G.R. No.

195670 December 3, 2012

WILLEM BEUMER, Petitioner,
vs.
AVELINA AMORE, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
!ERLA"BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
under Rule 4 of the Rules of Co!lli
assailin" the O#to$er %, &''( De#ision
&
and )anuar* &4, &'11 Resolution
+
of the #ourt of ,ppeals
-C,. in C,/0.R. C1 No. '1(4', whi#h affir2ed the 3e$ruar* &%, &''4 De#ision
4
of the
Re"ional 5rial Court -R5C. of Ne"ros Oriental, Bran#h +4 in Civil Case No. I &%%4. 5he
fore"oin" rulin"s dissolved the #on6u"al partnership of "ains of 7ille2 Beu2er -petitioner. and
,velina ,2ores -respondent. and distri$uted the properties for2in" part of the said propert*
re"i2e.
5he 3a#tual ,nte#edents
Petitioner, a Dut#h National, and respondent, a 3ilipina, 2arried in 8ar#h &(, 1(%'. ,fter several
*ears, the R5C of Ne"ros Oriental, Bran#h +&, de#lared the nullit* of their 2arria"e in the
De#ision

dated Nove2$er 1', &''' on the $asis of the for2er9s ps*#holo"i#al in#apa#it* as
#onte2plated in ,rti#le +: of the 3a2il* Code.
Conse;uentl*, petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Con6u"al Partnership
:
dated
De#e2$er 14, &''' pra*in" for the distri$ution of the followin" des#ri$ed properties #lai2ed to
have $een a#;uired durin" the su$sisten#e of their 2arria"e, to wit<
B* Pur#hase<
a. !ot 1, Blo#= + of the #onsolidated surve* of !ots &144 > &144 of the Du2a"uete
Cadastre, #overed $* 5ransfer Certifi#ate of 5itle -5C5. No. &&%4:, #ontainin" an area of
&& s;uare 2eters -s;.2.., in#ludin" a residential house #onstru#ted thereon.
$. !ot &14& of the Du2a"uete Cadastre, #overed $* 5C5 No. &1(44, #ontainin" an area
of %': s;.2., in#ludin" a residential house #onstru#ted thereon.
#. !ot %4 of the Du2a"uete Cadastre, #overed $* 5C5 No. &1+':, #ontainin" an area
of 4: s;.2.
d. !ot 4, Blo#= 4 of the #onsolidated surve* of !ots &144 > &144 of the Du2a"uete
Cadastre, #overed $* 5C5 No. &1+'4, #ontainin" an area of 4 s;.2.
B* wa* of inheritan#e<
e. 1?4 of !ot &'/, of the Du2a"uete Cadastre, #overed $* 5C5 No. &+:4, #ontainin"
an area of &,:+ s;.2. -the area that appertains to the #on6u"al partnership is +4:.4
s;.2...
f. 1?1 of !ot &'/I of the Du2a"uete Cadastre, #overed $* 5C5 No. &+4, #ontainin"
an area of +:' s;.2. -the area that appertains to the #on6u"al partnership is &4 s;.2...
4
In defense,
%
respondent averred that, with the e@#eption of their two -&. residential houses on
!ots 1 and &14&, she and petitioner did not a#;uire an* #on6u"al properties durin" their 2arria"e,
the truth $ein" that she used her own personal 2one* to pur#hase !ots 1, &14&, %4 and 4 out
of her personal funds and !ots &'/, and &'/I $* wa* of inheritan#e.
(
She su$2itted a 6oint
affidavit e@e#uted $* her and petitioner attestin" to the fa#t that she pur#hased !ot &14& and the
i2prove2ents thereon usin" her own 2one*.
1'
,##ordin"l*, respondent sou"ht the dis2issal of
the petition for dissolution as well as pa*2ent for attorne*9s fees and liti"ation e@penses.
11
Durin" trial, petitioner testified that while !ots 1, &14&, %4 and 4 were re"istered in the na2e
of respondent, these properties were a#;uired with the 2one* he re#eived fro2 the Dut#h
"overn2ent as his disa$ilit* $enefit
1&
sin#e respondent did not have suffi#ient in#o2e to pa* for
their a#;uisition. Ae also #lai2ed that the 6oint affidavit the* su$2itted $efore the Re"ister of
Deeds of Du2a"uete Cit* was #ontrar* to ,rti#le %( of the 3a2il* Code, hen#e, invalid.
