Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Digest Author: F.

Atienza

Beumer v. Amores (2012)


Petitioner: Willem Beumer
Respondent: Avelina Amores

b)

DOCTRINE: 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.

c)

FACTS:
1) Beumer, a Dutch national, and Amores, a Filipina, married in March 1980.
2) In 2000, RTC declared the nullity of their marriage due to psychological
incapacity of Beumer.
3) Beumer filed for the dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership and praying
for the distribution of the properties that have been acquired during the
marriage.
4) Amores averred that, with the exception of their two (2) residential houses
on Lots 1 and 2142, she and Beumer did not acquire any conjugal
properties during their marriage, the truth being that she used her own
personal money to purchase Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and 4 out of her personal
funds and Lots 2055-A and 2055-I by way of inheritance.
5) However, Beumer testified that while the lots were registered in the name
of Amores, the same were purchased from money he received from the
Dutch Government.
6) RTC dissolved the CPG and awarded all parcels of land to Amores as her
paraphernal property.
7) It ruled that, regardless of the source of funds for the acquisition of Lots
1, 2142, 5845 and 4, petitioner could not have acquired any right
whatsoever over these properties as petitioner still attempted to acquire
them notwithstanding his knowledge of the constitutional prohibition
against foreign ownership of private lands.

ISSUES:
1. WON Beumer may be reimbursed for the purchase of the said lots.
RULING + RATIO:
1) No
a) In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura
Muller v. Helmut Muller the Court had already denied a claim for
reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land
instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina
spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that 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

d)

e)

against foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under Section


7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
In this case, Beumer admitted that he is aware of the prohibition.
Therefore, they registered the parcels of land to Amores to circumvent
it.
The time-honored principle is that he who seeks equity must do equity,
and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
Conversely stated, he who has done inequity 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.
i) Beumer was also inconsistent with regard to the source of the
funds for the purchase.
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.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the


assailed October 8, 2009 Decision and January 24, 2011 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01940 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Based on Atty. Mel Sta. Maria: This case provides the exception to Art. 117,
which provides that, the following are conjugal partnership properties:
1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense
of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or
for only one of the spouses; XXX

Вам также может понравиться