Q and A Recto Law
Q and A Recto Law
Q and A Recto Law
Consumer rights are protected under Philippine laws, and real estate is no different. A property
purchase involves a lot of money, so a buyer needs to know the laws that protect them. If you are
purchasing your first home, you will need to familiarize yourself with the Recto Law, its purpose,
and the sanctions given to people who violate it.
It was passed by the Philippine Legislature on December 9, 1933. The law amended a certain portion
of the Civil Code of 1889 (Código Civil) through the insertion of Section 1454-A.
The Civil Code of 1889 itself was repealed by Republic Act No. 386 which took effect in 1950. It
became known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. This expanded Section 1454-A into what are
now Articles 1484 to 1486 of the Civil Code. These are the provisions that currently contain the
precepts of the Recto Law.
Demand payment
Cancel the sale
Foreclose the mortgage
Note that the buyer must be in default by two or more installments before any of the remedies may be
exercised.
The buyer (or lessee or mortgagor) can select from the three alternatives as well, insofar as they are
applicable. This law will also govern leases with an option to purchase, such as in the
aforementioned case. However, the Recto Law does not cover straight sales wherein a down payment
is given and the remaining balance is agreed to be fulfilled through a single payment.
Even if the Recto Law was authored to prevent abuses by mortgagees (lenders), it is quite possible
that a mortgagor in default may increase his liability. This happens when the mortgagor fails to pay
two or more installments and refuses to return the personal property upon the seller’s demand.
Should there be an action for replevin to recover such property and the court rules in favor of the
seller, the buyer might have to pay costs and attorney’s fees as well.
The seller could likely be penalized in similar fashion should the Recto Law be violated. One remedy
would prevent the seller from exercising the others. For instance, if the buyer has already returned
the personal property to the seller, the seller can no longer try to collect the remaining installments.
This would be viewed as an unnecessary legal proceeding should the seller pursue more than one
remedy in court. It would cause the buyer to make additional needless expenses which will likely be
paid for by an erring seller.