Forum Search

By law, can i cancel my SMDC purchase?

This topic is locked.
posted July 22, 2012 10:03AM
slackereq
slackereq
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
1 post
  • Registered: Nov 4, 2008

Hi Sulit-mates!

Could anyone advise how to return my SMDC Wind unit and get a (partial) refund for my Wind Residences unit. I have a change in financial status and can't afford the payments anymore. I've tried to contact my sales agent, called their hotline number and tried to contact their main office to no avail.

Obviously, they don't want me to give it back but I really can't afford it anymore.

Is there any law or regulation that can protect me or mandate SMDC to grant me a refund?

Would greatly appreciate any of your thoughts. Thanks!


Regards,

slacker


1 member thinks this post is SULIT!
Locked | Report Report
posted July 22, 2012 06:49PM
jekz
jekz
stars
Sulitizen
52 posts
  • Registered: Jan 31, 2011
Please read R.A 6552 Maceda Law

1 member thinks this post is SULIT!
Locked | Report Report
posted July 23, 2012 12:36PM
karlkutu
karlkutu
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
12 posts
  • Registered: Oct 27, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines
Yup maceda law is the applicable law sir...in a capsule you can still return that and taking your payments as rental. hihihihi and read also the contact that you entered.

1 member thinks this post is SULIT!
Locked | Report Report
posted August 20, 2012 12:50AM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines
In Maceda Law, you have the right to claim a partial of your payments if you have been paying for more than 2 years.
Locked | Report Report
posted September 8, 2012 07:35PM
Ning1013
Ning1013
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
1 post
  • Registered: Sep 7, 2012
  • Last Access From: Philippines

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.


View message logs
Locked | Report Report
posted September 10, 2012 09:01AM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.

Sec. 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine, where the buyer has paid at least two years of installments, the buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he defaults in the payment of succeeding installments:

It does not state in the Maceda Law what SMDC told you. There is no excuse that they should not give you the refund if you had been paying for at least 2 years.

Locked | Report Report
posted September 11, 2012 07:52PM
EstherQuite
EstherQuite
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
3 posts
  • Registered: Jul 27, 2012
  • Last Access From: Philippines
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.


<if you avail the rent-to-own scheme (as you said you were occupying the unit) it is good as you were renting a unit. you are not entitled to any refunds since you used their unit.>

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 10:57AM
jekz
jekz
stars
Sulitizen
52 posts
  • Registered: Jan 31, 2011
EstherQuite posted on September 11, 2012 06:52PM
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.


<if you avail the rent-to-own scheme (as you said you were occupying the unit) it is good as you were renting a unit. you are not entitled to any refunds since you used their unit.>

 I think you are wrong 

Any scheme basta nasa installment basis you are entilled for refund read PD957 Sec 24 and Maceda Law (2yrs in paying)

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 11:30AM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines
jekz posted on September 12, 2012 09:57AM
EstherQuite posted on September 11, 2012 06:52PM
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.


<if you avail the rent-to-own scheme (as you said you were occupying the unit) it is good as you were renting a unit. you are not entitled to any refunds since you used their unit.>

 I think you are wrong 

Any scheme basta nasa installment basis you are entilled for refund read PD957 Sec 24 and Maceda Law (2yrs in paying)


@jekz, you're right. @EstherQuite, it was not stated in the Maceda law that if your term is through rent-to-own/lease-to-own, you are not entitled to a refund. The keyword there is installment payment.

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 11:54AM
EstherQuite
EstherQuite
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
3 posts
  • Registered: Jul 27, 2012
  • Last Access From: Philippines
walkingmap posted on September 10, 2012 08:01AM
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.

Sec. 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine, where the buyer has paid at least two years of installments, the buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he defaults in the payment of succeeding installments:

It does not state in the Maceda Law what SMDC told you. There is no excuse that they should not give you the refund if you had been paying for at least 2 years.


as stated in the Maceda Law you are quoting, "contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payment", as per all developers contract to sell is the basis of a sale while Lease Contract is being used if a unit is under lease-to-own/rent-to-own scheme . .

In a sale transaction, a person who purchased a unit is called buyer, while a person who actually rents a unit to a developer is called a lessee. .

"excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants" - tenants here are lessee. .

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 12:21PM
absindex
absindex
stars
Majestic Sulitizen
12623 posts
  • Registered: Oct 7, 2009
  • Last Access From: Philippines

Well isn't "rent-to-own" is actually a rent paid to the property you lease?

So, by all means it is classified still as rent

only used or applied to the sale of the property as deemed by the seller.

Kasi pag umabot sa korte yan I really don't think you will be compensated with so much of a refund.

 

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 12:46PM
cuecraftsman
cuecraftsman
stars
Elite Sulitizen
778 posts
  • Registered: Apr 20, 2008
  • Last Access From: Philippines
absindex posted on September 12, 2012 11:21AM

Well isn't "rent-to-own" is actually a rent paid to the property you lease?