1+
3or her part, respondent 2aintained that the 2one* used for the pur#hase of the lots #a2e
e@#lusivel* fro2 her personal funds, in parti#ular, her earnin"s fro2 sellin" 6ewelr* as well as
produ#ts fro2 ,von, 5riu2ph and 5upperware.
14
She further asserted that after she filed for
annul2ent of their 2arria"e in 1((:, petitioner transferred to their se#ond house and $rou"ht
alon" with hi2 #ertain personal properties, #onsistin" of drills, a weldin" 2a#hine, "rinders,
#la2ps, et#. She alle"ed that these tools and e;uip2ent have a total #ost of P'','''.''.
1
5he R5C Rulin"
On 3e$ruar* &%, &''4, the R5C of Ne"ros Oriental, Bran#h +4 rendered its De#ision, dissolvin"
the parties9 #on6u"al partnership, awardin" all the par#els of land to respondent as her
paraphernal propertiesB the tools and e;uip2ent in favor of petitioner as his e@#lusive propertiesB
the two -&. houses standin" on !ots 1 and &14& as #o/owned $* the parties, the dispositive of
whi#h reads<
7AERE3ORE, 6ud"2ent is here$* rendered "rantin" the dissolution of the #on6u"al partnership
of "ains $etween petitioner 7ille2 Beu2er and respondent ,velina ,2ores #onsiderin" the fa#t
that their 2arria"e was previousl* annulled $* Bran#h +& of this Court. 5he par#els of land
#overed $* 5ransfer Certifi#ate of 5itles Nos. &&%4:, &1(44, &1+':, &1+'4, &+:4 and &+4 are
here$* de#lared paraphernal properties of respondent ,velina ,2ores due to the fa#t that while
these real properties were a#;uired $* onerous title durin" their 2arital union, 7ille2 Beu2er,
$ein" a forei"ner, is not allowed $* law to a#;uire an* private land in the Philippines, e@#ept
throu"h inheritan#e.
5he personal properties, i.e., tools and e;uip2ent 2entioned in the #o2plaint whi#h were
$rou"ht out $* 7ille2 fro2 the #on6u"al dwellin" are here$* de#lared to $e e@#lusivel* owned
$* the petitioner.
5he two houses standin" on the lots #overed $* 5ransfer Certifi#ate of 5itle Nos. &1(44 and
&&%4: are here$* de#lared to $e #o/owned $* the petitioner and the respondent sin#e these were
a#;uired durin" their 2arital union and sin#e there is no prohi$ition on forei"ners fro2 ownin"
$uildin"s and residential units. Petitioner and respondent are, there$*, dire#ted to su$6e#t this
#ourt for approval their pro6e#t of partition on the two houses afore2entioned.
5he Court finds no suffi#ient 6ustifi#ation to award the #ounter#lai2 of respondent for attorne*9s
fees #onsiderin" the well settled do#trine that there should $e no pre2iu2 on the ri"ht to liti"ate.
5he pra*er for 2oral da2a"es are li=ewise denied for la#= of 2erit.
No pronoun#e2ent as to #osts.
SO ORDERED.
1:
It ruled that, re"ardless of the sour#e of funds for the a#;uisition of !ots 1, &14&, %4 and 4,
petitioner #ould not have a#;uired an* ri"ht whatsoever over these properties as petitioner still
atte2pted to a#;uire the2 notwithstandin" his =nowled"e of the #onstitutional prohi$ition
a"ainst forei"n ownership of private lands.
14
5his was 2ade evident $* the sworn state2ents
petitioner e@e#uted purportin" to show that the su$6e#t par#els of land were pur#hased fro2 the
e@#lusive funds of his wife, the herein respondent.
1%
Petitioner9s plea for rei2$urse2ent for the
a2ount he had paid to pur#hase the fore"oin" properties on the $asis of e;uit* was li=ewise
denied for not havin" #o2e to #ourt with #lean hands.
