Former natural-born Filipino citizen may own land

Former natural-born Filipinos may still own lands in the Philippines; however, this is subject to certain limitations, as provided for under the following pertinent laws.

"Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 provides that: Section 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines 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 up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. 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.

"In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized."

Likewise, Section 10 of Republic Act 7042, otherwise known as the "Foreign Investments Act of 1991," as amended by Republic Act 8179, states that:

"SEC. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution. – 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 up to a maximum area of five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for business or other purposes. 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.

"In case 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.

"A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than two 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."

Accordingly, for residential purposes, you can own up to 1,000 square meters of urban land, or 1 hectare of rural land. On the other hand, for business purposes, you can own a maximum of 5,000 square meters of urban land, or 3 hectares of rural land.

Source: Manila Times

Studio defends Barbie movie after controversial map prompts ban

Warner Bros says map is ‘child-like’ after Vietnam accused film-makers of depicting China’s nine-dash line in South China Sea

Warner Bros has described a map that appears in its coming Barbie movie as a “child-like crayon drawing” with no intended meaning, after Vietnam said it would ban the film after claiming the map depicted the disputed South China Sea. The Barbie movie provoked controversy in both Vietnam and the Philippines over its inclusion of the map that apparently features China’s “nine-dash line”. The line marks China’s claim to much of the South China Sea –a demarcation opposed by Vietnam and other south-east Asian countries and which was repudiated by an international tribunal in The Hague in 2016.

Warner Bros defended the map and suggested in a statement published by Reuters that it carried no significant meaning. “The map in Barbie Land is a whimsical, child-like crayon drawing,” the studio said. “The doodles depict Barbie’s make-believe journey from Barbie Land to the real world. It was not intended to make any type of statement. ”Barbie was due to be released in Vietnam on 21 July, according to local media, which reported that its screenings would no longer go ahead, and that posters advertising the film had been removed from movie distributors’ websites.

Some senators in the Philippines have called for Barbie to be banned, or for a form of disclaimer to be added to counter the map.

The film is currently being considered by the Philippines’ Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. “The movie Barbie is fiction, and so is the nine-dash line,” said senator Risa Hontiveros. “At the minimum, our cinemas should include an explicit disclaimer that the nine-dash line is a figment of China’s imagination. ”On Thursday it was reported that Vietnam’s authorities would also inspect the website of K-pop group Black pink’s tour operator, after it was alleged it featured a map that displayed the “nine-dash line”, which runs close to Vietnam’s coast and includes much of what Vietnam considers its continental shelf.

Vietnam and the Philippines have frequently banned films and TV dramas over their depictions of the South China Sea. In 2021 Australian spy drama Pine Gap was banned in Vietnam, while two episodes were removed in the Philippines. The DreamWorks’s animated film Abominable was also pulled from cinemas in both countries in 2019, as was the action movie Uncharted last year. The Philippines and Vietnam are both on the frontlines of the dispute over the South China Sea, a resource rich and strategically important water way and one of the busiest trading routes in the world.

The Philippine Coast Guard and representatives of the fishing community have frequently complained about harassment by Chinese vessels. Earlier this year the Philippine president, Ferdinand Marcos, summoned the Chinese ambassador to express serious concern after a Chinese coast guardship was accused of directing a “military-grade laser light” at a Philippine ship. A group that represents Philippine fisherfolk said it was less bothered about the Barbie movie, and called for other forms of government action to protect the Philippines’ rights in the sea.

“The Marcos administration would appear much tougher if it directly confronts China every time the latter causes an untoward incident in our territorial waters, rather than picking on a fictional film,” Pamalakaya’s chair, Fernando Hicap, told local media this week.

China is sensitive about portrayals of its territorial claims and has pressured companies, including hotel groups and airlines, to list Taiwan – a democratic and self-governing island –as part of China. The freedom of expression group PEN America has previously raised concerns that Hollywood studios, keen to access the lucrative Chinese market, have changed or censored aspects of their films in an “effort to avoid antagonizing Chinese officials”

Source: The Guardian US

Understanding Quieting of Title

Title disputes and uncertainties regarding property ownership can be complex and contentious issues. In the Philippines, one legal process used to settle such disputes is known as "Quieting of Title." It provides a means to establish the true ownership of a property and ensure a clear and marketable title. However, there may be situations where the validity of a title is challenged. In this article, we will explore the Quieting of Title process and the different approaches to challenge the validity of a title.

Understanding Quieting of Title:

Quieting of Title is a legal process governed by the Philippine legal system, specifically under the Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529), also known as the "Property Registration Law." The main objective of Quieting of Title is to settle disputes or doubts about the ownership of a property and establish a clear and marketable title.

The process typically begins with a petitioner filing a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the province or city where the property is located. The petitioner, who claims ownership of the property, presents evidence and arguments to prove their title and requests the court to declare them as the rightful owner.

Challenging the Validity of a Title:

There are two primary approaches to challenge the validity of a title within the Quieting of Title process: collateral attack and direct attack.

1. Collateral Attack: A collateral attack occurs when a party challenges the validity or legality of a title in an indirect manner, typically in a separate legal proceeding unrelated to the original registration or acquisition of the title. For example, in a contractual dispute, one party may question the validity of the other party's title to the property that is subject to the contract. In a collateral attack, the challenge to the title is raised as an ancillary issue, while the primary focus of the legal proceeding is on a different matter. The court hearing the case may or may not have the primary authority to determine the validity of the title, depending on the circumstances and applicable laws.

2. Direct Attack: A direct attack, as the name suggests, occurs when a party initiates legal proceedings specifically aimed at challenging the validity or legality of a title. The party disputing the title directly challenges its authenticity, ownership, or the manner in which it was acquired or registered. The primary purpose of the legal action is to directly question the title's validity and seek a determination from the court regarding its legitimacy. The court has the authority to examine the evidence, evaluate the legal arguments, and render a decision specifically addressing the title's validity. Factors such as the authenticity of documents, compliance with registration requirements, fraud, mistake, or any other legal grounds that may affect the title's validity can be considered during a direct attack.

Navigating the Process:

Both collateral attacks and direct attacks require careful consideration and legal expertise. Engaging the services of a qualified lawyer who specializes in real estate law in the Philippines is crucial to navigate the Quieting of Title process and effectively challenge the validity of a title.

The court will issue summons to all parties with a potential interest or claim on the property, including adverse claimants, mortgagees, and other parties who may have rights or interests in the property. These parties will be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and present their evidence to support their claims.

During the Quieting of Title proceedings, the court will carefully examine the evidence presented by all parties and make a decision based on the merits of the case. If the court determines that the petitioner has a valid and superior title to the property, it will render a judgment declaring the petitioner as the true and legal owner of the property. The court's decision will be recorded and annotated in the land records to provide notice to the public regarding the ownership status of the property.

Once the court has issued a judgment quieting the title, the petitioner can obtain a new certificate of title in their name, reflecting their confirmed ownership rights. This new certificate of title provides a clear and marketable title, which is essential for any subsequent transactions involving the property, such as selling or mortgaging it.

Conclusion:

Quieting of Title is a legal process designed to settle property ownership disputes and establish clear and marketable titles. When challenging the validity of a title, parties can approach the issue through a collateral attack or a direct attack. Both approaches require a thorough understanding of the legal system and the guidance of a qualified real estate lawyer.

If you find yourself in a situation where the validity of a title is in question, seeking legal advice is crucial. A knowledgeable attorney will provide the necessary support, navigate the legal process, and protect your interests as you seek to establish a clear and undisputed ownership of the property in question.