4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686

G.R. No. 195670. December 3, 2012.*

WILLEM BEUMER, petitioner, vs. AVELINA AMORES,

respondent.

Civil Law; Succession; Save in cases of hereditary succession, no

private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.―In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena
Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut Muller, 500 SCRA 65 (2006), the Court had
already denied a claim for reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels
of Philippine land instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his
former Filipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut
Muller 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 land enshrined under Section 7,
Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which reads: Section 7. Save
in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or
conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Same; Equity; The time-honored principle is that he who seeks equity
must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean
hands.―As also explained in Muller, the time-honored principle is that 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.
Same; Same; 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.―In any event, the Court cannot, even on the grounds of equity, grant
reimbursement to peti-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

771

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 771

Beumer vs. Amores

tioner 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. Corollary thereto,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
under Article 1412 of the Civil Code, petitioner cannot have the subject
properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the money he had spent for
the purchase thereof. The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract
or agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them. Indeed, one cannot
salvage any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly entered
into.
Same; Principle of Unjust Enrichment; No person should unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another.―Neither can the Court grant
petitioner’s claim for reimbursement on the basis of unjust enrichment. As
held in Frenzel v. Catito, a case also involving a foreigner seeking monetary
reimbursement for money spent on purchase of Philippine land, the
provision on unjust enrichment does not apply if the action is proscribed by
the Constitution, to wit: Futile, too, is petitioner’s reliance on Article 22 of
the New Civil Code which reads: Art. 22. Every person who through an act
of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into
possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him. The provision is expressed in the
maxim: “MEMO CUM ALTERIUS DETER DETREMENTO PROTEST”
(No person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another). 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, but, as Lord Mansfield
stated in the early case of Holman v. Johnson: “The objection that a contract
is immoral or illegal as between the plaintiff and the 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 defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice,
as between him and the plaintiff.”

772

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beumer vs. Amores

Same; The constitutional ban against foreigners applies only to

ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built
thereon.―Precisely, it is the Constitution itself which demarcates the rights
of citizens and non-citizens 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 (2) houses
standing on Lots 1 and 2142 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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Hermosa Law Office for petitioner.
  Dupio, Dupio & Señires for respondent.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the October 8, 2009
Decision2 and January 24, 2011 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 01940, which affirmed the February 28,
2007 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros
Oriental, Branch 34 in Civil Case No. 12884. The foregoing rulings
dissolved the conjugal partnership of gains of Willem Beumer
(petitioner) and Avelina Amores (respon-

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 11-25.
2  Penned by Acting Executive Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate
Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring. Id., at pp. 26-
38.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices
Agnes Reyes-Carpio and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring. Id., at pp. 45-46.
4 Penned by Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr. Id., at pp. 80-86.

773

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 773

Beumer vs. Amores

dent) and distributed the properties forming part of the said property
regime.

The F actual Antecedents

Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a Filipina, married

in March 29, 1980. After several years, the RTC of Negros Oriental,
Branch 32, declared the nullity of their marriage in the Decision5
dated November 10, 2000 on the basis of the former’s psychological
incapacity as contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code.
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership6 dated December 14, 2000 praying for the
distribution of the following described properties claimed to have
been acquired during the subsistence of their marriage, to wit:

By Purchase:
a. Lot 1, Block 3 of the consolidated survey of Lots 2144 & 2147 of the
Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
22846, containing an area of 252 square meters (sq.m.), including a
residential house constructed thereon.
b. Lot 2142 of the Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by TCT No. 21974,
containing an area of 806 sq.m., including a residential house constructed
thereon.
c. Lot 5845 of the Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by TCT No. 21306,
containing an area of 756 sq.m.
d. Lot 4, Block 4 of the consolidated survey of Lots 2144 & 2147 of the
Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by TCT No. 21307, containing an area of 45
sq.m.

_______________
5 See Annex “E” of the Petition. Penned by Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu (Civil Case
No. 11754). Id., at pp. 53-62.
6 Annex “E” of the Petition. Id., at pp. 47-52.

