There were a group of siblings who put up a house and lot as a common family residence and shared in funding it through years of labor until it was fully paid.
BUT only 2 siblings get to have their names put in the title coz the other siblings do not hold citizenship but there was a verbal agreement that the proceeds (thru rent or sale) will be shared accordingly.
That is, until it was found out that the non-citizen siblings have the option of forming a corporation or a debtor and creditor contract (preferably due to lower process fees) for the non-citizen siblings to have their names noted in the title so that the non-citizen siblings can protect their interest in the property legally.
But the owner siblings felt that such move reflects mistrust among siblings and suspects that once the other non-citizen siblings have their names included as creditor, the owner siblings (as debtor will have difficulty selling off the property in the future when they want to if the other non-citizen siblings (as creditors) still do not want to.
if the non-citizen siblings insist on the corporation or debtor and creditor contract, the owner siblings would rather sell off the property NOW and divide the proceeds .
So who is more justified - the owner siblings or the non-citizen siblings? and why?