Beumer - v - Amores
Facts:
1.
Petitioner
(Dutch National) and respondent (Filipina) married in 1980. After several
years, the RTC Negros Oriental declared the nullity of their marriage in 2000
on the basis of the former's psychological incapacity as contemplated in
Article 36 of the Family Code.
2.
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for
Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership praying for the distribution of their
properties of Dumaguete Cadastre claimed to have been acquired during the
subsistence of their marriage through purchase and inheritance.
3.
Respondent averred that, with the exception of
their 2 residential houses
1.
she and
petitioner did not acquire any conjugal properties during their marriage (she
used her own personal money to purchase them out of her personal funds;
earnings from selling jewelry as well as products from Avon, Triumph and
Tupperware and others by way of inheritance). She submitted a joint affidavit
executed by her and petitioner attesting to the fact that she purchased the
lots and improvements thereon using her own money.
2.
petitioner transferred to their second house and
brought along with him certain personal properties, consisting of drills, a
welding machine, grinders, clamps, etc. worth P 500, 000
1.
these properties were acquired with the money he
received from the Dutch government as his disability benefit
2.
the joint affidavit they submitted before the
Register of Deeds of Dumaguete City was contrary to Article 89 of the Family
Code, hence, invalid.
5.
RTC Ruling
1.
The 6 parcels of land are declared paraphernal
properties of respondent Avelina Amores due to the fact that while these real
properties were acquired by onerous title during their marital union, Willem
Beumer, being a foreigner, is not allowed by law to acquire any private land in
the Philippines, except through inheritance.
2.
The personal properties, are declared to be
exclusively owned by the petitioner.
3.
The two houses are hereby declared to be
co-owned by the petitioner and the respondent since these were acquired during
their marital union and since there is no prohibition on foreigners from owning
buildings and residential units.
6.
CA Ruling
1.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, he
insisted that the money used to purchase the foregoing properties came from his
own capital funds and that they were registered in the name of his former wife
only because of the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership. He
prayed for reimbursement of(1/2) of the value of what he had paid in the
purchase of the said properties, waiving the other half in favor of his
estranged ex-wife.
2.
CA promulgated a Decision affirming in toto the
judgment rendered by the RTC Negros Oriental. The CA stressed the fact that
petitioner was "well-aware of the constitutional prohibition for aliens to
acquire lands in the Philippines." Hence, he cannot invoke equity to
support his claim for reimbursement.
Issue: WON petitioner can invoke
equity to support his claim for reimbursement
Held/Ratio: DENIED.
In
Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut
Muller, Helmut Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where
it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the
prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Undeniably,
petitioner openly admitted that he "is well aware of the [above-cited]
constitutional prohibition" and even asseverated that, because of such
prohibition, he and respondent registered the subject properties in the
latter's name. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity
must come with clean hands. Thus, a litigant may be denied relief by a court of
equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and
dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful. There are inconsistencies which show his
untruthfulness. Thus, as petitioner has come before the Court with unclean hands,
he is now precluded from seeking any equitable refuge.
In
any event, the Court cannot, even on the grounds of equity, grant reimbursement
to petitioner given that he acquired no right whatsoever over the subject
properties by virtue of its unconstitutional purchase. It is well established
that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done
indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly.
Article
1412 of the Civil Code,31 petitioner cannot have the subject properties deeded
to him or allow him to recover the money he had spent for the purchase thereof.
The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement; it
leaves the parties where it finds them.
On
the basis of unjust enrichment, Art 22 of the NCC, as held in Frenzel v.
Catito, the provision on unjust enrichment does not apply if the action is
proscribed by the Constitution. "MEMO CUM ALTERIUS DETER DETREMENTO
PROTEST" (No person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
another). This provision does not apply if, as in this case, the action is
proscribed by the Constitution or by the application of the pari delicto doctrine.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
