How to Make Sure that Tolerated Occupants in a Vacant Lot will Not Cause a Headache in the Future

Question:

Hi attorney Psyche. Ask po ako if mag patira kami ng tao sa vacant lot namin may habol ba sila if ever na gusto na namin si lang paalisin?

Answer:

Tolerated occupants of a vacant lot have no right to claim ownership over the said property. The rules only provide that they should be given a thirty day notice to vacate. The moment that they refuse to vacate after the said notice, the owner of the land may initiate an ejectment proceedings against them. In the case of Pe v. Tong G.R. No. 151369 decided on March 23, 2011 the court stated that, "A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him."

It is always best that a written contract between the parties are drafted. This is to ensure that the tolerated occupants are appraised of their limited rights and to make sure that the right of the owner will not be abused. 

The worst kind of scenario that could happen is the prolonged tolerance of the occupants who would place improvements on the property and would claim ownership of the said portion directly or through their heirs who are not aware of the extent of the verbal agreement  signed by their predecessors.

The contract would ensure that the tolerated occupants understood that they are expected to vacate anytime and the provisions of the contract could also include the treatment of the improvements. The contract could indicate that the improvements will be refunded by the owner of the land or it could be appropriated by the land owner without payment to the occupant as a form of payment for the tolerated stay in the land.

Co-maker and Checks

Q. I am a co-maker in a loan agreement where the debtor used checks of other people as collateral.The debtor is no longer paying his debts and the checks bounced. What is my liability?

A. There are two possible cases that may be filed here.

One is collection of sum of money for the debt per se and violation of B.P. 22  or issuing check that bounced or not funded when encashed or deposited. 

In the civil case for collection of sum of money, the debtor is the one who is primarily liable. The case will be filed against him. However, if the debtor is incapable of paying, as a co-maker, the lender may run after you. This however would only be possible if all sources of payment by the debtor had already been exhausted, if he is still capable of paying or has properties that the lender can still run after, the lender has no business suing you. 

Violation of the Bouncing Checks law on the other hand is a criminal offense and liability is a personal to the owner of the check. Thus you and the debtor will not be included in the lawsuit.