Facilitating the lawful ejectment of illegal settlers

The power of expropriation, which allows a government to acquire private property for public use upon payment of just compensation, is inherent and indispensable in the Philippine State.

In PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. v. National Grid Corp., the Supreme Court referred to this power as “necessarily in derogation of private rights” and “is considered to be one of the harshest proceedings known to the law.”

While the power of expropriation is lodged in the Congress, the legislative branch of the government, it may delegate the same by law to government agencies, public officials and quasi-public entities. Necessarily, the delegate may only exercise this power strictly within the terms of the delegating law. Among these limitations is the manner of evicting informal settlers from expropriated land.

In this regard, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8974, which sought to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site, or location for government infrastructure projects. It also reinforces the constitutional requirement that urban or rural poor dwellers may only be evicted or their dwellings demolished in accordance with the law and in a just and humane manner. Under this law, the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall coordinate with the applicable local government units and implementing agencies in establishing and developing for informal settlers relocation sites with adequate services and utilities.

The settlers’ structures on the expropriated property may only be demolished in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act.

Thus, persons or groups identified as professional squatters or squatting syndicates shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings and structures demolished. In this regard, professional squatters refer to:

(a) individuals or groups who occupy lands without their owners’ express consent and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing;

(b) persons who sold, leased or transferred home lots or housing units previously awarded to them to settle illegally in the same place or another urban area; and

(c) non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. They do not include individuals or groups renting land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates.

Meanwhile, squatting syndicates refer to groups of persons engaged in the business of squatter housing for profit or gain. Moreover, eviction or demolition may only be allowed when:

(a) persons or entities occupy danger areas, such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public places;

(b) government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to implemented; or

(c) the court issues the corresponding order.

In Department of Public Works and Highways v. Manalo, et al., the Supreme Court held that eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens may be implemented after certain measures are complied with, including:

(a) notice at least 30 days before the date of eviction or demolition;

(b) adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(c) presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;

(d) use of heavy equipment only on structures that are permanent and made of concrete materials; and

(e) adequate relocation, whether permanent or temporary.

Relocation of these citizens shall be undertaken by the concerned local government unit and the NHA, with the assistance of proper government agencies, within 45 days from the court’s issuance of a notice of final judgment, after which period the order shall be executed. If relocation were not possible within this period, then said unit shall extend to the affected families financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by 60 days.

Source: Business Inquirer

The law on double sales

Imagine you bought a parcel of land from a seller sometime in 2019. Because of the lockdowns due to the pandemic, you were not able to possess it and register the sale. More recently you notice that a second buyer, who has actual knowledge of the sale to you, is residing on your land. This second buyer says that he bought the subject land from the seller in 2021 and registered its sale, so he has become the rightful owner of the same.

So who has the superior right to the subject property?

Buying a property for whatever purposes is supposed to give some measure of security for the buyer, whether it be for investment, for inheritance for passing down to their the next of kin, or for immediate use such as for one’s family home or a small business.

But as with all transactions, buying a property is not headache-proof. It is indeed lamentable when the security expected of the sale turns into an insecurity due to legal issues.

One of the more common ways a sale of property reaches the courts and ties the party to many years of litigation is the case of double sales.

Double sales are governed by Article 1544 of the New Civil Code. Under this Article, if the same personal or movable property is sold to different buyers, the first buyer to take possession of the movable or personal property in good faith.

However, if it involves real or immovable property such as a piece of land, ownership of an immovable property which is the subject of a double sale shall be deemed vested and ownership will be transferred:

(1) to the buyer acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property;

(2) in default thereof, the buyer who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, the buyer who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith on his/her end.

The requirement of the law is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.

Good faith must concur with the registration. If it would be shown that a buyer was in bad faith, the alleged registration they have made amounted to no registration at all. (Rosaroso vs. Soria, G.R. No. 194846, June 19, 2013)

Good faith means that registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of the seller, or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his seller.

This rule on double sales rule likewise makes reference to the familiar principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).

Hence, for immovable property, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner.

But before these rules apply, one must check first if there is a double sale in the first place. There is a double sale if the following are met:

• There are two or more sales transactions pertaining to exactly the same subject matter

• The sales transactions are valid

• There are two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must, and each represent conflicting interests; and

• The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the very same seller.

Article 1544 only applies to instances of double sales, and not where one contract is some other transaction, such as a contract to sell, even if the latter concurs with a contract of sale over the same realty. For instance, in the 2016 case of Desiderio vs. Manzano (G.R. No. 201883, November 16, 2016), the Supreme Court ruled that if the contract between parties therein is a contract of sale, then Article 1544 of the Civil Code applies, for there is an apparent case of double sale.

However, if the contract is merely a contract to sell, the propriety of applying Art. 1544 falters.

In Desiderio, the contract was a mere contract to sell because the same is conditioned upon full payment of the agreed purchase price.

Since petitioners failed to pay the purchase price in full, while the subsequent buyer did and thereafter she was able to register her purchase and obtain a new certificate of title in her name, clearly there is only one sale – and that is, the one in the subsequent buyer’s favor.

Since failure to pay the price in full in a contract to sell renders the same ineffective and without force and effect, then there is no prior sale to speak of. There is only one valid sale, hence the rule on double sales under Article 1544 of the Civil Code does not apply.

Hence, ownership of the subject land pertains to you.

Source: Coventus law

Consent of co-owner needed in sale of land owned in common

Can you buy land that is co-owned and what consent is needed?

In general, each co-owner may sell his proportionate share in accordance with Article 493 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which states that:

"Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.

But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership."

Correlative thereto, Article 491 thereof also provides that "[n]one of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. "

The consent of the co-owners is necessary in the sale of a definite portion of an undivided land. This finds support in the pronouncement of the Court in the case of Cabrera v Ysaac (GR 166790, Nov. 19, 2014), where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen stated that:

"If the alienation precedes the partition, the co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of the land without consent from his or her co-owners. He or she could only sell the undivided interest of the co-owned property. As summarized in Lopez v. Ilustre, "[i]f he is the owner of an undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell and convey an undivided half, but he has no right to divide the lot into two parts, and convey the whole of one part by metes and bounds.

"The undivided interest of a co-owner is also referred to as the 'ideal or abstract quota' or 'proportionate share.' On the other hand, the definite portion of the land refers to specific metes and bounds of a co-owned property.

"Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common property requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to partition the land with respect to the co-owner selling his or her share. The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion should redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future partition."

Source: Manila Times