Willem Beumer, Petitioner vs Avelina Amores

FACTS

•Petitoner, a Dutch National and respondent, a Filipina, gotmarried.

•After several years, the RTC declared the nullity of marriageon the basis of the petitioner’s psychological incapacity

•Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of conjugalpartnership praying for the distribution of the propertiesacquired during the marriage ( By purchase – 4 lots; by wayof inheritance – 2 lots)

•Respondent averred that she used her own personal moneyto purchase the 4 lots and inherited the 2 lots

•Petitioner testified that the purchased lots were registeredin the name of respondent, these properties were acquiredwith the money he received from the Dutch government ashis disability benefit

•Respondent maintained that the money used for thepurchase of lots came from her personal funds which wereher earnings from selling jewelry, products of avon, triumphand Tupperware.

ISSUE

•WON petitioner could claim reimbursement for the half of the prorperties

HELD

•Sec.7, Art XII No private land shall be transferred orconveyed except to individuals, corporations or associationsqualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Petitioner admitted that he is well aware of theconstitutional prohibition, that is why he and respondentregistered the subject properties in the respondent’s name

He who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes intoequity must come with clean hands. (He who has doneinequity shall not have equity)

The court cannot grant reimbursement on the ground of equity to petitioner given that he acquired no rightwhatsoever over the subject properties. One cannot salvageany rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowinglyentered into.

The court cannot grant reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment. The maxim No person should unjustlyenrich himself at the expense of another, does not applyhere since the action is proscribed by the Constitutiton. “the objection that a contract is immoral or illegal asbetween the plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff.”(Holman v. Johnson)

The improvements (houses) built on the lots are declared co-owned by the parties subject to partition. The purchased lots belong to the respondent because of the constitutional prohibition.