Best Posts in Thread: Power of Attorney - Land Ownership/Control

That's nice...but the Supreme Court has already heard a case with that exact scenario.

...that POA is not worth the paper it is written on. If the real owner decides to sell or lease it there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. If you decide you want to sell it and the real owner doesn't, again, you have no legal recourse, the property will not be sold.

 

lol

I haven't seen your POA or how it is worded (nor do I want to see it). I don't know if it is a special or general power of attorney. It may grant you permission to act on someone else's behalf but that doesn't mean that those acts would be legal or hold up in court if contested.

A POA is not a contract or legal document that protects you from anything. Having a document notarized doesn't mean the document is legally sound, a notary will notarize just about anything you take them. What is the mortgage for? The house, the land, both? If it is for, or includes, the land I don't believe it would hold up in court. As for squatting;I think the Barangay Captain would sort that out rather swiftly...but maybe you could live long enough to make it to a courtroom for them to decide on your rights to the property.

Sure, you have rights...just not to property.

How would I "fix" the issue of property I thought I "owned or controlled" through POA? I'd talk the land owner into signing me a 25 year lease (with an additional 25 years lease renewal option...I believe 50 years is the maximum number of years a lease can be legally extended out to) for a very reasonable price. This shouldn't be an issue if you are in as good as you think you are with the property owner. That's just me though, this isn't legal advise for anyone. I wouldn't want to go get myself disbarred or anything. lol

 

Why the obsession? Because it matters.
Ownership = Illegal
Renting = Legal
Leasing = Legal (sometimes)
POA "ownership through another" = Illegal

The definitions matter when it comes to the law. You are legally protected with renting and leasing. You are not protected if you think you have some sort of contract or legal document that gives you anything resembling "ownership rights" of property. There are hundreds/thousands of cases that never make it to the SC because appeals are denied. Hundreds/thousands of foreigners get kicked out on their *sses because they followed bad legal advice from sh*tty local lawyers. I have heard sob story after sob story from foreigners who took p*ss poor advice. Had they just looked to the SC rulings and case law instead of listening to bad advice on how to circumvent the law from the guy on a bar stool who didn't care about obsessing over legal definitions all of their troubles could have been avoided.

Well, as long as you know what you are doing is illegal and that you won't be protected if it ever does make its way to court then all is good. I'm sure all those foreigners that went to the SC didn't think they would ever end up there either or that their asawa would ever try to screw them over (and I'm sure they thought their contracts/POAs/schemes to have ownership would work).

The guy in the case I posted here was out on his *ss after the wife leased it to another guy. He had to spend around a decade just to get to the SC, and nowhere in the ruling did it say she had to pay him back for "allegedly" spending his money to buy/improve the land, that was a separate legal matter (I don't know if he ever got paid back, or if he lived long enough to get another court hearing...one of the problems with dating/marrying younger women, they can wait you out). If the party doesn't want to pay it back then you have to go to court...which will likely take another decade...and what are the chances the Filipina would even have the money at that point? All things to consider when trying to circumvent the ownership law.

 

The issue there is that no mention of "foreigner" was made in the article. The law will differ and exemptions will be made when real estate and foreigners are involved. My OP here is SC case law that specifically mentions a situation where a POA was used by a foreigner. The SC invalidated/ignored that POA even though there appears to have been a contract that relied on said POA (an exemption on canceling the POA listed in that article).

"There is no rule more settled than this constitutional prohibition, as more and more aliens attempt to circumvent the provision by trying to own lands through another." (They are talking about POAs in this context.)

It is my opinion that the SC has made it extremely clear that POAs are not a method to own property.

As for top-ranked local lawyers...that's questionable IMO. I would say the top lawyers tend to be more "connected" than competent. They can get their shite through local courts with their connections, which is good enough for most local matters...but when those lower court's decisions get appealed they regularly get overturned in the Appeals Court or later in the SC.

 

A very valid point/concern.

Here is what can disqualify you from a security clearance if you have dual citizenship:

1. Possession of a current foreign passport;
2. Accepting educational, medical, retirement, social welfare, or other such benefits from a foreign country;
3. Residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;
4. Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;
5. Seeking or holding political office in a foreign country;
6. Voting in a foreign election;
7. Action to acquire or obtain recognition of a foreign citizenship by an American citizen.

Mitigating situations related to dual citizenship:

1. Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
2. The individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship;
3. Exercise of the rights, privileges, or obligations of foreign citizenship occurred before the individual became a U.S. citizen or when the individual was a minor;
4. Use of a foreign passport is approved by the cognizant security authority;
5. The passport has been destroyed, surrendered to the cognizant security authority, or otherwise invalidated;
6. The vote in a foreign election was encouraged by the U.S. Government.

Dual citizenship doesn't automatically disqualify you from obtaining a security clearance, especially if you were just born with it. A potential future security clearance should not be a deciding factor with getting your child the citizenship(s) they are entitled to at birth. Denouncing citizenship(s) should be something they should decide on once they are adults. However, if they (or you) are are looking for them to have a career that requires a security clearance with the military/USG this information is something you, as a parent, should keep in mind while they are children and should definitely inform them of before they come of age. Just raising them in the Philippines could certainly disqualify them, something parents need to take into consideration.

Edit: My secondary source for that information was this link if you would like to read more on it.

 

Just make your life easier and get your kid Filipino citizenship if they are entitled to it.

If your "what if" isn't in the Constitution the answer is no.