infused in said project within three years from the assigning of the lease contract, Chan

Robles virtual library.

Sec. 6 Termination of Lease Contract The Secretary of Trade and Industry shall terminate any lease contract entered into under the provisions of this Act, if the investment project is not initiated within three (3) years from

the signing of the lease contract.

Approved: June 4, 1993

SUPREME COURT CASES INVOLVING

LEASE OF LAND/FOREIGNERS

Matthews vs. Taylor, G.R. 164584, [June 22, 2009],

IS THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE FILIPINA WIFE VALID WITHOUT THE

CONSENT OF THE FOREIGN HUSBAND?

It is not the uncommon that real property is placed under the name of the Filipina wife who married to a foreigner

in as much as a foreigner cannot own land in the Philippines save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions.

In such a case, may the Filipina wife lease out the property without the consent of the foreign husband?

In the Supreme Court case of Matthews vs. Taylor, G.R No. 164584, [June 22, 2009], this issue was raised

wherein the Supreme Court resolved the issue of whether the contract of lease entered into by the Filipina wife

over real property is valid despite the absence of consent of the foreign husband. The facts as stated in the

decision are as follows:

"On June 30, 1988, respondent, Benjamin A. Taylor (Benjamin), a British subject, married Joselyn C. Taylor

(Joselyn), a 17- year old Filipina. On June 9, 1989, while their marriage was subsisiting, Joselyn from Diosa M.

Martin a 1,294 square-meter lot ( Boracay property) situated at Manoc-Manoc, Boracay Island, Malay Aklan, for

and in consideration of P129,000.00. The sale was allegedly financed by Benjamin. Joselyn and Benjamin, also

using the latter's funds, constructed improvements thereon and eventually converted the property to a vacation

and tourist resort known as the Admiral Ben Bow Inn. All required permits and licenses for the operation of the

resort were obtained in the name of Ginna Celestino, Joselyn's sister.

However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a falling out, and Joselyn ran away with Kim Philippsen. On June 8, 1992.

Joselyn executed a special power of Attorney (SPA). In favor of Benjamin, authorizing the latter to maintain, sell,

lease, and sub-lease and otherwise enter into the contract with third parties with respect to their Boracay property.

On July 20, 1992, Joselyn, as lessor and petitioner Philip Matthews as lessee, entered into an Agreement of Lease

(Agreement) involving the Boracay property for a period of 25 years, with an annual rental of P 12,000.00. The

agreement was signed by the parties and executed before a Notary Public. Petitioner thereafter took possession of

the property and renamed the resort as Music Garden Resort.

Claiming that the Agreement was null and void since it was entered into by Joselyn without his (Benjamin's)

consent, Benjamin instituted an action of Declaration of Nullity of Agreement of Lease with Damages against

Joselyn and the petitioner. Benjamin claimed that his funds were used in the acquisition and improvement of the

Boracay property, and coupled with the fact that he was Joselyn's husband, any transaction involving the said

property required his consent."

Was the lease entered into by the Filipina wife without the consent of her foreign husband valid?

To this the Supreme Court said,

"In fine, we are called upon to determine the validity of an Agreement of Lease of a parcel of land entered into by

a Filipino wife without the consent of her British husband. In addressing the matter before us, we are confronted

not only with civil law or conflicts of law issues, but more importantly, with a constitutional question.

It is by undisputed that Joselyn acquired the Boracay property in 1989. Said acquisition was evidenced by a Deed

of Sale with Joselyn as the vendee. The property was also declared for taxation purposes under her name. When

Joselyn leased the property to petitioner, Benjamin sought the nullification of the contract on two grounds; first,

that he was the actual owner of the property since he provided the funds used in purchasing the same; and second,

that Joselyn could not enter into a valid contract involving the subject property without consent. x x x

Citing several decisions on the matter, the Supreme Court reiterated that, 'The rule is clear and inflexible; aliens

are absolutely not allowed to acquire public or private lands in the Philippines, save only in constitutionally

recognized exceptions. There is no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition, as more aliens attempt to

circumvent the provision by trying to own lands through another. xxxxxx

It therefore ruled as follows;

xxxxxx

In the light of the foregoing jurisprudence, we find and so hold that Benjamin has no right to nullify the

