Understanding the Rent Control Act in the Philippines

For anyone renting or planning to rent a property in the Philippines, understanding the Rent Control Act is crucial. This law aims to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases while ensuring landlords can still fairly profit from their properties. Let’s break down the key aspects of this act to help both tenants and landlords navigate their rights and responsibilities. 

What is the Rent Control Act? 

The Rent Control Act of the Philippines refers to Republic Act No. 9653, also known as the "Rent Control Act of 2009", as extended by subsequent regulations. It governs rental pricing, increases, and disputes for residential units within specific rent ranges, particularly in urban areas. 

The law primarily covers: 

- Residential units with a monthly rent of up to ₱10,000 in Metro Manila. 

- Units with a monthly rent of up to ₱5,000 in other cities and municipalities. 

 Key Provisions 

1. Limit on Rent Increases 

   Landlords cannot increase rent by more than 7% annually for covered properties, provided the same tenant occupies the unit. 

2. Protection Against Eviction 

   Tenants cannot be evicted except under specific circumstances, such as: 

   - Non-payment of rent for three consecutive months. 

   - Subleasing without the landlord’s consent. 

   - The landlord needing the property for personal use or renovations. 

3. Advance Payments and Deposits 

   - Landlords are allowed to collect up to one-month advance rent and two months’ deposit. 

   - Deposits must be returned to the tenant upon moving out, minus any deductions for damages. 

4. Rental Contracts 

   Both tenants and landlords are encouraged to have a written rental agreement specifying the terms and conditions of the lease, including rent, duration, and responsibilities. 

 Who Benefits from the Rent Control Act? 

The act primarily benefits low- to middle-income families, students, and employees who rent affordable housing. It ensures they are not priced out of their homes due to sudden, excessive rent increases. 

 What the Rent Control Act Doesn’t Cover 

The Rent Control Act does not apply to: 

- Commercial properties. 

- Residential units rented out for over ₱10,000 per month in Metro Manila and ₱5,000 per month in other areas. 

- New leases not covered by existing agreements. 

 Recent Updates 

While RA 9653 officially expired, the Philippine government often extends similar provisions to address housing affordability. As of today, tenants and landlords should stay updated with the latest housing and rental policies implemented by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or other government bodies. 

 Tips for Tenants 

- Always sign a written agreement and understand its terms before moving in. 

- Keep records of your payments and communications with your landlord. 

- Report any violations of the Rent Control Act to local housing authorities or barangay offices. 

 Tips for Landlords 

- Familiarize yourself with the Rent Control Act to avoid legal disputes. 

- Clearly communicate rental terms and increases with tenants in writing. 

- Maintain the property to ensure tenants receive value for their rent. 

 Final Thoughts 

The Rent Control Act is a critical safeguard for renters and a guide for landlords in managing rental properties. Whether you’re a tenant or landlord, understanding this law can foster a fair and harmonious rental relationship. 

Stay informed about changes to rental policies and consult legal or housing experts for specific concerns. After all, a well-informed rental community benefits everyone. 

Source: Zigguratrealestate.ph

Cancellation of Annotation in Title: Legal Procedures and Grounds in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippines, the Torrens system of land registration ensures the protection and stability of property ownership. However, the Certificate of Title of a property can be subject to various annotations, which indicate claims, encumbrances, liens, or other legal notices attached to the property. These annotations may arise from mortgages, liens, adverse claims, notices of lis pendens, or other legal actions. An annotation does not nullify the title itself but serves to notify the public of existing legal interests in the property.

There are instances when an annotation may no longer serve its purpose, become irrelevant, or be declared void, necessitating its cancellation. This article discusses the legal basis, procedures, and grounds for the cancellation of an annotation in a title in the Philippines.

Common Types of Annotations in Titles

Annotations on a land title generally include:

1. Notice of Lis Pendens: A notice indicating that the property is involved in ongoing litigation.

2. Adverse Claims: Claims of interest by third parties who assert ownership or other legal rights over the property.

3. Mortgage Annotations: Entries showing that the property is subject to a mortgage.

4. Encumbrances: Other legal burdens on the property, such as liens, easements, or usufructs.

5. Restrictions or Conditions: Special conditions, such as restrictions on alienation, imposed by law or contract.

Legal Basis for Annotation and Cancellation

Annotations on a land title are made pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, which governs land registration in the Philippines. The cancellation of annotations follows both the provisions of this decree and the Rules of Court.

Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 allows any person interested in the cancellation of an entry in the title to file a petition for the cancellation or amendment of any annotation on the title. However, the cancellation is not automatic and requires a proper judicial process if the parties involved do not voluntarily agree to it.

Grounds for Cancellation of Annotation

1. Fulfillment or Termination of Obligation: Annotations are typically created to secure obligations, such as a mortgage or lien. Once the obligation has been fully satisfied, the party entitled to the obligation may petition to cancel the annotation. For example, if a mortgage has been paid in full, the mortgagee (creditor) can execute a document releasing the mortgage, and the mortgagor can file a petition to have the mortgage annotation cancelled.

2. Expiration of Legal Interest: Certain annotations may have a limited lifespan or may become irrelevant after the passage of time. For example, a lis pendens, which is recorded when there is a pending court case involving the property, may be cancelled once the case has been resolved in favor of the titleholder or dismissed. Similarly, adverse claims may lapse after a specific period unless renewed.