5he C, Rulin"
Petitioner elevated the 2atter to the C,, #ontestin" onl* the R5C9s award of !ots 1, &14&, %4
and 4 in favor of respondent. Ae insisted that the 2one* used to pur#hase the fore"oin"
properties #a2e fro2 his own #apital funds and that the* were re"istered in the na2e of his
for2er wife onl* $e#ause of the #onstitutional prohi$ition a"ainst forei"n ownership. 5hus, he
pra*ed for rei2$urse2ent of one/half -1?&. of the value of what he had paid in the pur#hase of
the said properties, waivin" the other half in favor of his estran"ed e@/wife.
1(
On O#to$er %, &''(, the C, pro2ul"ated a De#ision
&'
affir2in" in toto the 6ud"2ent rendered $*
the R5C of Ne"ros Oriental, Bran#h +4. 5he C, stressed the fa#t that petitioner was Cwell/aware
of the #onstitutional prohi$ition for aliens to a#;uire lands in the Philippines.C
&1
Aen#e, he #annot
invo=e e;uit* to support his #lai2 for rei2$urse2ent.
Conse;uentl*, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailin" the C,
De#ision due to the followin" error<
DNDER 5AE 3,C5S ES5,B!ISAED, 5AE CODR5 ERRED IN NO5 SDS5,ININ0 5AE
PE5I5IONER9S ,55E8P5 ,5 SDBSEEDEN5!F ,SSER5IN0 OR C!,I8IN0 , RI0A5 O3
A,!3 OR 7AO!E O3 5AE PDRCA,SE PRICE DSED IN 5AE PDRCA,SE O3 5AE RE,!
PROPER5IES SDB)EC5 O3 5AIS C,SE.
&&
-E2phasis supplied.
5he Rulin" of the Court
5he petition la#=s 2erit.
5he issue to $e resolved is not of first i2pression. In In Re< Petition 3or Separation of Propert*/
Elena Buenaventura 8uller v. Ael2ut 8uller
&+
the Court had alread* denied a #lai2 for
rei2$urse2ent of the value of pur#hased par#els of Philippine land instituted $* a forei"ner
Ael2ut 8uller, a"ainst his for2er 3ilipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura 8uller. It held that
Ael2ut 8uller #annot see= rei2$urse2ent on the "round of e;uit* where it is #lear that he
willin"l* and =nowin"l* $ou"ht the propert* despite the prohi$ition a"ainst forei"n ownership of
Philippine land
&4
enshrined under Se#tion 4, ,rti#le GII of the 1(%4 Philippine Constitution
whi#h reads<
Se#tion 4. Save in #ases of hereditar* su##ession, no private lands shall $e transferred or
#onve*ed e@#ept to individuals, #orporations, or asso#iations ;ualified to a#;uire or hold lands of
the pu$li# do2ain.
Dndenia$l*, petitioner openl* ad2itted that he Cis well aware of the a$ove/#ited #onstitutional
prohi$itionC
&
and even asseverated that, $e#ause of su#h prohi$ition, he and respondent
re"istered the su$6e#t properties in the latter9s na2e.
&:
Clearl*, petitioner9s a#tuations showed his
palpa$le intent to s=irt the #onstitutional prohi$ition. On the $asis of su#h ad2ission, the Court
finds no reason wh* it should not appl* the 8uller rulin" and a##ordin"l*, den* petitioner9s
#lai2 for rei2$urse2ent.
,s also e@plained in 8uller, the ti2e/honored prin#iple is that he who see=s e;uit* 2ust do
e;uit*, and he who #o2es into e;uit* 2ust #o2e with #lean hands. Conversel* stated, he who
has done ine;uit* shall not $e a##orded e;uit*. 5hus, a liti"ant 2a* $e denied relief $* a #ourt of
e;uit* on the "round that his #ondu#t has $een ine;uita$le, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or
de#eitful.
&4
In this #ase, petitioner9s state2ents re"ardin" the real sour#e of the funds used to pur#hase the
su$6e#t par#els of land dilute the vera#it* of his #lai2s< 7hile ad2ittin" to have previousl*
e@e#uted a 6oint affidavit that respondent9s personal funds were used to pur#hase !ot 1,
&%
he
li=ewise #lai2ed that his personal disa$ilit* funds were used to a#;uire the sa2e. Evidentl*,
these in#onsisten#ies show his untruthfulness. 5hus, as petitioner has #o2e $efore the Court with
un#lean hands, he is now pre#luded fro2 see=in" an* e;uita$le refu"e.