Agreement of Lease between Joselyn and petitioner. Benjamin, being an alien, is absolutely prohibited from

acquiring private and public lands in the Philippines. Considering that Joselyn appeared to be the designated

"vendee" in the Deed of Sale of said property, she acquired sole ownership thereto. This is true even if we sustain

Benjamin's claim that he provided the funds for such acquisition. By entering into such contract knowing that it

was illegal, no implied trust was created in his favor; no reimbursement for his expenses can be allowed; and no

declaration can be made that the subject property was part of the conjugal/community property of the spouses. In

any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent lease of the Boracay property by

his wife on the theory that in so doing, he was merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of the

conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would countenance in direct controversion of the constitutional

prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord the alien husband a substantial interest

and right over the land, as he would then have decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the

Constitution does not permit him to have.

In fine, the Agreement of Lease entered into between Joselyn and petitioner cannot be nullified on the grounds

advanced by Benjamin. Thus, we uphold its validity."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BASIC PROPERTY RELATIONS UNDER THE FAMILY CODE

EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE: AUGUST 03, 1988

1. BASIS OF PROPERTY RELATIONS UNDER THE FAMILY CODE

Art. 74: Family Code

1. By marriage settlements executed before the marriage

2. By provisions of this Code

3. By the local custom

2. Property Relations that may be agreed upon by future spouses in marriage settlement

I. Absolute Community of Property

II. Relative Community of Property or Conjugal Partnership of Gains

III. Complete Separation of Property

IV. Upon any other regime that may be agreed upo

In the absence of marriage settlements or when the same are void, the property relations shall be

governed as provided for below.

3. Property Relations without Marriage Settlement

Before the Family Code CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS

Under the FAMILY CODE

(Effective August 3, 1988) ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY

4. ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE TYPES OF PROPERTY RELATIONS

1. CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS

Conjugal partnership of gains presupposes that there are properties which are to be considered

conjugal and therefore owned both by the husband and the wife, while there are those properties which

still belong exclusively to each of the spouses over which they exercise exclusive ownership and

administration.

CONJUGAL PROPERTIES

The following are considered conjugal properties;

(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund,

whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

(2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of

the spouses;

(3) The fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage from the

common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each

spouse;

(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure which the law awards to the finder or

owner of the property where the treasure is found;

(5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or hunting;

(6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the partnership in excess of the number of

each kind brought to the marriage by either spouse; and

(7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as winnings from gambling or betting.

However, losses therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-spouse, (153a,

154,155,159)

PRESUMPTION OF BEING CONJUGAL PROPERTY

Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been,

contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the

country is proved.

ADMINISTRATION AND ENJOYMENT OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY

Art. 116. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses

jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for

proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such

decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration

of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not

include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the Court or the written consent of the other spouse.

In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the

transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third

person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by

the Court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.

EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES

The following properties are considered as exclusive, paraphernal or belonging only to one of the spouse:

1. That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

2. That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous or lucrative title.

3. That which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange with other property belonging to

only one of the spouse and;

4. That which is purchased with the exclusive money of the wife or the husband.

The general rule is that the conjugal properties cannot be alienated without the consent of both spouses;

while respect to exclusive properties, the owner thereof can alienate the same without the consent of the other

spouse.

EFFECTS OF SEPARATION IN FACT

Art.127. The separation in fact between the husband and wife shall not affect the regime of

conjugal partnership, except that;

(1) The spouse, who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live therein, without just cause, shall not

have the right to be supported.

(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other is required by law, judicial

authorization shall be obtained in a summary proceeding;

(3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, the separate property of both spouses

shall be solidarily liable for the support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon petition in a

summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or encumber any specific property of the

other spouse and use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter's share.

ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY

Absolute Community of Property presupposes that all the present and future properties of the spouses

shall be considered as belonging jointly to the husband and wife except the following;

1. Property acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse when it is provided by the donor or

testator that it shall not become part of the community property;

2. Property inherited by either husband or wife through the death of a child by a former

marriage, there being brothers and sisters of the full blood of the deceased child;

3. A portion of the property of either spouse equivalent to the presumptive legitimate of the

children by a former marriage; and 4. Personal belongings of either spouse. The ownership, administration and usufruct of the community property pertain to the

spouses jointly.

