He then sent me a series of texts that I'm sure contained the same, I didn't bother wasting my time reading them (though I kept them for evidence just in case he tried something stupid).

The case is REMANDED to the lower court for reception of evidence as to the amount claimed by the respondents for the preservation and maintenance of the property.SO ORDERED.Hence, the instant petition for review raising the following issues:ITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT USED TO PURCHASE THE LAND AS WELL AS THE COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, FOR IN SO RULING, IT INDIRECTLY ALLOWED AN ACT DONE WHICH OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE DIRECTLY x x x DONE, WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION THAT AN ALIEN IS PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.IITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN OWNERSHIP OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CLOTHED UNDER THE GUISE OF CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT.Petitioner contends that respondent, being an alien, is disqualified to own private lands in the Philippines; that respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition but circumvented the same; and that respondent's purpose for filing an action for separation of property is to obtain exclusive possession, control and disposition of the Antipolo property.Respondent claims that he is not praying for transfer of ownership of the Antipolo property but merely reimbursement; that the funds paid by him for the said property were in consideration of his marriage to petitioner; that the funds were given to petitioner in trust; and that equity demands that respondent should be reimbursed of his personal funds.The issue for resolution is whether respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property.The petition has merit.Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.

Any damage above reasonable wear and tear is taken from security deposit, and you send a statement to the tenant (along with any remaining amount or a bill for damages).If they fight back and/or take you to court, your evidence is the move in vs move out condition report and photos. you are at the step where you repair any damages and reimburse yourself from the tenants security.

Don't let the fear (False Evidence Appearing Real) keep you from pursuing this business.Hope that helps

People do make mistakes when they are young and stupid, and it's a shame that they are basically branded for life over something that may have happened a long time ago.My take on it is that I'm ok as long as the jail time was a long time ago (10 years plus) and there's no evidence of more recent problems.

We recorded every deposition and are waiting for them to be entered into evidence so we can show the world what it looks like to be sued and have to defend yourself even though you have the actual video recordings of the exact opposite of what they have said. 

What frustrates me and probably most others on BP who are not in the information industry about information marketers may be the inherent hypocrisy that is evident when a teacher's financial interests are not at all aligned with their students' financial interests but they teach about an industry that only really works when we align our interests.

:-/I just had a formal inspection done today on what’s supposed to be my first rehab, a Fannie Mae REO.Lo & behold, the inspector found evidence of a buried oil tank underneath the deck (the only indication was the short pipe sticking out of the ground).Mind you, there was no mention of one in the listing (which stated gas heat and “n/a” next to “oil tank”), nor anything on the disclosure—so I thought everything was cool.I went back and told the LA that I wouldn’t be closing unless the bank took care of testing, removal & any remediation.

If you think you're set apart from them then you already have the evidence since you're making the comparison.

I took that to be self-evident and the misunderstanding to be only the proper registration of the title change  as I noted the conditional "passing to direct heirs" :)