Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aussiekangaroo

Ex Demanding I give her 250,000PHP, Does she really have a case?

Recommended Posts

RogerDuMond

Back on topic please/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyaku

My permanent home is in Australia so I would have to say no.

So you are tourist here? If that's the cast best stick to it and dont back down as long as nothing is in her name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

So you are tourist here? If that's the cast best stick to it and dont back down as long as nothing is in her name.

Yes tourist, I only spend a few month's a year at most in the Philippines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
garg

Yes tourist, I only spend a few month's a year at most in the Philippines.

 

So she was looking after your condo when you were out of the country? How much did she get paid for that?

 

How many condos did she collect rent from? Did she rent them out if a someone moved out? I own rental properties in the west. A reasonable amount to manage property there is 9% or 10% of the gross.

 

Just how much was the "allowance"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

So she was looking after your condo when you were out of the country? How much did she get paid for that?

 

How many condos did she collect rent from? Did she rent them out if a someone moved out? I own rental properties in the west. A reasonable amount to manage property there is 9% or 10% of the gross.

 

Just how much was the "allowance"?

 

 

Well lets see. Say for argument sake each of the eight units rented for 20k, 10% would be 16k, but lets not forget the free rent she got so it looks like she owes him 4k per month times 4.5 years or 216k.

Edited by RogerDuMond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

Well lets see. Say for argument sake each of the eight units rented for 20k, 10% would be 16k, but lets not forget the free rent she got so it looks like she owes him 4k per month times 4.5 years or 216k.

 

Rent's were never more then 100k and mostly around 70-80 then don't forget I never owned them fully so factor in the cost of interest and the payment for the unit she stayed in and her allowance and agent fees for renting the units out I would say I would have actually been losing. On top of her allowance of 7k a month I always gave her money when requested within reason for other things and lot's of fancy gifts.

 

Anyway there has been a bit of back and fourth by email today and she said the lowest she will go is 225k and then she will sign a quit claim. Some of my personal things are still in her boarding house like my LED TV and PS3 with around 50games and clothes and documents. She asked me if she could continue to use the TV or if I wanted it back so have to say that's not to bad of her of course I told her I wanted it back after I will give her the cash. I found out that her lawyer is actually her new boss who just opened a cafe and is also a lawyer.

 

The funniest thing was she said to me to don't forget to bring her chocolates??? Is she serious lol.

 

At the end of the day 225k is not going to kill me she was a nice girl besides going around my back that time and who really knows if could have been more then that 1 guy since he is the only one who sent me a facebook message about what was going on but I do want her to be happy so I will give her the cash and that will be the end of it. She want's me to go the cafe when I arrive and settle. I don't know where I am going to find 2 witness tho.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billy

Since he is a foreigner that would be illegal.

wrong where talking about condos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
garg

Well lets see. Say for argument sake each of the eight units rented for 20k, 10% would be 16k, but lets not forget the free rent she got so it looks like she owes him 4k per month times 4.5 years or 216k.

It's really in how you look at it. You say free rent, I say she was watching HIS condo for him when he was out of the country... I assume he did stay there when he was in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

It's really in how you look at it. You say free rent, I say she was watching HIS condo for him when he was out of the country... I assume he did stay there when he was in the country.

Yes I stayed there when visiting Cebu and whilst I was away around 3 or 4 of her family members would stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

 

 

I say she was watching HIS condo for him when he was out of the country..

 

And I say she didn't have to stay in it to watch it. Obviously she didn't stay in the others to watch them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aussiekangaroo

And I say she didn't have to stay in it to watch it. Obviously she didn't stay in the others to watch them.

Exactly she could have just stayed at her mothers house but even when we separated she refused to go back there and move into a boarding house as she said that her skin always gets itchy when staying there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyaku

Exactly she could have just stayed at her mothers house but even when we separated she refused to go back there and move into a boarding house as she said that her skin always gets itchy when staying there.

So I wondering how this would all pan out if it was just a worker doing this for you and not someone you want to to call an 'ex'.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spydoo

 

Rule on equal co-ownership

This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage.<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>

Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couple's separate property are not included in the co-ownership.<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>

As to the homemaker, or the one who cared for and maintained the family household, he/she is still considered to have jointly contributed to the acquisition of a property, even if he/she did not directly participate in the property’s acquisition. Article 147 explicitly provides that a party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's "efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household."<ref>Valdes vs. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996</ref>

Wages and salaries earned by either party during the cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and will be divided equally between them, even if only one party earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto.<ref>Cariño vs. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001, citing Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, p. 230 (1995)</ref> Even if the disputed "death benefits" were earned by a government employee, Article 147 creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, entitling the other party to share one-half thereof. As there is no allegation of bad faith in the present case, both parties of the first marriage are presumed to be in good faith.<ref>Cariño vs. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001</ref>

 

 

 

 

A marriage license is a pre-requisite for validly contracting marriage in the Pines. It has an expiration date. If not used for that period it looses its validity. An application for marriage license is just a requirement for getting married and not an admission of the fact that a couple is in an exclusive relationship with each other. Even if the marriage ceremony did not happen in the end, one can not be sued for breach of promise to marry.

 

In paragraph 2 of Art. 147 of the Philippine Civil Code “In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.”

 

This is where you will get your defense. If the property is under your name, your ex has the burden of proof to provide the court copies of receipts that she has paid for the property. You can not be considered joint owner if you did not shell out money to purchase the property. If she does helped you purchase the property, you can give her two options. First option, pay her back for the money she gave to pay the property. Second option would be for her to pay you back for the amount you covered to purchase the property. I don’t believe that you ex would have enough money to pay you back that is why she is attempting to milk you by intimidating you with a court litigation. I really hope you have the “Absolute Deed of Sale” in your name so you have a stronger case and the burden of proof would shift to her side to prove otherwise. I don’t suggest that you offer a specific sum of money to pay her. She should come up with the amount covered by receipts. Just my two cents.

 

I don't know how to quote statements here apparently. Sorry for that. :yahoo: 

Well I'm no lawyer but I can see our two legal eagles here are giving contradictory statements. If Mr D is right in saying the non-paying partner is prima facie considered to have contributed half then the burden of proof is on the sheila, while CE is saying the burden of proof is on Mr Kangaroo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AussieLex

 

 

She want's me to go the cafe when I arrive and settle. I don't know where I am going to find 2 witness tho.

 

Do NOT go to the cafe, get a lawyer to help draw up the quit agreement then have her and her lawyer meet you somewhere, maybe your lawyers office or neutral ground and do the deed there.... your lawyer can provide witnesses ... any personal possessions  you want back that she has have her bring with her to the meeting ... once the paperwork has been signed go your own way and NEVER have contact with her again. Maybe tell her if she ever wants to contact you to do it through your lawyer ... don't make the mistake of her starting to chat with you again and then things building again... she already knows you are a soft touch so don't think she will just disappear ... I bet my bottom dollar that she will be back sometime in the future in some way.... don't fall for it...NO contact ever again ....

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gus

if there's going to be an exchange of funds at that time, why dont you all meet at the bank, pre-arrange a space with a desk .. sign docs, with witnesses .. maybe your bank manager will stand as a witness too .. no chance of any last minute surprises.

 

Sent from my SM-T535 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Sailfish Bay Fishing Charters

×
×
  • 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..