Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Muller V Muller

    Uploaded by

    Rey Concepcion
    Helmut Muller, a German national, purchased property in the Philippines using funds from the sale of a house he inherited in Germany. The property was titled under his wife Elena's name to circumvent the Philippine constitution's prohibition on foreign ownership of land. When the couple separated, Helmut sought reimbursement for the cost of the property. The Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that no reimbursement could be granted as it would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition. Equity provides no relief when the petitioner has acted inequitably by knowingly violating the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Muller V Muller

    Uploaded by

    Rey Concepcion
    121 views1 page
    Helmut Muller, a German national, purchased property in the Philippines using funds from the sale of a house he inherited in Germany. The property was titled under his wife Elena's name to circumvent the Philippine constitution's prohibition on foreign ownership of land. When the couple separated, Helmut sought reimbursement for the cost of the property. The Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that no reimbursement could be granted as it would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition. Equity provides no relief when the petitioner has acted inequitably by knowingly violating the law.

    Original Description:

    Principle of Equity. Court of Law vs. Court of Equity.

    Original Title

    Muller v Muller

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Helmut Muller, a German national, purchased property in the Philippines using funds from the sale of a house he inherited in Germany. The property was titled under his wife Elena's name to circumvent the Philippine constitution's prohibition on foreign ownership of land. When the couple separated, Helmut sought reimbursement for the cost of the property. The Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that no reimbursement could be granted as it would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition. Equity provides no relief when the petitioner has acted inequitably by knowingly violating the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    Muller V Muller

    Uploaded by

    Rey Concepcion
    Helmut Muller, a German national, purchased property in the Philippines using funds from the sale of a house he inherited in Germany. The property was titled under his wife Elena's name to circumvent the Philippine constitution's prohibition on foreign ownership of land. When the couple separated, Helmut sought reimbursement for the cost of the property. The Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding that no reimbursement could be granted as it would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition. Equity provides no relief when the petitioner has acted inequitably by knowingly violating the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY ELENA BUENAVENTURA

    MULLER, Petitioner, versus HELMUT MULLER, Respondent.


    G.R. No. 149615 | 2006-08-29
    FACTS:
    Elena Muller and Helmut Muller were married in Hamburg, Germany. The couple
    resided in Germany ata a house owned by Helmut's parents. In 1992, they moved to
    Philippines. Helmut sold the house he inherited from his parents to purchase a parcel of
    land in Antipolo, Rizal. The lot costs P528,000 and the construction of the house costs
    P2.3M. Respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition and expressly admitted
    his knowledge thereof to this Court. He declared that he had the Antipolo property titled
    in the name of petitioner because of the said prohibition.
    Due to incompatibilities and Helmut's alleged womanazing, drinking, and
    maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated. Helmut filed a petition for separation of
    properties before the RTC. In its ruling, although the Family Code provides that
    properties acquired by gratuitous title are excluded from the conjugal property, Helmut
    cannot recover the Antipolo property. This is because his acquisition of the property is in
    violation of Sec. 7, Art. XII of the Constitution. The constitution provides for the
    prohibition for an alien to acquire lands in the Philippines.
    Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that Helmut be reimbursed of the cost of acquisition
    of the land and the cost of the construction of the house.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Helmut can be reimbursed of the cost of Antipolo property?
    RULING:
    No. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created and
    resulted by operation of law in view of petitioner's marriage to respondent. Save for the
    exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondent's disqualification from
    owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed.
    Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of
    its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud.
    To hold otherwise would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.
    Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of
    equity, is likewise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law
    and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be
    done directly. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity
    must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also
    expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It
    signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his
    conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the
    controversy in issue.
    Thus, in the instant case, 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.

    You might also like