Jump to content

Lawmaker Urges For Reforms To Foreign Land Ownership In The Philippines


Recommended Posts

HongKongPhooey
11 hours ago, govoner said:

What would be the point of a foreigner owning land in a country he is restricted from living in.

Strictly for investment. There are thousands of investment schemes where people purchase properties purely for rental returns and resale. Investors own real estate in places they can never even get a visa to visit for longer than a couple of months.

That would be a valid concern in the Philippines. It’s even a common complaint in places like NYC. A rather simple solution would be that a foreigner can own up to a certain size parcel as long as it is their primary residence; they would have to spend at minimum 9 months (or whatever) each year living there.  That may eliminate a lot of the speculative investment people are worried about.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fresh

    11

  • Kreole

    7

  • lamoe

    7

  • Soupeod

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So...It is important that foreigners only own land to their disadvantage? Cool.   

I don't think is as much about the ownership as what foreigners are prepared to pay. We have a large plot next door to our house and land. I had bought to keep off any new possibly noisy neighbor

The housing market in New Zealand is a disaster for young first time buyers ,due in a big part to unbridled immigration from Asia and else where . People wanting to get cash out of china have been buy

Kreole
6 hours ago, RogerDuMond said:

Apparently you have never checked into removing a squatter from land. I don't know of any other country where squatters have this many rights officially given by the government. It would be financial suicide for a foreigner to purchase urban property that had squatters on it.

The issue is not about squatters, but those people who have lived legally on property for generations.  However, to be inclusive squatters must be considered given the fact that many properties are effectively abandoned, which allowed squatters to move onto the property and build whatever domicile they could afford.  The owners are absentee and pay little attention to the property until there is a sale. 

There are land disputes all over the PH especially on properties that were promised in a land reform bill to be divided among the local poor, but never realized.  This has caused much bloodshed as the former property owners hired guns to dispose of the claimants with little or no accountability.

And then there is the distinction between recent squatters and established squatters who have been living on the land for generations.  These can be complicated affairs since the government has given lip service to squatters rights, but when wealthy landowners move against the squatters, the government almost always sides with the land owner.

In the case of "urban" squatters, they fall into the class of recent illegal tenants with no history or attachment to the property.  I do not understand how they are protected by squatters rights, since almost anyone can move onto private property and construct a shack in a day or two.  In the case that they are of a protected status, I agree that it would not be a wise investment to purchase the property and then have to wade through the court system, which can take years, causing a loss to the investor.

Now going back to the original posts, it refers to indigeneous families who either own the land or have been squatting for generations and thus have rights according to the law.  To have comparably rich foreigners come in and buy the land out from under these people creates an unfair impact on the local population which may then be forced to become urban squatters with no rights whatsoever. 

For the few who own the land and are fortunate to have gained a high price, they are in a financial position to buy other local property at local rates.  Either way, the fabric of the community is undermined and causes displacement with no reasonable options.  And that is the legal and social issue that most developing nations will not address since those with the money just bribe the officials or the courts for a decision in their favor.  This is a very destructive policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HongKongPhooey said:

 A rather simple solution would be that a foreigner can own up to a certain size parcel as long as it is their primary residence; they would have to spend at minimum 9 months (or whatever) each year living there.

That would follow along with basing it on the visa, tourist vs resident.

 

8 hours ago, Kreole said:

back to the original posts, it refers to indigeneous families

Indigenous Filipinos are already protected: http://ncip.gov.ph/

8 hours ago, Kreole said:

For the few who own the land and are fortunate to have gained a high price, they are in a financial position to buy other local property at local rates.  Either way, the fabric of the community is undermined and causes displacement with no reasonable options.  And that is the legal and social issue that most developing nations will not address since those with the money just bribe the officials or the courts for a decision in their favor.  This is a very destructive policy.

That mess is the way it is now. Opening the markets to foreigners means more development  in rural areas, more jobs for the local population, and exponentially more money the government can use for programs for the poor. And an MLS resulting in much more competitive pricing. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
lamoe
11 hours ago, Edwin said:

Do your own research if you are further interested. Start with a search engine.

68% of Filipinos DO NOT own their own homes. 

Quote

https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/09/13/adb-study-shows-only-a-third-of-filipinos-own-a-dwelling/

ADB study shows only a third of Filipinos own a dwelling

ByCai Ordinario September 13, 2017

A newly released study of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) showed the inequality of land-ownership distribution in the Philippines, with only about a third of Filipinos owning the properties they live in and less than 10 percent having an agricultural land of their own, according to the results.

While the focus of the study was on gender differences in the ownership of land and dwelling in the three countries, results showed there were only marginal gender differences in land and dwelling ownership in the Philippines.

“The likelihood of men owning either dwelling or agricultural land is slightly higher than that of women. However, the differences observed from the survey data tend to be marginal,” the ADB told the BusinessMirror in an e-mail.

The bank said that, for every 100 adult women in Cavite, there are about three women who reported that they own agricultural land. But for every 100 adult men in Cavite, there are nearly five men who reported they owned agricultural land. The pilot survey was conducted in three countries—the Philippines, Georgia and Mongolia. The city of Cavite represented the Philippines in the study.

Data also showed that, among survey respondents who reported that they own agricultural land, 29.6 percent of male agricultural landowners reported that they acquired the land by purchasing it.

The ADB added that around 31.4 percent of female agricultural landowners reported that they purchased the land.

“Given that Cavite is largely urbanized, it is not surprising that survey results show fewer individuals [men or women] own any agricultural land. What is more striking is that only a third of either men or women have reported as owning the dwelling,” the ADB said.

In terms of method of ownership, the ADB noted that owning land and other properties are steeped in culture and tradition. There are even countries that place restrictions on women’s landownership, particularly in terms of inheritance.

The Manila-based multilateral agency said, in some societies, it was more common for men to inherit property than women. This makes women more likely to purchase property from the market.

However, in Cavite, the ADB found that acquiring property was not linked to the gender of the owner and on norms, but with the type of property.

“What is interesting in Cavite is that how a property is acquired by an individual seems to depend more on the type of property than on the sex of the owner. For both men and women in Cavite, land is more likely to be inherited while the dwelling is more likely to be purchased,” the ADB said.

There were only 1,536 households surveyed in the Philippines. A maximum of three adults 18 years old or above were interviewed in each sampled household.

The total respondents interviewed were 3,456 in Cavite. Around 46.4 percent were male and 53.6 percent were female.

The majority, or 67.7 percent, of the respondents were married, while some 11.5 percent were widowed and separated, and 20.8 percent were never married.

Nearly half, or 46.4 percent, completed secondary education; 36.4 percent completed tertiary level or higher; and 17.2 percent finished primary education or lower.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..