774

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beumer vs. Amores

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
By way of inheritance:
e. 1/7 of Lot 2055-A of the Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by TCT No. 23567,
containing an area of 2,635 sq.m. (the area that appertains to the conjugal
partnership is 376.45 sq.m.).
f. 1/15 of Lot 2055-I of the Dumaguete Cadastre, covered by TCT No. 23575,
containing an area of 360 sq.m. (the area that appertains to the conjugal
partnership is 24 sq.m.).7

In defense,8 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, the truth
being that she used her own personal money to purchase Lots 1,
2142, 5845 and 4 out of her personal funds and Lots 2055-A and
2055-I by way of inheritance.9 She submitted a joint affidavit
executed by her and petitioner attesting to the fact that she
purchased Lot 2142 and the improvements thereon using her own
money.10 Accordingly, respondent sought the dismissal of the
petition for dissolution as well as payment for attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses.11
During trial, petitioner testified that while Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and
4 were registered in the name of respondent, these properties were
acquired with the money he received from the Dutch government as
his disability benefit12 since respondent did not have sufficient
income to pay for their acquisition. He also claimed that the joint
affidavit they submitted before the Register of Deeds of Dumaguete
City was contrary to Article 89 of the Family Code, hence, invalid.13

_______________
7  Id., at pp. 48-49a.
8  See attached as Annex “E” of the Petitioner. Respondent’s Answer. Id., at pp.
76-79.
9  Id., at p. 76.
10 Id., at p. 79.
11 Id., at p. 77.
12 Id., at p. 81.
13 Id., at p. 82.

775

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 775

Beumer vs. Amores

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.14 She further asserted that after she
filed for annulment of their marriage in 1996, petitioner transferred
to their second house and brought along with him certain personal
properties, consisting of drills, a welding machine, grinders, clamps,
etc. She alleged that these tools and equipment have a total cost of
P500,000.00.15

The RTC Ruling

On February 28, 2007, the RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 34

rendered its Decision, dissolving 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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
exclusive properties; the two (2) houses standing on Lots 1 and 2142
as co-owned by the parties, the dispositive of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the dissolution of

the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner Willem Beumer and
[respondent] Avelina Amores considering the fact that their marriage was
previously annulled by Branch 32 of this Court. The parcels of land covered
by Transfer Certificate of Titles Nos. 22846, 21974, 21306, 21307, 23567
and 23575 are hereby declared paraphernal properties of respondent Avelina
Amores due to the fact that while these real properties were acquired by
onerous title during their marital union, Willem Beumer, being a foreigner,
is not allowed by law to acquire any private land in the Philippines, except
through inheritance.
The personal properties, i.e., tools and equipment mentioned in the
complaint which were brought out by Willem from the conjugal dwelling
are hereby declared to be exclusively owned by the petitioner.

_______________
14 Id.
15 Id.

776

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beumer vs. Amores

The two houses standing on the lots covered by Transfer Certificate of

Title Nos. 21974 and 22846 are hereby declared to be co-owned by the
petitioner and the respondent since these were acquired during their marital
union and since there is no prohibition on foreigners from owning buildings
and residential units. Petitioner and respondent are, thereby, directed to
subject this court for approval their project of partition on the two house[s]
aforementioned.
The Court finds no sufficient justification to award the counterclaim of
respondent for attorney’s fees considering the well settled doctrine that there
should be no premium on the right to litigate. The prayer for moral damages
are likewise denied for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.16

It ruled that, regardless of the source of funds for the acquisition

of Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and 4, petitioner could not have acquired any
right whatsoever over these properties as petitioner still attempted to
acquire them notwithstanding his knowledge of the constitutional
prohibition against foreign ownership of private lands.17 This was
made evident by the sworn statements petitioner executed purporting
to show that the subject parcels of land were purchased from the
exclusive funds of his wife, the herein respondent.18 Petitioner’s plea
for reimbursement for the amount he had paid to purchase the
foregoing properties on the basis of equity was likewise denied for
not having come to court with clean hands.

The CA Ruling

Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, contesting only the

RTC’s award of Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and 4 in favor of respondent. He
insisted that the money used to purchase the foregoing properties
came from his own capital funds and that

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
16 Id., at pp. 85-86.
17 Id., at p. 84, citing Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74833,
January 21, 1991, 193 SCRA 93, 103.
18 Id.