So, by all means it is classified still as rent

only used or applied to the sale of the property as deemed by the seller.

Kasi pag umabot sa korte yan I really don't think you will be compensated with so much of a refund.

 


putting/challeging the "maceda law" to a test/courtroom battle may cost more than the refund value itself...


1 member thinks this post is SULIT!
Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 01:16PM
Madzpc
Madzpc
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
4 posts
  • Registered: Aug 6, 2012
  • Last Access From: Philippines

my trainer told me that client is entitled to a 50 % of the amount you had paid for 2 years is refundable, below 2 years sori no refund!

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 02:15PM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines

Then we should ask the original poster. slackereq is your contract a Lease Contract or is it Contract To Sell?


View message logs
Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 04:46PM
jekz
jekz
stars
Sulitizen
52 posts
  • Registered: Jan 31, 2011
The Contract you are quoting is a violation of PD 957 , hindi dapat yan inaapprove ng HLURB
Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 04:52PM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines

...absolutely agree with jekz & Madzpc! I confer this subject (Maceda Law) with my boss who is a licensed real estate broker, and he confirms that anything installment is covered by RA6552. Who had other opinion on this? Any expert lawyer on real estate? This discussion needs help...

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 07:56PM
EstherQuite
EstherQuite
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
3 posts
  • Registered: Jul 27, 2012
  • Last Access From: Philippines
jekz posted on September 12, 2012 03:46PM
The Contract you are quoting is a violation of PD 957 , hindi dapat yan inaapprove ng HLURB


what contract are you referring to? na hindi dapat i-approve ng HLURB. . Sabi ng nagtanong sa forum na ito, they are occupying the unit na, meaning the unit itself is ready for occupancy na.


Lesson learned, Before entering a conract you sould read and understand wat the contract is saying, hindi pirma ng pirma.

Ako, I have a client who actually entered into a lease-to-own contract with option to purchase, because they actually paying as a renter, they don't have any priviledge to that refund. If they have decided to cancel the contract, what they just do is to don't pay the next monthly payment and ten get out of the unit with their things. Ngayon, if they have decided to purchase the unit, kailangan lang they are pre-approved by the bank, and finish the 23 lease term, and voila the unit is under their name, tsaka pa lang sila magkakaroon ng deed of absolute sale. .they just have to pay to the bank for the financing. .

Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 08:16PM
Intelenet
Intelenet
stars
Majestic Sulitizen
7200 posts
  • Registered: Apr 1, 2009
best is you sell it to another person and make them continue the payment
Locked | Report Report
posted September 12, 2012 09:31PM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines

@slackereq Buddy, you have to let us know what type of documents you signed in order for us to help you. Otherwise we all dilly-dally here without progress.

Locked | Report Report
posted September 20, 2012 05:04PM
mxherr5
mxherr5
stars
Sulitizen-to-be
1 post
  • Registered: Feb 7, 2009
  • Last Access From: Philippines
EstherQuite posted on September 12, 2012 10:54AM
walkingmap posted on September 10, 2012 08:01AM
Ning1013 posted on September 8, 2012 06:35PM

What happened about the refund? Does SMDC granted your request for a refund after you informed them about Maceda Law?  Because we are on the same boat right now.  However, they gave us a lame excuse that Maceda Law is not applicable to us due to  reasonable rental cost since we occupied the unit.

Sec. 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine, where the buyer has paid at least two years of installments, the buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he defaults in the payment of succeeding installments:

It does not state in the Maceda Law what SMDC told you. There is no excuse that they should not give you the refund if you had been paying for at least 2 years.


as stated in the Maceda Law you are quoting, "contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on installment payment", as per all developers contract to sell is the basis of a sale while Lease Contract is being used if a unit is under lease-to-own/rent-to-own scheme . .

In a sale transaction, a person who purchased a unit is called buyer, while a person who actually rents a unit to a developer is called a lessee. .

"excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants" - tenants here are lessee. .


I'm not a real estate broker much less an agent but I think you choose to disregard the rest of that

clause.

 

It says, tenants under RA3844 as amended by RA6389 are the ones excluded

Both RAs deal with agrarian reform and agricultural land.

I'm guessing, tenants in this case refers to tenant farmers.

 

To me it looks like the maceda law seeks to include all residential properties

and exclude commercial,industrial and agricultural properties.


1 member thinks this post is SULIT!
Locked | Report Report
posted September 20, 2012 06:19PM
walkingmap
walkingmap
stars
Veteran Sulitizen
303 posts
  • Registered: Feb 2, 2011
  • Last Access From: Philippines

You're right, 

excluding industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred forty-four, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine

this refers to agricultural tenants.

Locked | Report Report
Back to top ▲
Need help?