Case Summary (G.R. No. 195670)
Properties in Dispute and Claimed Sources of Funds
Properties claimed as conjugal (acquired by onerous title during marriage): Lot 1, Block 3 (TCT No. 22846, 252 sq.m., with a residential house); Lot 2142 (TCT No. 21974, 806 sq.m., with a residential house); Lot 5845 (TCT No. 21306, 756 sq.m.); Lot 4, Block 4 (TCT No. 21307, 45 sq.m.). Properties claimed by inheritance with a specified conjugal portion: 1/7 of Lot 2055-A (TCT No. 23567; conjugal portion 376.45 sq.m.) and 1/15 of Lot 2055-I (TCT No. 23575; conjugal portion 24 sq.m.). Respondent asserted she purchased the parcels and improvements with her personal funds (earnings from jewelry sales and product vending) or acquired them by inheritance, submitting a joint affidavit attesting that Lot 2142 and its improvements were purchased with her funds. Petitioner maintained the purchase money came from his Dutch government disability benefits and argued the joint affidavit was invalid under Article 89 of the Family Code.
Procedural History to the Regional Trial Court
Petitioner filed the dissolution petition on December 14, 2000. Trial evidence included conflicting testimonies about the source of purchase funds and petitioner’s execution of a joint affidavit indicating respondent’s ownership. Respondent counterclaimed for attorney’s fees and other relief. The RTC, Branch 34, rendered judgment on February 28, 2007 dissolving the conjugal partnership (consistent with the prior annulment) and making the following dispositions: all parcels of land (TCT Nos. 22846, 21974, 21306, 21307, 23567 and 23575) declared respondent’s paraphernal (separate) properties; the personal tools and equipment brought out by petitioner declared exclusively his; the two houses on Lots 1 and 2142 declared co-owned between the parties and subject to partition. The RTC denied respondent’s claim for attorney’s fees and moral damages.
RTC’s Reasoning on Foreign Ownership and Reimbursement
The RTC concluded that irrespective of the alleged source of funds, petitioner could not acquire any right in the subject land because he was a foreigner and was aware of the constitutional prohibition against alien ownership of private land. The court relied on petitioner’s own sworn statements as evidence that he deliberately caused title to be registered in respondent’s name to avoid the constitutional bar. Because petitioner knowingly engaged in an attempt to circumvent the constitutional prohibition, the RTC denied any equitable claim for reimbursement, invoking the doctrine that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands.
Court of Appeals Decision
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on October 8, 2009 affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA emphasized petitioner’s awareness of the constitutional prohibition (Section 7, Article XII, 1987 Constitution), and held that a party who knowingly violates the constitutional ban cannot invoke equity to obtain reimbursement. The CA reasoning tracked the RTC’s conclusion that petitioner’s conduct precluded equitable relief.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether petitioner, a foreign national who knowingly participated in acquiring Philippine land and caused title to be registered in his spouse’s name, may recover reimbursement (either half or whole) of the purchase price he claims to have advanced for the subject land, despite the constitutional prohibition on alien ownership of private lands.
Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the CA and RTC decisions. The Court held that petitioner cannot recover reimbursement for payments made in connection with an acquisition that he knowingly caused to violate the constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership of private land.
Constitutional and Statutory Basis of the Decision
The decision relied on Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution: “Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.” Because the constitutional ban is procedural and substantive public policy, transactions that contravene it are null and void and give rise to no enforceable rights. The Court applied this constitutional rule as the primary legal constraint barring any recognition of petitioner’s claimed proprietary interest.
Equitable Principles and Doctrines Applied
The Court invoked perennial equitable maxims: “he who seeks equity must do equity” and the clean hands doctrine. Where a party knowingly engages in an attempt to evade constitutional restrictions, equity will not aid that party. The Court applied the pari delicto principle — a court will not assist a party who is in pari delicto or whose claim arises from an illegal or unconstitutional transaction. Equity follows the law; therefore, equitable remedies cannot be used to accomplish indirectly what is prohibited directly by the Constitution.
Civil Code and Unjust Enrichment Considerations
The Court explained that Article 1412 of the Civil Code bars recovery when the unlawful cause does not constitute a criminal offense and both contracting parties are at fault: neither may recover what he has given. Similarly, Article 22 (action for unjust enrichment) does not apply where the action is proscribed by the Constitution
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 195670)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court contesting:
- The October 8, 2009 Decision and January 24, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01940.
- Those CA rulings affirmed the February 28, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Branch 34 in Civil Case No. 12884.
- Original annulment of marriage: RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 32 declared the marriage null and void by Decision dated November 10, 2000 on the ground of the petitioner’s psychological incapacity (Article 36, Family Code).
- Subsequent petition filed by petitioner: Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership dated December 14, 2000, seeking distribution of properties alleged to have been acquired during marriage.
