You are on page 1of 3


ISSUE: Ruling:
G.R. NO. 195670. DECEMBER 3, 2012. 
 Whether or not the Court erred in NOT SUSTAINING THE
PETITIONER’S ATTEMPT AT SUBSEQUENTLY - In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena
- Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a Filipina,
ASSERTING OR CLAIMING A RIGHT OF HALF OR Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut Muller the Court had
was married and was later on declared null and void on
WHOLE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE USED IN THE already denied a claim for reimbursement of the value of
the basis of the former’s psychological incapacity.
- During dissolution of properties… petitioner testified that PURCHASE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF purchased parcels of Philippine land instituted by a
THIS CASE? foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina
Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and 4 were registered in the name of
respondent, these properties were acquired with the spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut
money he received from the Dutch government as his Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity
where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the
disability benefit12 since respondent did not have
property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership
sufficient income to pay for their acquisition.
- Petitioner wanted to be reimbursed of the half of the of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of
properties which he paid on the ground of equity. the 1987 Philippine Constitution which reads:
RTC: The parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
Titles Nos. 22846, 21974, 21306, 21307, 23567 and 23575 private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
are hereby declared paraphernal properties of respondent individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
Avelina Amores due to the fact that while these real acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
properties were acquired by onerous title during their
marital union, Willem Beumer, being a foreigner, is not
- Application: petitioner openly admitted that he “is well
allowed by law to acquire any private land in the aware of the [above-cited] constitutional prohibition” and
Philippines, except through inheritance. even asseverated that, because of such prohibition, he
- Petitioner’s plea for reimbursement for the amount he had and respondent registered the subject properties in the
paid to purchase the foregoing properties on the basis of latter’s name. Clearly, petitioner’s actuations showed his
equity was likewise denied for not having come to court palpable intent to skirt the constitutional prohibition
with clean hands. (he knew of the prohibition)
EQUITY: 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.

It does not prohibit Congress from serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and PROPERTY IMPAIRED BY RA 8762? enacting laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and NO. it cannot be said that the law amounts to a denial of the Filipinos’ right to property and to due process of law. While it does Second. preference to qualified Filipinos. effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs. the implementation of R. privileges. reciprocity. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor.A. and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. it does not .signed Whether or not RA 8762 is unconstitutional FOR PREJUDICING IS THERE A VIOLATION TO THE STATE POLICIES? NONE into law by Pres. and protect Filipino enterprise against In the grant of rights. The State shall pursue a trade policy that WERE THE FILIPINO’S RIGHT TO THE such reservation. domestic materials and locally produced pass it depending on the economic exigencies. of foreign investments. and full employment. the State shall give . the Retail Trade citizens. SEPTEMBER 21. which taken together with investments within its national jurisdiction and in not prohibit them either. Respondents: xxxx CAN THE CONGRESS PASS A LAW?(SEC.Thus. and 20 of Article percentage as Congress may prescribe.the 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry unfair competition and trade policies. Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the which absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging .” Liberalization Act. the same rights as Filipino citizens.R. It expressly repealed R. would result in accordance with its national goals and priorities. NO. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or had lost their citizenship and now reside in the interest dictates. 8762 also allows natural-born Filipino citizens. 2010 ISSUE: RULING: ESPINA V.the Constitution mandates the regulation but not the Congress can determine what policy to pass and when to prohibition of foreign investments. It directs Congress to Section 12. . Estrada. certain areas of investments. art 12) . 19. frowning only on the loss of effective Filipino control of the economy. to engage in the retail trade business with that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development. In fact.A. Here. reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure Philippines. 143855. 8762 would lead to The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign not encourage their unlimited entry into the country. labor and enterprises. upon recommendation of impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic the economic and planning agency. 8762. (NEDA national interest so dictates.Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 (RA 8762 . foreign competition that is unfair. to the extent that R. it does alien control of the retail trade. approved the passage of the law) to the discretion of the Congress whether or not to make Section 13. 1180. and adopt measures that help make them competitive. it is not unconstitutional . The Congress shall enact measures that will recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of II of the Constitution which enjoins the State to place the the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits national economy under the control of Filipinos to achieve encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. services. promote industrialization competition and trade practices that are unfair. lessens the restraint on the foreigners’ right to property or to engage in an ordinarily lawful business. But the Constitution leaves in this case. The Congress shall. It can enact reserve to Filipino citizens certain areas of investments laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain industries upon the recommendation of the NEDA and when the goods. THE RIGHTS OF THE SMALL TIME BUSINESSES? Section 19. protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign equal distribution of opportunities. when the national environment. and services. who “Section 10.R. the law runs afoul of Sections 9. it allows an exchange on alien dominance of other areas of business. it also First. the basis of equality and reciprocity.A. not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino citizens. goods. or such higher .CHAPTER 13 NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY G. corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Petitioners: Filipino goods.A.provisions on National economy and Patrimony Article 12? development of a self-reliant and independent national economy in the retail trade business. Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the kinds of retail business to which the law in question has permitted the entry of foreign investors. 10. ZAMORA No.