Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Section 8 - B. Frenzel V Catito

    Uploaded by

    Kristelle Ignacio
    Frenzel, an Australian citizen, purchased properties in the Philippines and had the deeds registered under Catito's name to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on aliens owning land. However, the contracts were null and void as they violated the Constitution. The Court held that Frenzel could not recover the properties or money used for purchase because he knowingly engaged in illegal contracts that were void from the beginning. Allowing recovery would go against public policy since the transactions directly violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

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

    Section 8 - B. Frenzel V Catito

    Uploaded by

    Kristelle Ignacio
    51 views3 pages
    Frenzel, an Australian citizen, purchased properties in the Philippines and had the deeds registered under Catito's name to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on aliens owning land. However, the contracts were null and void as they violated the Constitution. The Court held that Frenzel could not recover the properties or money used for purchase because he knowingly engaged in illegal contracts that were void from the beginning. Allowing recovery would go against public policy since the transactions directly violated the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    nmbvkjhbjklbnkj

    Original Title

    Section 8 - B. Frenzel v Catito

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Frenzel, an Australian citizen, purchased properties in the Philippines and had the deeds registered under Catito's name to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on aliens owning land. However, the contracts were null and void as they violated the Constitution. The Court held that Frenzel could not recover the properties or money used for purchase because he knowingly engaged in illegal contracts that were void from the beginning. Allowing recovery would go against public policy since the transactions directly violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views3 pages

    Section 8 - B. Frenzel V Catito

    Uploaded by

    Kristelle Ignacio
    Frenzel, an Australian citizen, purchased properties in the Philippines and had the deeds registered under Catito's name to circumvent the constitutional prohibition on aliens owning land. However, the contracts were null and void as they violated the Constitution. The Court held that Frenzel could not recover the properties or money used for purchase because he knowingly engaged in illegal contracts that were void from the beginning. Allowing recovery would go against public policy since the transactions directly violated the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony

    Section 8 Recovery of invalidly sold private lands

    Frenzel v Catito

    KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

    A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void and vests no rights and creates no
    obligations.

    FACTS

    Petitioner Alfred Fritz Frenzel is an Australian citizen of German descent. He married Teresita
    Santos, a Filipino citizen. Alfred and Teresita separated from bed and board without obtaining a
    divorce. Alfred arrived in Sydney, Australia where he met a Filipina-respondent Ederlina Catito.
    Unknown to Alfred, she was married to Klaus Muller, a German national. Alfred was so enamored
    with Ederlina that he persuaded her to stop working in Sydney, return to the Philippines, and engage in
    a wholesome business of her own. She assented. Alfred purchased a building in Ermita, Manila where
    Ederlina put up her beauty parlor under the business name Edorial Beauty Salon. Alfred found
    Ederlina’s Manila residence unsuitable for her, so he decided to purchase a house and lot for her. Since
    Alfred knew that as alien he was disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines, he agreed that only
    Ederlina’s name would appear in the deed of sale as the buyer of the property, as well as in the title
    covering the same. After all, he was planning to marry Ederlina and he believed that after their
    marriage, the two of them would jointly own the property.
    A deed of absolute sale over the property was executed in favor of Catito after Frenzel had
    fully paid the purchase price. Alfred decided to stay in the Philippines for good and live with Ederlina.
    He returned to Australia and sold his properties and businesses. 
    Alfred received a letter from Klaus Muller informing
    him that Klaus and Ederlina had been married and had a blissful married life until Alfred intruded
    therein. Alfred confirmed this upon talking to Ederlina’s friend,Sally McCarron.
    In the meantime, Alfred decided to purchase another house and lot and another parcel of land, and he
    once more agreed for the name of Ederlina to appear as the sole vendee in the deed of sale. He also
    decided to put up a beach resort.
    Ederlina’s petition for divorce was denied because Klaus opposed the same. Klaus wanted half of all
    the properties owned by Ederlina in the Philippines before he would agree to a divorce. Worse, Klaus
    threatened to file a bigamy case against Ederlina.
    Alfred and Ederlina’s relationship started deteriorating. Alfred filed a complaint against Ederlina for
    recovery of real and personal properties, alleging that Ederlina, without his knowledge and consent,
    managed to transfer funds from their joint account in HSBC Hong Kong to her own account. Using the
    said funds, Ederlina was able to purchase properties subject of the complaint. 
    He also filed a complaint against her for specific performance, declaration of ownership of real and
    personal properties, sum of money, and damages.
    14. RTC QC: in favor of Alfred.
    15. RTC Davao: in favor of Ederlina.
    16. CA: affirmed in toto.

    ISSUE/S STATUTES/ARTICLES INVOLVED

    Whether or not Frenzel Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this


    may recover the properties Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
    or the money used in the Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject
    purchase.
    to limitations provided by law.

    HELD

    NO. A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void and vests no rights and
    creates no obligations.
    Lands of the public domain, which includes private lands, may be transferred or conveyed only
    to individuals or entities qualified to acquire or hold private lands or lands of the public domains.
    Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public
    domain. Hence, they have also been disqualified from acquiring private lands. Even if the sales in
    question were entered into by him as the real vendee, the said transactions are in violation of the
    Constitution; hence, are null and void ab initio.
     A contract that violates the Constitution and the law, is null and void and vests no rights and creates no
    obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. 
    The petitioner, being a party to an illegal contract, cannot come into a court of law and ask to
    have his illegal objective carried out. One who loses his money or property by knowingly engaging in a
    contract or transaction which involves his own moral turptitude may not maintain an action for his
    losses. 
    The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the constitutional proscription, nor claim that he acted
    in good faith, let alone assert that he is less guilty than the respondent. He was fully aware that he was
    disqualified from acquiring and owning lands under Philippine law even before he purchased the
    properties; and, to skirt the constitutional prohibition, the petitioner had the deed of sale placed under
    the respondent’s name as the sole vendee thereof. 
    Frenzel admitted on cross-examination that he was all along legally married to Teresita Santos
    Frenzel, and Catito was married to Klaus Muller. Thus, Frenzel and Catito could not lawfully join in
    wedlock. The petitioner cannot find solace in Article 1416: When the agreement is not illegal per se but
    is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by the law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he
    may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered.
    The provision applied only to those contracts which are merely prohibited, in order to benefit
    private interests. It does not apply to contracts void ab initio. The sales of three parcels of Land in favor
    of Frenzel who is a foreigner is illegal per se. The transactions are void ab initio because they were
    entered into in violation of the Constitution. Thus, to allow him to recover the properties or the money
    used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of public policy.

    You might also like