WAIVER OF RIGHTS

Art. 89. No waiver of rights, shares and effects of the absolute community of property during the

marriage can be made except in the case of judicial separation of property.

When the waiver takes place upon a judicial separation of property, or after the marriage has been

dissolved or annulled, the same shall appear in a public instrument and shall be recorded as

provided in Article 77. The creditors of the spouse who made such waiver may petition the Court to

rescind the waiver to the extent of the amount sufficient to cover the amount of their credits. (146a)

PRESUMPTION OF ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY PROPERTY

Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community unless it is

proved that it is one of those excluded therefrom.

OWNERSHIP, ADMINISTRATIVE, ENJOYMENT AND DISPOSITION OF COMMUNITY

PROPERTY

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses

jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife

for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such

decision.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration

of the common properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not

include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse.

In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the

transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third

person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by

the Court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. (206a)

DONATION BY SPOUSE Art.98. Neither spouse may donate any community property without the consent of the other.

However, either spouse may, without the consent of the other, make moderate donations from the

community property for charity or on occasions of family rejoicing or family distress.

III. COMPLETE SEPARATION OF PROPERTIES

If the spouse before the marriage agree on complete separation of properties, the separation may refer to

both present and future properties or it may be total or partial.

The ownership, administration and usufruct of those properties which are considered separate pertain

to the spouse to whom they belong.

Each spouse shall proportionately bear family expenses.

RIGHT TO DISPOSE, POSSESS, ADMINISTER EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY

Art. 145. Each spouse shall own, dispose of , possess, administer and enjoy his her own separate estate,

without need of the content of the other. To each spouse shall belong all earnings from his or her

profession, business or industry and all fruits, natural, industrial or civil, due or received during the marriage

from his or her separate property.

RIGHT OF SPOUSE OVER EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY Art. 110. The spouses retain the ownership, possession, administration and enjoyment of their

exclusive properties.

Either spouse may, during the marriage, transfer the administration of his or her exclusive

property to the other by means of a public instrument, which shall be recorded in the registry of

property of the place the property is located. (137a, 168a, 169a)

Art.111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber, alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her

exclusive property, without the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in the court to litigate

with regard to the same.

SEPARATION OF PROPERTY DURING MARRIAGE

Art.134. In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of

property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial

separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause. (190a)

Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of

property;

(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil

interdiction;

(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an absentee;

(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been decreed by the court;

(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his or her

obligations to the family as provided for in Article 101;

(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that

power; and

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for atleast one year and

reconciliation is highly improbable.

IV. ANY OTHER REGIME

Ex. Dowry system

MARITAL CONSENT IN DEED OF SALE

1. Marital consent is required, a) when the property relations between the spouse is one of absolute community and the

property is community property; or

b) when the property relations between the spouses is one of the conjugal partnership and

the property involved was acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of

the common fund.

2. Marital consent is NOT necessary a) when the property relations between the spouses is one of absolute separation; or

b) when the property relations between the spouses is one of conjugal partnership and the

property involved;

1. was brought into the marriage by either of the spouses [property nomenclature]

husband's exclusive property - capital wife's exclusive property - paraphernal

2. was acquired by either of the spouses by inheritance; or

3. was acquired with exclusive funds of either of the spouses.

PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE

Art. 147. When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each

other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and

salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their

work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co- ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to

have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.

For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any

property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts

consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired

during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of

their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party In bad faith in the co- ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of

or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the

respective surviving descendants. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the

cohabitation. (144a)

COHABITATION WITH MARRIED PERSON EFFECT ON PROPERTY ACQUIRED Art. 148. In case of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article only the properties acquired by

both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned

by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed

to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of

credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue

to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who

acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in the manner

provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on the forfeiture shall likewise even if both parties are in bad faith.

LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

LEGITIMATE CHILDREN

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband

or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that

both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed

by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry

together with the birth certificate of the child. (55a.25a)

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

Art.165.Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise

provided in this code.

SURNAME OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILD UNDER FAMILY CODE

Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother,

and shall be entitled to support in the conformity with this Code.

The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of a legitimate child. Except for this

modification, all other provisions in the civil code governing successional rights shall remain in

force. [Art. 176]

AS AMENDED BY RA 9225

REPUBLIC ACT No. 9225

February 24, 2004

AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER,

AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.209.OTHERWISE KNOWN

AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES"

SECTION 1.Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is

hereby amended to read as follows:

"Article 176 Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their

mother, and shall be entitled to support in the conformity with this code. However, illegitimate children

may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been

1. expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or

2. when an admission in a public document or

3. private handwritten instrument is made by the father.

Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non- filiation

during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate

child."

Approved: February 24, 2004

REPUBLIC ACT. NO. 9858

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE LEGITIMATION OF CHILDREN BORN TO PARENTS BELOW

MARRYING AGE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS

AMENDED

Section1. Article 177 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines" as

amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"Art. 177. Children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of

the former, were not disqualified only because either or both of them were below eighteen (18) years of age, may

be legitimated."

"Art. 178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The

annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation."

Approved: DEC. 20, 2009

II

CODE OF ETHICS and RESPONSIBILITIES

REAL ESTATE SERVICE/IRR PROVISIONS ON THE CODE OF ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Board. - The Board is hereby vested the following powers and

functions:

xxxxxx

F. Adopt a national Code of Ethics and Responsibilities to be strictly observed all licensed real

estate service practitioners:

xxxxxx

SEC.35. Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for Real Estate Service Practitioners. - The Board shall

adopt and promulgate the Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for real estate service practitioners which shall be

prescribed and issued by the accredited and integrated professional organization of real estate service

practitioners. / Secs. 5f and 35, also of IRR of RESA. /

NATIONAL CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE REALTY SERVICE PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION

The Realty Service Practice, a profession, calling or occupation, is dedicated to the promotion,

development including proper zonification and conservation of land and natural resources, including

improvements and rights and interests appurtenant thereto for the benefit and enjoyment of the Filipino people. As

such, those engaged therein are bound by a code of conduct, morals, and values in the performance of their and

obligations towards the obligations towards the government co-practitioners and the people they serve.

It is, therefore, imperative and necessary to adopt this NATIONAL CODE OF ETHICS for REALTY

SERVICE PRACTICE to govern the role of conduct of those who will engage therein.

ARTICLE1. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

SECTION1. - The Realty Service Practice is a noble profession, calling or occupation and those engaged

therein shall abide by and comply with all the laws, decrees, orders and rules and regulations enacted or

promulgated by duly constituted government authorities.

SECTION2 - Utmost fidelity, sincerity, respect for colleagues in the profession, and honesty shall be

observed at all times by those in the realty service practice in their relation client, the community and the nation in

general.

SECTION3 - Adequate knowledge, competence and expertise in real estate development and

management; and the upgrading of the standards of practice shall be affected when need arises; all these for, and

in the interest of the social and economic progress of the country.

SECTION4 - The spirit of camaraderie, cooperation and professional relationship by respecting the rights

of the other practitioners shall be promoted, and every organization to which they shall be encouraged to join shall

have such aims and purposes as it will set up, upgrade, and maintain a high level of integrity, honesty and

competence in the profession for the best interest the community and the nation.

SECTION5 - A high level of professional and respect relationship with colleagues in the Realty Service

Practice shall be maintained, and their dealings with each other shall always be fair, honest and just.

SECTION 6 - The Golden Rule which reads; "Treat others as you like them to treat you" shall be

observed in all the dealings and relation of the practitioners with clients, fellow practitioners, the organization to

which they belong and the general public.

