Wife Having An Affair

[Dave Hounddriver]

59 minutes ago, craftbeerlover said:

Even assuming the property was not inherited and was acquired with the exclusive funds of the foreigner-spouse, it will still not be considered as part of the property regime between the husband and wife since the 1987 Philippine Constitution forbids foreigners from acquiring private lands in the Philippines, except through hereditary succession, among others. Therefore, no presumption of conjugality or community of property exists in regards the foreign spouse

And further, I have personally known of 2 cases where the Filipina spouse sold the property when her foreign spouse was back in his home country for a visit.  In both cases the foreign husband had his name on the deed/title and in neither case did it matter.  Both sales were upheld by the courts.  Both of the foreigners were pissed off when they found out that their names on the title were formalities only.  However, different circumstances have resulted in different court decisions.  I know of another 2 cases where the foreigners WON in court.  Both have been assassinated since then.  (Gene Abrams and Henk Nuijts) if anyone is curious about the assassinated ones.  I won't mention the names of the ones still alive.)

[craftbeerlover]

1 hour ago, RBM said:

No the courts did not give me ownership of land. They ordered my name can be  anointed on the titles , meaning land cannot be sold without my consent, this is not ownership.

wow, not sure how they did that.  That violates their own laws, why should you have consent to something that is not yours.   There must be something more to the story, or the judge went through the public school system.    Whatever the missing pieces are, you should consider yourself very lucky. 

[craftbeerlover]

1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

And further, I have personally known of 2 cases where the Filipina spouse sold the property when her foreign spouse was back in his home country for a visit.  In both cases the foreign husband had his name on the deed/title and in neither case did it matter.  Both sales were upheld by the courts.  Both of the foreigners were pissed off when they found out that their names on the title were formalities only.  However, different circumstances have resulted in different court decisions.  I know of another 2 cases where the foreigners WON in court.  Both have been assassinated since then.  (Gene Abrams and Henk Nuijts) if anyone is curious about the assassinated ones.  I won't mention the names of the ones still alive.)

Here is where it gets murky, especially for the foreigner.   House/land are two different things, while the foreigner is entitled to 50 percent of the value of the house, and 50 percent of whatever they purchased since they were married (regardless of who paid for it), the land that it sits on is the spouses and she has overall power with regards to selling the house or not.   Once it is sold the value (minus the value of the land), should be split 50/50.   I am not positive she can sell the house without the consent of the spouse, but I am positive she can refuse to sell. 

[hk blues]

1 hour ago, RBM said:

No the courts did not give me ownership of land. They ordered my name can be  anointed on the titles , meaning land cannot be sold without my consent, this is not ownership.

This is exactly what I suggested was the case in my earlier post.

[hk blues]

5 hours ago, Mike J said:

What you want on the title is "Your wife's name, a Philippine citizen, married to Your Name a xxxx citizen".   That makes the land and house conjugal property.  The challenge then would be getting your spouse to sell and/or getting the spouse to pay you 1/2 of the asset value.

All life decisions carry a certain risk.  If a person is not 100% comfortable with the possibility of losing both land and house then buy a condo in your name only or rent.  

The wording you have quoted is exactly what "our" title deeds show. However, I interpret that differently to you, Mike - I read it exactly as it's written i.e. my wife is the owner and she is married to me.  It doesn't suggest to me that we are joint owners as surely 'married to' would be replaced with "and" if that was the intention?

I agree with your 2nd para. 

[RBM]

1 hour ago, craftbeerlover said:

 

 

 

Edited October 28 by RBM
Privacy

[craftbeerlover]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

I interpret that differently to you, Mike - I read it exactly as it's written i.e. my wife is the owner and she is married to me.  It doesn't suggest to me that we are joint owners as surely 'married to' would be replaced with "and" if that was the intention

yup, but you can still legally be awarded 50 percent of the house and purchased items (conjugal)

Edited October 28 by craftbeerlover

[MikeB]

On 10/24/2024 at 8:32 AM, Jollygoodfellow said:

I dont think the land or house in Bohol will become part of division of assets as we know the foreigner cant own land and does the US legal system have any say over a property in another country which will be in the wife's name anyway. Just asking as I'm not sure how it will go. 

The Texas court has no say on foreign property. Since they are all living in the US now I assumed his concern was with assets there. Whatever he put into Bohol is a loss as I'm sure he knows.

EDIT: "Despite the Texas courts lacking jurisdiction over international assets, they can still mandate the sale of the property or require the spouse who owns it to compensate their ex-partner for its value."

https://www.wilsonlegalgroup.com/family-law-lawyer/dividing-overseas-property-in-divorce

 

Edited October 28 by MikeB
Oops

[baronapart]

12 hours ago, Mike J said:

What you want on the title is "Your wife's name, a Philippine citizen, married to Your Name a xxxx citizen".   That makes the land and house conjugal property.  The challenge then would be getting your spouse to sell and/or getting the spouse to pay you 1/2 of the asset value.

All life decisions carry a certain risk.  If a person is not 100% comfortable with the possibility of losing both land and house then buy a condo in your name only or rent.  

This is what we have. But, if we were to split she can have it. She works here and pays her share of things. We bought it for her to have a place when I am gone. 

Edited October 28 by baronapart

[Mike J]

12 hours ago, baronapart said:

This is what we have. But, if we were to split she can have it. She works here and pays her share of things. We bought it for her to have a place when I am gone. 

Agree.  If my wife ever kicks me to the curb it will be because I deserved it.