3. Void or Improper Annotation: Annotations that were improperly placed on the title, such as those made through fraud, mistake, or error, may be cancelled. For instance, an adverse claim that is groundless or not based on legitimate legal interest can be petitioned for cancellation by the registered owner.

4. Mutual Agreement of Parties: If both parties involved in an annotation mutually agree to its cancellation, they may execute an appropriate deed or agreement that will serve as the basis for its removal from the title. For instance, if a lienholder agrees to release a lien after negotiations, the parties can file for cancellation.

5. Court Order: The cancellation of certain annotations, such as adverse claims and lis pendens, may require a court order. A court may direct the cancellation of the annotation if it determines that the claim is baseless or if the registered owner’s rights should prevail.

Procedures for Cancellation of Annotation

The process of cancelling an annotation varies depending on whether the cancellation is voluntary or requires judicial intervention.

1. Voluntary Cancellation:

   - When the cancellation is by mutual agreement (e.g., mortgage fully paid), the parties involved will execute a Deed of Cancellation or a similar instrument.

   - The property owner must then file the Deed of Cancellation, along with supporting documents such as proof of payment or release, with the Registry of Deeds.

   - The Registry of Deeds will verify the documents and, if everything is in order, will cancel the annotation in the property’s title.

2. Judicial Cancellation:

   - If the annotation cannot be cancelled voluntarily (e.g., in cases of disputed adverse claims or lis pendens), the registered owner or interested party must file a Petition for Cancellation of Annotation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) where the property is located.

   - The petition should detail the grounds for cancellation, supported by evidence such as proof of payment, termination of obligation, or court judgment.

   - The court will then set a hearing, during which interested parties can present their claims or defenses.

   - After the hearing, if the court finds merit in the petition, it will issue an order directing the cancellation of the annotation.

   - Once the court order becomes final and executory, the petitioner will present it to the Registry of Deeds, which will cancel the annotation.

Key Jurisprudence on Cancellation of Annotations

Philippine courts have repeatedly ruled on cases concerning the cancellation of annotations. A few notable rulings include:

- Spouses Ong v. Court of Appeals (2003): The Supreme Court emphasized that for a valid adverse claim to remain annotated, the claimant must renew it after 30 days unless there is a pending case involving the property. Failure to renew or pursue the claim may result in cancellation of the annotation.

- Register of Deeds of Roxas City v. Municipality of Ivisan (2016): The Court ruled that annotations based on notices of lis pendens may be cancelled once the case involving the property has been resolved with finality, especially if the litigation has no more bearing on the registered title.

Effects of Cancellation of Annotations

Once an annotation is cancelled, it is effectively removed from the Certificate of Title, and the titleholder is no longer burdened by the claim or encumbrance previously annotated. This clears the property’s title, making it free from legal complications that could hinder the owner's ability to sell, mortgage, or otherwise deal with the property.

Conclusion

The cancellation of annotations in titles is an important legal process in protecting the interests of property owners in the Philippines. While voluntary cancellations can be straightforward, judicial cancellation may be necessary for contested annotations. Whether dealing with a lis pendens, adverse claim, or mortgage, property owners must carefully follow legal procedures to successfully cancel annotations and ensure the clear and unencumbered status of their titles. Proper legal advice and compliance with the requirements under the Property Registration Decree and relevant jurisprudence are essential in navigating this process effectively.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

What to do when owner's duplicate certificate of title is lost

In the case of Heirs of Spouses Gervacio A. Ramirez and Martina Carbonel, represented by Cesar S. Ramirez and Elmer R. Aduca v. Joey Abon and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya, GR 222916, July 24, 2019, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the Supreme Court discussed the requirements when the owner's duplicate certificate of title is lost/destroyed, viz.:

"Jurisprudence holds that Section 109 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529 'is the law applicable in petitions for issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or stolen or destroyed.'

"To clarify, in the instant case, what has been lost is the owner's duplicate copy of the subject OCT, and not the original copy of the OCT on file with the RD. As held in Billote v. Solis, '[a] reading of the provisions clearly reveals that Sections 18 and 19 of RA 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificates of title on file with the Register of Deeds, while Section 109 of PD 1529 governs petitions for the issuance of new owner's duplicate certificates of title which are lost or destroyed.'

Hence, the petitioners Heirs of the Sps. Ramirez's original position in their Petition for Annulment of Judgment that RA 26 applies in the instant case, a theory they entirely abandoned in the instant Petition, is incorrect.

"Section 109 of PD 1529, which is the applicable law in the instant case, reads:

"SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.

"Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.

"As explained by the CA, Former 14th Division in the assailed Decision, the requirements for the replacement of a lost owner's duplicate certificate of title can be summarized in the following manner:

"The requirements for the replacement of lost owner's duplicate certificate of title may be summarized, thus:

a) the registered owner or other person in interest shall send notice of the loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate certificate of title to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or destruction is discovered;

b) the corresponding petition for the replacement of the lost or destroyed owner's duplicate certificate shall then be filed in court and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered;

c) the petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstances surrounding such loss or destruction; and

d) the court may set the petition for hearing after due notice to the Register of Deeds and all other interested parties as shown in the memorandum of encumbrances noted in the original or transfer certificate of title on file in the office of the Register of Deeds; and

e) after due notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost or destroyed certificate and shall in all respects be entitled to the same faith and credit as the original duplicate."

To replace your lost owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title, you may follow the afore-cited requirements.

Source: Manila Times