ARTICLE II. SCOPE AND PURVIEW OF THE CODE

SECTION 1- As used in this code and for the purpose thereof. The Realty Service Practice shall embrace

and include all persons, partnerships or corporations who are duly licensed by the Department of Trade and

Industry in accordance with Section3(e) and (ee) of Act No. 2728 as amended by Act No. 3715 and 3969 and

Ministry Order No.39. Series of 1985 as real estate salesman, broker, appraiser or consultant and such other

practitioners as the Directors of the Department of Trade and Industry may now or hereafter license pursuant to

any law, rule or regulation that may be promulgated by the government. They shall be called Realty Service

Practitioners hereinafter known as the Practitioners.

ARTICLE III. RULES OF CONDUCT AND PRACTICE

The practitioners shall be governed by the following rules of conduct and practice;

SECTION1. Relation to the Government

(a) The practitioner should secure all the necessary licenses, permits and authority from

the Department of Trade and Industry and other government agencies as may required by law, ordinance

or rules and comply with all the requirements thereof before engaging in the same;

(b) He should pay any and all taxes, fees, dues levies or charges that the government may

impose in accordance to law, ordinance, or rules and regulations;

(c) He should help, assist and cooperate with the Department of Trade and Industry and all

government agencies and instrumentalities in the promotion, development, proper zonification and

conservation of lands and other natural resources; its improvements and rights and interests therein;

(d) He should not encourage, abet, tolerate or participate in the evasion or illegal

reduction in the payment of all taxes, fees, dues, levies or charges that may be imposed by the

government;

(e) He should not offer or agree to pay to, split or rebate any commission, fee or valuable

consideration, directly or indirectly, with any person who is not a duly licensed practitioner or to

cooperate, assist or endorse any transaction or engagement of his services in violation of any existing

law, rule or regulation;

(f) He should indicate the license number of the Certificate issued by the Department of

Trade and Industry in his letterhead, dry seal, signboard, billboard, advertisement or other

announcement in relation to the Realty Service Practice;

SECTION 2- Relation to the Public

(a) The practitioner should be imbued with a social conscience for he does not live by himself

and his family alone but he is a part of society with definite social responsibilities.

(b) He should ensure the highest and the best use of the land and the equitable distribution of

ownership, irrespective of political beliefs, cultural background, sect religion or class;

(c) He should keep himself well informed as to any movement affecting real estate in his

community, city or province, so that he may be able to contribute to the public thinking on matters

of taxation, land use, city planning, zonificaton and other programs of the government;

(d) He should cooperate with the government in protecting the public against deceptive, unfair and

unconscionable acts and practices of some unscrupulous or unlicensed practitioners, like fraud,

misrepresentation, concealment of relevant information and other related unethical practices;

(e) He ascertain all pertinent facts concerning every property, and avoid error, exaggeration,

misrepresentation, concealment of pertinent facts in dealing with the general public concerning real

estate transactions;

(f) He should not be instrumental in introducing in a neighborhood a certain character or use

of property which will tend to impair or erode property values within that neighborhood;

(g) He should not be a party to the naming of a false consideration in deed of instrument;

(h) He should keep a special bank account separate and distinct from his own funds, all

moneys received in trust for other persons, such as deposit in escrow, trust funds, clients earnest money

and similar items;

(i) In his advertisements, brochures or announcements, he should present a true picture of the

property, its improvements, or rights and interests therein including whatever liens or

encumbrances it may have, if any, and should indicate his name, firm name, address and license number

of the Certificate issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. In case of real estate salesman, he

should indicate the name, firm name and license number of the broker under whom he is employed;

(j) He should see to it that all agreement, terms and conditions, financial obligations and

commitments in a real estate transaction are in writing, duly signed by all parties concerned, and if

necessary to be properly authenticated by a Notary Public.

SECTION 3 - Relation to the Client Customer (a) T he practitioner, in accepting an appointment or Authority to act for and in behalf of a

client or customer, should pledge himself with utmost fidelity and good faith to protect

and promote the interest of his client without in any manner sacrificing the legitimate

interest of the other party in the transaction;

(b) For the sake of justice and fairness to his client who have reposed confidence in him, the

Practitioner should endeavor to be well informed of current legislation, policies and

programs of the government including proposed legislation, which may affect the interest

of his client;

(c) He should not accept any commission, fee or any valuable consideration from any party

in any transaction except from his client unless with the full knowledge and consent of all

the parties in the transaction. He shall not also introduce or work for an overprice from

either the buyer or seller except the usual standard rate of commission on any real estate

transaction;

(d) He should charge or collect only such fees or commissions as are fair and reasonable in

accordance with usual schedule of commission for Metro Manila and provinces;

(e) He should not advertise any property without authority and in any offering, the price

quoted should be in accordance with the price agreed with the owners as the offering

price.

