««

And banks sell these properties to recover their money, usually on an “as-is, where-is” basis

And banks sell these properties to recover their money, usually on an “as-is <a href="https://hookupdate.net/cheatingcougars-review/">CheatingCougars how does work</a>, where-is” basis

Meaning no guarantees from the bank. If you encounter problems, bahala ka na. And the usual problems po ay ang pagpapaalis nung current occupants, delinquent taxes, pending cases, etc… The authenticity of the title itself, is the least of your problems na.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible to get a property without a problem, from the banks. But these are just the exceptional cases. Ang usual cases ay may problema talaga.

Nothing is readily safe. That’s why you have to do your own diligence. Or hire professionals to do the research for you.

But, even then, there is still the possibility of problems arising that are related to the title. Or if not the title, other things. Just like everything else in life, there really is no 100% guarantee. All we can do is minimize the risks as much as we can.

I can tell that the photo used above is a clear example of a spurious TCT by just checking the ODR, even without the need to have the Decree Number verified by the LRA/LRC/RoD

If you are too scared po, better not do it nalang. That way, wala po talagang risk sa inyo. The only trade off is you will not be able to take advantage of any opportunity also.

ask guidance from the local land researcher mam to avoid scams. most of this researchers are previously working with the DENR LANDS. not all real estate brookers are researching or good researchers

I’d really like to know when this was

What steps can you make if the original copy in the registry of deeds has been lost or misplace? but we have the original copy (owners copy) this land still a CLOA and we are not able to process the title because the RD copy is missing any steps that we can make about it?

You guys forgot to mention that OCTs and TCTs are certificates and not the actual title. You also forgot to include checking the Original Date of Registration in these certificates. If it’s later than the time when the last parcel of land in the Philippines were actually given a Spanish title, then it definitely isn’t authentic, even when the form used passes all physical qualities mentioned above.

“OCTs and TCTs are certificates and not the actual title.” …you have to be kidding. ?? This is like saying your birth certificate is not your actual birth. Of course it’s not!

But how are we supposed to prove our date of birth without our birth certificates? And how can we show that we have the Title of ownership to a real property if we don’t have the Certificate of Title?

And… “when the last parcel of land in the Philippines were actually given a Spanish title”. Because as far as we know, until today, only about half of the lands in the Philippines have been Titled.

The Philippines had only one original Spanish land title: Titulo Propiedad de Terrenos, Royal Degree 01-4° Protocol (transformed to Original Certificate of Title 01-4° or OCT 01-4).

When the Philippines was handed by the Spaniards to the Americans, the Royal King can only surrender what was left in the state, and it did not include land, hence the implementation of ACT NO. 1120. It would not make sense for the government to purchase or lease land parcels if they owned it in the first place.

Truth be told, the government system back then was just an administrator of the country’s land, not its owner. If you review what Act 496 was all about (enacted November 6, 1902), you’ll find out that the Torrens System was put in place for the registration of land titles, not acquisition, as all parcels of land in the Philippines are already either owned privately, or classified as public domain.

Leave a Reply