In an* event, the Court #annot, even on the "rounds of e;uit*, "rant rei2$urse2ent to petitioner
"iven that he a#;uired no ri"ht whatsoever over the su$6e#t properties $* virtue of its
un#onstitutional pur#hase. It is well/esta$lished that e;uit* as a rule will follow the law and will
not per2it that to $e done indire#tl* whi#h, $e#ause of pu$li# poli#*, #annot $e done dire#tl*.
&(

Surel*, a #ontra#t that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void, vests no ri"hts,
#reates no o$li"ations and produ#es no le"al effe#t at all.
+'
Corollar* thereto, under ,rti#le 141&
of the Civil Code,
+1
petitioner #annot have the su$6e#t properties deeded to hi2 or allow hi2 to
re#over the 2one* he had spent for the pur#hase thereof. 5he law will not aid either part* to an
ille"al #ontra#t or a"ree2entB it leaves the parties where it finds the2.
+&
Indeed, one #annot
salva"e an* ri"hts fro2 an un#onstitutional transa#tion =nowin"l* entered into.
Neither #an the Court "rant petitioner9s #lai2 for rei2$urse2ent on the $asis of un6ust
enri#h2ent.
++
,s held in 3renHel v. Catito, a #ase also involvin" a forei"ner see=in" 2onetar*
rei2$urse2ent for 2one* spent on pur#hase of Philippine land, the provision on un6ust
enri#h2ent does not appl* if the a#tion is pros#ri$ed $* the Constitution, to wit<
3utile, too, is petitionerIs relian#e on ,rti#le && of the New Civil Code whi#h reads<
,rt. &&. Ever* person who throu"h an a#t of perfor2an#e $* another, or an* other 2eans,
a#;uires or #o2es into possession of so2ethin" at the e@pense of the latter without 6ust or le"al
"round, shall return the sa2e to hi2.1wphi1
5he provision is e@pressed in the 2a@i2< C8E8O CD8 ,!5ERIDS DE5ER DE5RE8EN5O
PRO5ES5C -No person should un6ustl* enri#h hi2self at the e@pense of another.. ,n a#tion for
re#over* of what has $een paid without 6ust #ause has $een desi"nated as an a##ion in re2 verso.
5his provision does not appl* if, as in this #ase, the a#tion is pros#ri$ed $* the Constitution or $*
the appli#ation of the pari deli#to do#trine. It 2a* $e unfair and un6ust to $ar the petitioner fro2
filin" an a##ion in re2 verso over the su$6e#t properties, or fro2 re#overin" the 2one* he paid
for the said properties, $ut, as !ord 8ansfield stated in the earl* #ase of Aol2an v. )ohnson<
C5he o$6e#tion that a #ontra#t is i22oral or ille"al as $etween the plaintiff and the defendant,
sounds at all ti2es ver* ill in the 2outh of the defendant. It is not for his sa=e, however, that the
o$6e#tion is ever allowedB $ut it is founded in "eneral prin#iples of poli#*, whi#h the defendant
has the advanta"e of, #ontrar* to the real 6usti#e, as $etween hi2 and the plaintiff.C
+4
-Citations
o2itted.
Nor would the denial of his #lai2 a2ount to an in6usti#e $ased on his forei"n #itiHenship.
+

Pre#isel*, it is the Constitution itself whi#h de2ar#ates the ri"hts of #itiHens and non/#itiHens in
ownin" Philippine land. 5o $e sure, the #onstitutional $an a"ainst forei"ners applies onl* to
ownership of Philippine land and not to the i2prove2ents $uilt thereon, su#h as the two -&.
houses standin" on !ots 1 and &14& whi#h were properl* de#lared to $e #o/owned $* the parties
su$6e#t to partition. Needless to state, the purpose of the prohi$ition is to #onserve the national
patri2on*
+:
and it is this poli#* whi#h the Court is dut*/$ound to prote#t.
7AERE3ORE, the petition is DENIED. ,##ordin"l*, the assailed O#to$er %, &''( De#ision and
)anuar* &4, &'11 Resolution of the Court of ,ppeals in C,/0.R. C1 No. '1(4' are ,33IR8ED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/dec2012/gr_195670_2012.html