Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship
Injustice Based On His Foreign Citizenship
Amores averred that, with the exception of their two (2) residential
houses, she and Beumer did not acquire any conjugal properties during
their marriage, the truth being that she used her own personal money to
purchase the four lots and the other two by way of inheritance. She
submitted a joint affidavit executed by her and petitioner attesting to the
fact that she purchased one of the lots and the improvements thereon
using her own money. On the other hand, Beumer testified that while
the four lots, excluding the two lots allegedly acquired by Amores by
way of inheritance, were registered in the name of Amores, these
properties were acquired with the money he received from the Dutch
government as his disability benefit since Amores did not have sufficient
income to pay for their acquisition. He also claimed that the joint Neither can the Court grant petitioners claim for reimbursement on the
affidavit they submitted before the Register of Deeds was contrary to basis of unjust enrichment. As held in Frenzel v. Catito, a case also
involving a foreigner seeking monetary reimbursement for money spent
Article 89 of the Family Code, hence, invalid.
on purchase of Philippine land, the provision on unjust enrichment does
In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller not apply if the action is proscribed by the Constitution.
v. Helmut Muller the Court had already denied a claim for
reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land Nor would the denial of his claim amount to an injustice based on his
instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina foreign citizenship. Precisely, it is the Constitution itself which
spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut Muller cannot demarcates the rights of citizens and non-citizens in owning Philippine
seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he land. To be sure, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies only
willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the prohibition to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built
against foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, thereon, such as the two (2) houses standing on Lots 1 and 2142 which
were properly declared to be co-owned by the parties subject to
Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
partition. Needless to state, the purpose of the prohibition is to
As also explained in Muller, the time-honored principle is that he who conserve the national patrimony and it is this policy which the Court
seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must is duty-bound to protect (Willem Beumer Vs. Avelina Amores, G.R. No.
come with clean hands. Conversely stated, he who has done inequity 195670. December 3, 2012).