You are on page 1of 4

In Re: Petition for separation of property Elena Buenaventura Muller, petitioner vs.

respondent FACTS Petitioner and respondent(german) were married in Germany. They decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines They purchased a parcel of land in Antipolo and constructed a house thereon Helmut Muller,

Respondent merely prayed for reimbursement for the purchase of the Antipolo property, and not the acquisition or transfer of ownership to him Respondent claims that the funds paid by him for the antipolo property were in consideration of his marriage to petitioner, that the funds were given to petitioner in trust and that equity demands that respondent should be reimbursed of his personal funds.

ISSUE WON could claim for reimbursement of the property

HELD The antipolo property was registered in the name of petitioner The spouses separated due to incompatibilities and respondents womanizing and maltreatment Respondent filed a petition for separation of properties TC rendered a decision which terminated the regime of absolute community of property. The antipolo property, the court held that it was acquired using the paraphernal funds of the respondent. Respondent cannot recover his funds because was purchased in violation of a constitutional prohibition. Sec.7, Art XII No private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Respondents disqualification form owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. The purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favour of the party who is guilty of fraud. He who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. (He who has done inequity shall not have equity)

Respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition. To allow reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed to own.

VIRGILIO MAQUILAN, petitioner, vs. MAQUILAN, respondent FACTS Petitioner and private respondent are spouses and have one son. Private respondent had an illicit sexual affair with her paramour. Petitioner filed a case of adultery against private respondent and her paramour. They were convicted of the crime of adultery. Private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of PI on the part of the petittioner, dissolution and liquidation of conjugal partnership of gains and damages During the pre-trial, they entered into a compromise agreement. The parties agree (1) that the 500K money deposited in the bank jointly will be withdrawn and deposited in favour of their common child, (2) the balance of the deposit shall be divided equally by the parties, (3) the store occupied shall be allotted to the private respondent while the bodega for the petitioner, (4) the house and lot shall be to the common child The compromise agreement was given judicial imprimatur by the judge HELD ISSUE DITA

The petitioner filed an Omnibus motion praying for the repudiation of the compromise agreement on the ground that his previous lawyer did not intelligently and judiciously apprise him of the consequential effects of the compromise agreement Respondent judge denied the omnibus motion Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied

WON a compromise agreement entered into by spouses was valid and legal WON the disqualification of a convicted spouse of adultery from sharing in a conjugal property, constitutes civil interdiction

The questioned Compromise agreement which was judicially approved is exactly such a separation of property allowed under the law. Neither could it be said that the petitioner was not intelligently and judiciously informed of the consequential effects of the compromise agreement. The negligence of the counsel binds the client. Any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. Petitioners claim the proceedings were void in the absence of the participation of the provincial prosecutor or solicitor. The settlement had no relation to the questions surrounding the validity of their marriage. Nor did the settlement amount

to a collusion between the parties. The failure of the RTC to require the appearance does not nullify the compromise agreement The petitioner contends that the compromise agreement is void because respondent was convicted of adultery. Conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of the civil interdiction