Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship

Petitioner Willem Beumer (Beumer), a Dutch National, and respondent
Avelina Amores (Amores), a Filipina, were married. After several years,

the RTC declared the nullity of their marriage on the basis of the
formers psychological incapacity. Consequently, Beumer filed a Petition
for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership praying for the distribution of the
six lots claimed to have been acquired during the subsistence of their
marriage.
shall not be accorded equity. 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.
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. Surely, a contract that violates the Constitution and the
law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no obligations and
produces no legal effect at all. Corollary thereto, under Article 1412 of
the Civil Code, 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. Indeed, one cannot
salvage any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly
entered into
Amores averred that, with the exception of their two (2) residential
houses, she and Beumer did not acquire any conjugal properties during
their marriage, the truth being that she used her own personal money to
purchase the four lots and the other two by way of inheritance. She
submitted a joint affidavit executed by her and petitioner attesting to the
fact that she purchased one of the lots and the improvements thereon
using her own money. On the other hand, Beumer testified that while
the four lots, excluding the two lots allegedly acquired by Amores by
way of inheritance, were registered in the name of Amores, these
properties were acquired with the money he received from the Dutch
government as his disability benefit since Amores did not have sufficient
income to pay for their acquisition. He also claimed that the joint Neither can the Court grant petitioners claim for reimbursement on the
affidavit they submitted before the Register of Deeds was contrary to basis of unjust enrichment. As held in Frenzel v. Catito, a case also
involving a foreigner seeking monetary reimbursement for money spent
Article 89 of the Family Code, hence, invalid.
on purchase of Philippine land, the provision on unjust enrichment does
In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller not apply if the action is proscribed by the Constitution.
v. Helmut Muller the Court had already denied a claim for
reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land Nor would the denial of his claim amount to an injustice based on his
instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina foreign citizenship. Precisely, it is the Constitution itself which
spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut Muller cannot demarcates the rights of citizens and non-citizens in owning Philippine
seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he land. To be sure, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies only
willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the prohibition to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built
against foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, thereon, such as the two (2) houses standing on Lots 1 and 2142 which
were properly declared to be co-owned by the parties subject to
Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
partition. Needless to state, the purpose of the prohibition is to
As also explained in Muller, the time-honored principle is that he who conserve the national patrimony and it is this policy which the Court
seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must is duty-bound to protect (Willem Beumer Vs. Avelina Amores, G.R. No.
come with clean hands. Conversely stated, he who has done inequity 195670. December 3, 2012).

Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner Willem Beumer (Beumer), a Dutch National, and respondent

Avelina Amores (Amores), a Filipina, were married. After several years,

shall not be accorded equity. Thus, a litigant may be denied relief by a

You might also like