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 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fresh

    15

  • lamoe

    9

  • smokey

    9

  • Kreole

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

Yeah it should read  

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. 

 

 

  • Like 1
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
Kreole
10 hours ago, Fresh said:

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

Actually, I did not use the correct term.  I should have said established families who have occupied a property or area for generations.  To be honest, I know very little about the laws or land reform policies, only what I have read here on this forum.  However, the underlying issue is universal and relates to the displacement of peoples from their traditional or established lands whether they are owners or not. 

I realize it is complex and there is no single solution.  That said, the problems that arise from displacement are well recorded and none of which I am aware have worked out to the advantage of those being displaced, even in the case of so called compensation which is almost always deficient and do not result in an equable solution.

All this talk about progress and development for the common good only relates to the investors and very rarely "trickles down" to the citizens.

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

68% of Filipinos DO NOT own their own homes. 

 

Philippines Statistical Authority, who I stated as my source is who I trust more than your gender based  article that had nothing to do with the condos you were asking about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
Salty Dog

Enough already. You two need to get a room... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Kreole said:

I should have said established families who have occupied a property or area for generations.

"Occupied" meaning owned, the old-money elite? They'll get a lot more money selling their inherited land in an open market, if they choose to sell.  And if you mean squatters, you can develop an area, or you can have squatters in the area. That's up to the market and the government to decide.

12 hours ago, Kreole said:

All this talk about progress and development for the common good only relates to the investors and very rarely "trickles down" to the citizens.

It always trickles down, with development comes jobs. Filipinos aren't moving from the cities to the province, they are fleeing the province, and flooding the cities. The problem, well known here, is that the cities are few and far between. Opening the markets to foreigners is one solution to this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
govoner
5 hours ago, Fresh said:

 

 

 

It always trickles down, with development comes jobs. Filipinos aren't moving from the cities to the province, they are fleeing the province, and flooding the cities. The problem, well known here, is that the cities are few and far between. Opening the markets to foreigners is one solution to this problem.

The trickle down theory is pretty much discredited now ( it just makes the rich richer ). If the govt cannot even support new infrastructure in Cebu even with the massive amount of building that has gone on in the last decade what makes you think they will shell out for new highways etc for all these new satellite cities that are going to spring up. The fact is if housing is opened up to foriegners and the cost triples or whatever the 50% who dont own will be jammed into smaller living spaces. the other 50% will not be interested in openng a new business they will be too busy buying and selling houses to each other and just opening up the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, govoner said:

if housing is opened up to foriegners and the cost triples or whatever the 50% who dont own will be jammed into smaller living spaces.

The reality is Manila and Cebu are already the most jammed in places on earth, because the market is so restricted, so they have no other choice but to jam pack these two cities.  When costs rise, people move elsewhere, development follows, jobs follow.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes much more sense imo for the country to start some type of business reform compared to land reform. If you want to start a business, but it has to be 60% owned by countrymen it makes it rather difficult... If one would be allowed to go to the Philippines to start a business there would be a large influx of people doing this. 

I understand big business wants to own the land, but if they are allowed to lease the land and create their product / service that seems like an easier place to start compared to allowing land ownership which will increase the prices dramatically and only help the elites and government..... 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond
On 2/24/2021 at 8:52 PM, Kreole said:

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. 

I can answer this from experience. Firstly Filipinos who own land and live on it do not, under normal circumstances sell the whole parcel of land that they own. They only sell a portion and retain the portion that they live on. That leaves the squatters, and the person who purchases the land inherits the squatters and the squatters rights.

When we purchased the property that our house and farm are built on, there was an old man living on the center of the property in a small payag. He wanted us to pay him almost as much to move as we paid for the property. We served him with a legal document giving him two options. Either we would move his payag to any location that he wanted, or he could continue to live in the payag for life, but could make no changes to the payag without approval and was not allowed to bring any others in to live there. 

 

43 minutes ago, seanm said:

I understand big business wants to own the land, but if they are allowed to lease the land and create their product / service that seems like an easier place to start

They already are allowed to lease land.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RogerDuMond said:

I can answer this from experience. Firstly Filipinos who own land and live on it do not, under normal circumstances sell the whole parcel of land that they own. They only sell a portion and retain the portion that they live on. That leaves the squatters, and the person who purchases the land inherits the squatters and the squatters rights.

When we purchased the property that our house and farm are built on, there was an old man living on the center of the property in a small payag. He wanted us to pay him almost as much to move as we paid for the property. We served him with a legal document giving him two options. Either we would move his payag to any location that he wanted, or he could continue to live in the payag for life, but could make no changes to the payag without approval and was not allowed to bring any others in to live there. 

 

They already are allowed to lease land.

If I am correct, a foreigner cannot start a business (legally) and be the majority owner. I believe it has to be 60% owned by countrymen. That is a problem imo

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: If a person wanted to open a Cram School in The Philippines (like they have all over Taiwan, Korea, etc) in a rented building it would have to be 60% owned by countrymen, I believe. It would be difficult to convince a perspective owner to want to enter that type of environment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond
23 minutes ago, seanm said:

If I am correct, a foreigner cannot start a business (legally) and be the majority owner. I believe it has to be 60% owned by countrymen. That is a problem imo

That is a different topic and doesn't have anything to do with foreigners purchasing land.

  • Like 1
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..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...