You are on page 1of 2

Willem Beumer, Petitioner FACTS

vs

Avelina Amores, Respondent

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.

Petitoner, a Dutch National and respondent, a Filipina, got married.

Petitioner admitted that he is well aware of the constitutional prohibition, that is why he and respondent registered the subject properties in the respondents name

After several years, the RTC declared the nullity of marriage on the basis of the petitioners psychological incapacity

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)

Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership praying for the distribution of the properties acquired during the marriage ( By purchase 4 lots; by way of inheritance 2 lots)

The court cannot grant reimbursement on the ground of equity to petitioner given that he acquired no right whatsoever over the subject properties. One cannot salvage any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly entered into.

Respondent averred that she used her own personal money to purchase the 4 lots and inherited the 2 lots

Petitioner testified that the purchased lots were registered in the name of respondent, these properties were acquired with the money he received from the Dutch government as his disability benefit The court cannot grant reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment. The maxim No person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another, does not apply here since the action is proscribed by the Constitutiton. the objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between 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 defendance has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him WON petitioner could claim reimbursement for the half of the prorperties 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

Respondent maintained that the money used for the purchase of lots came from her personal funds which were her earnings from selling jewelry, products of avon, triumph and Tupperware.

ISSUE

HELD

lots belong to the respondent because of the constitutional prohibition.