Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Muller v. Muller Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krisha
    The petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller filed for separation of property from her husband Helmut Muller. They had purchased property in Antipolo, Philippines using funds Helmut inherited, but titled it under Elena's name due to constitutional restrictions. Helmut sought reimbursement for the funds. The Supreme Court ruled against Helmut, finding that an implied trust cannot be established as it would circumvent the constitutional restriction, and that he knew the title was under Elena's name for this reason. The Court of Appeals' decision ordering reimbursement was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Muller v. Muller Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krisha
    25 views2 pages
    The petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller filed for separation of property from her husband Helmut Muller. They had purchased property in Antipolo, Philippines using funds Helmut inherited, but titled it under Elena's name due to constitutional restrictions. Helmut sought reimbursement for the funds. The Supreme Court ruled against Helmut, finding that an implied trust cannot be established as it would circumvent the constitutional restriction, and that he knew the title was under Elena's name for this reason. The Court of Appeals' decision ordering reimbursement was reversed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller filed for separation of property from her husband Helmut Muller. They had purchased property in Antipolo, Philippines using funds Helmut inherited, but titled it under Elena's name due to constitutional restrictions. Helmut sought reimbursement for the funds. The Supreme Court ruled against Helmut, finding that an implied trust cannot be established as it would circumvent the constitutional restriction, and that he knew the title was under Elena's name for this reason. The Court of Appeals' decision ordering reimbursement was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Muller v. Muller Digest

    Uploaded by

    Krisha
    The petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller filed for separation of property from her husband Helmut Muller. They had purchased property in Antipolo, Philippines using funds Helmut inherited, but titled it under Elena's name due to constitutional restrictions. Helmut sought reimbursement for the funds. The Supreme Court ruled against Helmut, finding that an implied trust cannot be established as it would circumvent the constitutional restriction, and that he knew the title was under Elena's name for this reason. The Court of Appeals' decision ordering reimbursement was reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. NO.

    149615 : August 29, 2006]

    IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY ELENA

    BUENAVENTURA MULLER, Petitioner, v. HELMUT MULLER, Respondent

    Facts of the Case:

    Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller and respondent Helmut Muller were married in
    Hamburg, Germany on September 22, 1989. The couple resided in Germany at a house owned
    by the respondent’s parents but they decided to move and reside permanently in the
    Philippines in 1992. By this time, respondent had inherited the house in Germany from his
    parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo,
    Rizal for P528,000 and the construction of the house amounting to P2,300,000. The Antipolo
    property was registered in the name of petitioner.

    Due to incompatibilities and the respondent’s alleged womanizing, drinking, and


    maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated. On September 26, 1994, respondent filed a
    petition for separation of properties before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City

    On August 12, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision which terminated the regime of
    absolute community of property between the petitioner and the respondent. It also decreed
    the separation of properties and ordered the equal partition of the personal properties located
    within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during marriage.

    The Antipolo property was ruled to be purchased using the paraphernal funds of the
    respondent. However, it was also ruled that he cannot recover his funds because the
    purchase of the property was in violation of Section 7, Article 12 of the Constitution.

    The responded, Helmut Muller, then appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered to
    modify the trial court’s decision. It held that the respondent only asked for the
    reimbursements of his funds, and not for the acquisition or transfer of ownership. It also
    considered the respondent’s ownership over the property in trust for the respondent.

    Wherefore, the decision of the court dated August 12, 1996 was modified. Elena
    Buenaventura was ordered to reimburse P528,000 for the land and P2,300,000 for the
    construction of the house, deducting all amounts she spent for the preservation, maintenance,
    and development of the house.

    Hence, the immediate Petition for Review for the following issues:

    1. The Court erred in holding that the respondent, Helmut Muller, was entitled of the
    reimbursement.
    2. The Court erred in sustaining respondent’s cause of action

    Issue:

    The issue for resolution is whether respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the

    funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property.

    Ruling:

    The property was purchased in violation of Sec 7, Art. 12 of the Constitution, and being fully
    aware of this provision, the respondent admitted that the title was registered to the
    petitioner’s name because of this. Thus, his claim on the right to the said property cannot be
    sustained.

    Implied trust between the petitioner and the respondent can also not be sustained because
    the provision does not provide for this exemption, and holding otherwise will allow
    circumvention of the law. The respondent cannot claim reimbursement on the ground of
    equity.

    The instant petition was GRANTED. The decision ordering petitioner Elena Buenaventura
    to reimburse specific amounts were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The previous decision of
    the Regional Trial Court was REINSTATED.

    You might also like