- Appeal route:
- Trial court (RTC Branch 34) Decision dated February 28, 2007.
- Court of Appeals Decision promulgated October 8, 2009 (CA-G.R. CV No. 01940) affirmed the RTC.
- Supreme Court rendered final decision on December 3, 2012 (G.R. No. 195670) denying the petition.
Factual Background
- Parties and marriage:
- Petitioner: Willem Beumer, a Dutch national.
- Respondent: Avelina Amores, a Filipina.
- Marriage took place on March 29, 1980.
- Annulment:
- The marriage was annulled by RTC Branch 32 on November 10, 2000 for petitioner’s psychological incapacity.
- Subsequent proceedings:
- Petitioner filed for dissolution of conjugal partnership seeking distribution of specified parcels of land and other properties allegedly acquired during the marriage.
Properties Subject of the Suit (as claimed by petitioner)
- By Purchase (claimed as acquired during marriage):
- Lot 1, Block 3 of consolidated survey of Lots 2144 & 2147, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 22846 — area 252 sq.m. — residential house constructed thereon.
- Lot 2142, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 21974 — area 806 sq.m. — residential house constructed thereon.
- Lot 5845, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 21306 — area 756 sq.m.
- Lot 4, Block 4 of consolidated survey of Lots 2144 & 2147, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 21307 — area 45 sq.m.
- By Inheritance (claimed portions forming part of conjugal partnership):
- 1/7 of Lot 2055-A, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 23567 — total area 2,635 sq.m. — conjugal share equal to 376.45 sq.m.
- 1/15 of Lot 2055-I, Dumaguete Cadastre — TCT No. 23575 — total area 360 sq.m. — conjugal share equal to 24 sq.m.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioner’s contentions:
- The properties listed (Lots 1, 2142, 5845, 4) were acquired with funds he received from the Dutch government as his disability benefit because respondent lacked sufficient income to buy them.
- The properties were registered in respondent’s name due to constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership; he sought reimbursement of one-half of the purchase price (waiving other half).
- The joint affidavit executed before the Register of Deeds stating respondent’s funds were used is invalid under Article 89 of the Family Code, according to petitioner.
- Respondent’s contentions:
- Except for the two residential houses on Lots 1 and 2142, she and petitioner did not acquire other conjugal properties during marriage.
- Respondent purchased Lots 1, 2142, 5845, and 4 with her personal funds; Lots 2055-A and 2055-I were acquired by way of inheritance.
- She submitted a joint affidavit executed by both parties attesting that Lot 2142 and improvements were purchased using her own money.
- She sought dismissal of petitioner’s petition and prayed for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Evidence Presented at Trial
- Petitioner’s testimony:
- Claimed monetary source for acquisition of certain lots was his disability benefit from the Dutch government.
- Acknowledged joint affidavit that stated respondent’s personal funds were used but argued the affidavit contradicted Article 89 of the Family Code and was invalid.
- Respondent’s testimony and evidence:
- Asserted that funds used to purchase the lots came exclusively from her personal earnings (sale of jewelry and products from Avon, Triumph, Tupperware).
- Presented a joint affidavit with petitioner attesting to respondent’s sole payment for Lot 2142 and the improvements thereon.
- Alleged that after she filed for annulment in 1996, petitioner transferred to the second house bringing tools and equipment (drills, welding machine, grinders, clamps, etc.) with an asserted total cost of P500,000.00.
RTC Decision (February 28, 2007) — Findings and Dispositive
- Ruling summary:
- Dissolved the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner and respondent, considering the prior annulment of the marriage by Branch 32.
- Declared parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 22846, 21974, 21306, 21307, 23567, and 23575 to be paraphernal properties of respondent (reason: properties acquired by onerous title during marriage but petitioner, being a foreigner, is constitutionally prohibited from acquiring private land in the Philippines except by inheritance).
- Declared the personal properties (tools and equipment brought by petitioner) to be exclusively owned by petitioner.
- Declared the two houses on TCT Nos. 21974 and 22846 to be co-owned by petitioner and respondent because these were acquired during the marital union and foreigners are not prohibited from owning buildings and residential units.
- Directed the parties to submit a project of partition on the two houses for court approval.
- Denied respondent’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees (no premium on right to litigate) and denied prayer for moral damages for lack of merit.
- No pronouncement as to costs.
- Rationale:
- Even if funds were from petitioner, he could not acquire rights over the land because of constitutional prohibition on foreign ownership.
- Petitioner’s prior sworn statements purporting respondent’s exclusive funding undermined his claim.
- Petitioner’s plea for reimbursement was denied because he did not come to court with clean hands; he attempted to acquire lands in contravention of constitutional ban.
Court of Appeals Decision (October 8, 2009)
- CA’s action:
- Affirmed in toto the RTC judgment of February 28, 2007.
- Reasoning emphasized by the CA:
- Pe