67.) Beumer v. Amores

Unjust Enrichment
WILLEM BEUMER, Petitioner, VS.

AVELINA AMORES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 195670
December 3, 2012
FACTS:
Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a Filipina, married in March 29, 1980. After several
years, the RTC of Negros Oriental declared the nullity of their marriage in the Decision dated
November 10, 2000 on the basis of the formers psychological incapacity as contemplated in
Article 36 of the Family Code. Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership dated December 14, 2000 praying for the distribution of the properties
claimed to have been acquired during the subsistence of their marriage. In defense, respondent
averred that, with the exception of their two (2) residential houses on Lots 1 and 2142, she and
petitioner did not acquire any conjugal properties during their marriage. During trial, petitioner
testified that the properties were registered in the name of respondent, these properties were
acquired with the money he received from the Dutch government as his disability benefit since
respondent did not have sufficient income to pay for their acquisition. For her part, respondent
maintained that the money used for the purchase of the lots came exclusively from her personal
funds, in particular, her earnings from selling jewelry as well as products from Avon, Triumph
and Tupperware. On February 28, 2007, the RTC dissolved the parties conjugal partnership,
awarding all the parcels of land to respondent as her paraphernal properties; the tools and
equipment in favor of petitioner as his exclusive properties; the two houses standing on Lots 1
and 2142 as co-owned by the parties. On appeal, petitioner insisted that the money used to
purchase the foregoing properties came from his own capital funds and that they were registered
in the name of his former wife only because of the constitutional prohibition against foreign
ownership. Thus, he prayed for reimbursement of one-half of the value of what he had paid in the
purchase of the said properties, waiving the other half in favor of his estranged ex-wife.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the foreigner Beumer can seek reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels
of Philippine land in the petition for separation of his properties and his wifes on the ground that
he bought the parcels using his own disability fund.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court held that petitioner cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity
where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the prohibition
against foreign ownership of Philippine lands. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who
comes into equity must come with clean hands. Conversely stated, he who has done inequity
shall not be accorded equity. Thus, 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. In
any event, the Court cannot, even on the grounds of equity, grant reimbursement to petitioner
given that he acquired no right whatsoever over the subject properties by virtue of its
unconstitutional purchase. It is well-established 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.
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. Neither can the Court grant petitioners
claim for reimbursement on the basis of unjust enrichment. An action for recovery of what has
been paid without just cause has been designated as an accion in rem verso. This provision does
not apply if, as in this case, the action is proscribed by the Constitution or by the application of
the pari delicto doctrine. It may be unfair and unjust to bar the petitioner from filing an accion in
rem verso over the subject properties, or from recovering the money he paid for the said
properties. Nor would the denial of his claim amount to an injustice based on his foreign
citizenship. Precisely, it is the Constitution itself which demarcates the rights of citizens and noncitizens in owning Philippine land. To be sure, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies
only to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built thereon, such as the two
houses standing on the properties which were properly declared to be co-owned by the parties
subject to partition. Needless to state, the purpose of the prohibition is to conserve the national
patrimony and it is this policy which the Court is duty-bound to protect.

67.) Beumer v. Amores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

67.) Beumer v. Amores

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

67.) Beumer v. Amores

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unjust Enrichment

WILLEM BEUMER, Petitioner, VS.

You might also like