ihatag nalang na TS para way gubot mao ra nya na kasugdan sa bikil ninyo
ihatag nalang na TS para way gubot mao ra nya na kasugdan sa bikil ninyo
originally jud nagpuyo diha, couple with 12 children, cousin sa babaye ang owner unya gipapuyo sila diha...
then nanagko and nangaminyo, the couple died na...sila tanan diha namuyo with their families, dasok na gud...
unya naa sad family nipuyo dili nila ig unsa, mora na parente by marriage with 5 children nangaminyo, nangapo, nya ang mga apo nangaminyo na pud, diha na pud namuyo...
last year gipapahawa na sila sa tag iya, hangtod karon gahi japun...
ako na lang gipakoral kay basi dili namo madiskitaan adto na magtukod sa amo tugkaran...
hahahai ang politiko, bayad man ta mi sakto sa amilyar sila may giproteksiyinan...usahay maka curse ko sa pinas, bayad ta tax wala tay proteksyon, squatters walay contribution sa economy naay proteksyon from the politikos, gamiton pa jud atong gibayad nga tax pa palit sa ilang boto...
tinuod jud ka bro...
naa mi lain nga property wala pa matukori ug haus kani amo gipuy an sa amo ni parents naa sentro sa negosyo...
morag maau pa man rent na lang kay wa pay problema sa tax, repair sa guba, if badlongon silingan balhin dritso way lingi lingi...i did not gain anything from paying taxes at all...
let's say 1m ra ang imo i hatag jud, magamit sad na nimo ang 0.5m nga sobra? hatag lng brad kung kaya ug dili ma gamit ang 0.5m. amigoha ang kontra, kay kadugayan nya ba, sila nya siguro puhon ang mo tabang nimo...
kanang right of way bai paliton mana mao na akong na baw-an. kong ning hatag raka kai gusto ka ok rapud na pro di na sila ka boot kai informal settlers mana sila... kana imong kapitan namolitika rana siya kai kanang mga squaters mga voters pud biya na.
R.A. 386 Book 2 Title 7 Chap 2 - "Legal Easements", Sec 3 - " Easement of Right of Way"
as stated on Art 649
The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.
1
Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.
In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused by such encumbrance.
This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a)
1, correctly me if im wrong but i think this is only applicable if the person owns the property an seeking the right of way
but for how wide will the easement be, as stated on Art. 651.
then again you said that they are squaters, then if you are the real owner of the property you file a case against this people... samoa before they wanted nga maka sulod ang multicab but we didnt agree and give them 1 meter... most of the complaints are from squaters area... so we asked them title or declaration that they own the property and they just stop complaining...The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed from time to time. (566a)
this is one of those cases that Lina Law complicates it...
Similar Threads |
|