Welcome to the Forum! > Announcements and Information

IS THERE HOPE ONCE AGAIN [foreign owned property]

(1/6) > >>

 Puno said the timing of the proposal is more significant now that the world is experiencing an economic slowdown.

\"We are in a global economic and financial crisis, our country is itself suffering, we are looking for investments at a time when people all over the world are confused about where to put their investments,\" he said.

\"What better time than now to clarify our national policies towards investors.\"

Puno said Philippines is losing out to its Asian neighbors because of constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of property and businesses.

A proposal to amend the Constitution\'s economic provisions was also introduced during the Estrada administration, he added.

Puno said that the administration would be in the best position to introduce the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

\"The term of President Arroyo is about to end,\" he said.

\"Let\'s do something already because when the next president comes in, Charter change would not be his highest priority.

\"Any new president you know will take a very long time before they undertake Charter change.\"

The administration does not plan to railroad Charter change and exclude the Senate from the process, Puno said. - Marvin Sy Philstar News Service, http://www.philstar.com

What I think most people are afraid of the present administration trying a charter change too keep the present people in power. I do think the provision of foreign ownership is one of the largest impediments for investments. Also the Nationalists will try too block it. I also think the large corporations like it the way it is with less competition. 

Sounds like there is hope... Even if an amendment is passed that limits the number of businesses or amount of land a person or corp. could own would be better than nothing...

In hard times, some locally owned corps. could be saved by foreign ownerships.  There would surely be an influx of capital and the banks would love that.

At present I have the 50 year lease on the property from my asawa because of course I could not own it.  Like we all have to do... buy it in her name and take a lease out for protection.

Buying a property from your wife and then leasing it will not offer you any protection.
Your lease needs to be a little further than arms length... say uncle or cousin or even trusted friend.

here are some FAQ\'s for ya to enjoy

As it states \"A long term lease, a deed of donation, a deed of sale, or any other document that might transfer possession/control of the property to the other spouse is a worthless scrap of paper.\"

Thanks for the info Rufus... guess I got lucky cuz we were not married when I took the lease.  I guess I wont out live the lease or her anyway...lol.

I wasn\'t sure if we were going to get married at the time so it was CMA.  Now it seems the lease is unnecessary, if she goes first, it looks like, according to your info that I will inherit the property anyway.

I was given some bad info in Luzon 3 years ago then... or maybe the inheritance clause was not in existence at that time.  I was told, first hand that this guy lost his land after his wife died.  Maybe some lawyers just scammed him out of the property... not sure.

But again, thanks for the info...


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version