When I attended the seminar for the real estate broker’s exam, this concept his me: “Ownership carries with it a distinct social obligation. As stewards of their land, owners are obliged to use their properties to promote not only their interest but also the general welfare. When a person’s landholdings exceed the requirements of his needs, or their utilization is not conducive to general welfare, the state may exercise its power to regulate and control ownership.”
Recently, I was led to a Tempo online article or reflection on the Parable of the Tenants (http://www.tempo.com.ph/2011/the-parable-of-the-tenants/#.Tp4b_Ztry2Q) I said to myself: “O.K. I get it. As long as I am in this world, I will never own anything. The houses, money, and everything that I hold now are just ‘borrowed!” So, if I want to be a better steward, I need to take care of it. I need to use it to produce some sort of fruit. For the glory of the One who lent it.
It sometimes baffles me when a property owner says: “I’d rather have that property rot than have it rented at the price lower than what I want.” Do you hear yourself saying this? Don’t you think it’s like wasting a resource? Why not make it produce something rather than nothing? A non performing asset is usually a liability. Why not turn this liability to an asset? All it needs is a little sacrifice.
Ultimately, even if on paper it says: you own the property, you never own or will own anything. If the government sees a property that is not producing fruit (property not producing realty tax), it will be taken away from you. It will be given to someone who will make it productive. Now, can you still say you ‘own’ a property?