(f) In the event that more than one formal offer on a specific property is made before the

owner has accepted a proposal, all written offers should be presented to the owner for his

decision;

(g) He should endeavor to make his client and customer concludes a fair contract

advantageous to both;

(h) He should assist his customer acquire possession and ownership of the real property

bought in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon;

(i) In case he is called upon to act as witness in a court proceeding he should give his

testimonies in the most unbiased, honest, truthful, and professional manner;

(j) As a real estate appraiser, he should not render an opinion without careful and thorough

analysis and interpretation of all factors affecting the value of the property. His counsel

and advice constitutes a professional service for which he should make a fair and

reasonable charge;

(k) As an agreement, he should not undertake to make an appraisal or render an opinion that

is outside the field of his experience and competence unless he obtains the assistance of

another practitioner familiar with such type of property or unless the facts are fully

disclosed by the client.

SECTION 4- Relations to Fellow Practitioners

(a) He should not solicit a listing which is currently listed exclusively with another broker

unless the listing agreement has expired or revoked by the owner and the owner offers to

list the same to the new broker without soliciting the same;

(b) When he accepts a listing from another broker, the agency of the broker who offers the

listing should be respected until it has expired and the property has come to the attention

of the accepting broker from a different source, or until the owner without solicitation,

offers to list with the accepting broker. Such a listing should not be passed to a third

broker or published in a daily newspaper without the knowledge and consent of the

listing broker;

(c) Signs giving notice of a property for sale, rent, lease or exchange should not be placed on

any property by more than one broker and only if authorized by the owner;

(d) He should not use information obtained by him from a listing broker through offers to

cooperate or received through multiple listing services or other sources authorized by the

listing broker for the purpose for creating a referral prospect to a third broker or for

creating a buyer's prospect, unless such is authorized by the listing broker;

(e) He should cooperate with other brokers on property listed and share the commission on

an agreed basis. Negotiations concerning property listed exclusively with one broker

should be carried with the listing broker, and not the owner, except with the consent of

the listing broker;

(f) He should not solicit or use the services of an employee or salesman of another

practitioner without the knowledge of the employer;

(g) He should not criticize publicly a competitor nor volunteer an opinion of a competitor's

transaction. If his opinion is sought, it should be rendered with professional integrity and

courtesy;

(h) The practitioners should seek no fair advantage over his fellow practitioners. In the event

of a controversy between practitioners belonging to the same organization or association,

such controversy should be submitted for arbitration to such organization or association

whose decision, if accepted by both parties, will be final and binding as far as the

association is concerned.

(j) If the controversy is between practitioners belonging to different organizations or

associations, it should be submitted to an Arbitration Board considering of one member

from each organization or association chosen by each of the parties to the controversy. A

third member should be chosen from either the organizations or association or from the

national organization or association is affiliated.

(k) In case the practitioners in a controversy are not members of any duly recognized

organization or the Arbitration Boards cannot settle the controversy, the Department of

Trade and Industry shall assume jurisdiction over said controversy;

(f) In case a complaint is filed against a practitioner with his organization or association for

unethical or unfair practice, he should voluntarily submit all pertinent facts before an

investigating body that may be informed by his organization or association for evaluation

and resolution.

SECTION 5 -Relation to his Organization Including the National Association to which his Organization

is affiliated

(a) In the interest of society and his own profession, calling or occupation, the practitioner

should abide by the Constitution and By-Laws of his association or organization and the

National Association to which it is affiliated;

(b) Election as officer or member of the governing body of the organization or association

carries with it the moral obligation to serve honorably, unselfishly, diligently and

efficiently. It should not be subject of the election campaign or use of letters or circulars

announcing one's candidacy or appealing for votes for himself or for other nominees or

candidates or other forms of ele