777

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 777

Beumer vs. Amores

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 (1/2) 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.19
On October 8, 2009, the CA promulgated a Decision20 affirming
in toto the judgment rendered by the RTC of Negros Oriental,
Branch 34. The CA stressed the fact that petitioner was “well-aware
of the constitutional prohibition for aliens to acquire lands in the
Philippines.”21 Hence, he cannot invoke equity to support his claim
for reimbursement.
Consequently, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the CA Decision due to the following error:

UNDER THE FACTS ESTABLISHED, THE COURT ERRED IN NOT

SUSTAINING THE PETITIONER’S ATTEMPT AT
SUBSEQUENTLY ASSERTING OR CLAIMING A RIGHT OF HALF
OR WHOLE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE USED IN THE
PURCHASE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF THIS
CASE.22 (Emphasis supplied)

The Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

The issue to be resolved is not of first impression. In In Re:
Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller v.
Helmut Muller 23 the Court had already denied a claim for
reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land
instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina
spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It

_______________
19 Id., at p. 91.
20 Id., at pp. 26-38.
21 Id., at p. 33.
22 Id., at p. 17.
23 G.R. No. 149615, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 65.

778

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beumer vs. Amores

held that Helmut Muller 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 land24 enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which reads:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall
be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Undeniably, petitioner openly admitted that he “is well aware of

the [above-cited] constitutional prohibition”25 and even asseverated
that, because of such prohibition, he and respondent registered the
subject properties in the latter’s name.26 Clearly, petitioner’s
actuations showed his palpable intent to skirt the constitutional
prohibition. On the basis of such admission, the Court finds no
reason why it should not apply the Muller ruling and accordingly,
deny petitioner’s claim for reimbursement.
As also explained in Muller, the time-honored principle is that 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.27
In this case, petitioner’s statements regarding the real source of
the funds used to purchase the subject parcels of land dilute the
veracity of his claims: While admitting to have

_______________
24 Id., at p. 72.
25 Rollo, p. 17.
26 Id., at p. 18.
27 Supra note 23 at p. 73, citing University of the Philippines v. Catungal, Jr., 338
Phil. 728, 734-744; 272 SCRA 221, 237 (1997).

779

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 779

Beumer vs. Amores

previously executed a joint affidavit that respondent’s personal funds

were used to purchase Lot 1,28 he likewise claimed that his personal
disability funds were used to acquire the same. Evidently, these
inconsistencies show his untruthfulness. Thus, as petitioner has
come before the Court with unclean hands, he is now precluded
from seeking any equitable refuge.
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.29 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.30 Corollary thereto, under Article 1412 of the Civil Code,31
petitioner cannot have the subject properties deeded to him or allow
him to recover the money he had spent for the purchase thereof. The
law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement; it
leaves the parties where it finds them.32 Indeed, one cannot salvage
any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly entered
into.

_______________
28 Id., at p. 82.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
29 Frenzel v. Catito, G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003, 406 SCRA 55, 70.
30  Id., at pp. 69-70, citing Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good
Government, 307 SCRA 394 (1999).
31 Re: Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists
does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
(1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover
what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other’s
undertaking
x x x x
32 Id., citing Rellosa v. Hun, 93 Phil. 827 (1953).

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beumer vs. Amores

Neither can the Court grant petitioner’s claim for reimbursement

on the basis of unjust enrichment.33 As held in Frenzel v. Catito, a
case also involving a foreigner seeking monetary reimbursement for
money spent on purchase of Philippine land, the provision on unjust
enrichment does not apply if the action is proscribed by the
Constitution, to wit:

Futile, too, is petitioner’s reliance on Article 22 of the New Civil Code

which reads:
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by
another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him.
The provision is expressed in the maxim: “MEMO CUM ALTERIUS
DETER DETREMENTO PROTEST” (No person should unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another). 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, but, as Lord Mansfield stated in the early case of Holman v.
Johnson: “The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between the
plaintiff and the 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 defendant has the
advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the
plaintiff.”34 (Citations omitted)

Nor would the denial of his claim amount to an injustice based

on his foreign citizenship.35 Precisely, it is the Constitution itself
which demarcates the rights of citizens and non-

_______________
33 Rollo, p. 20.
34 Supra note 29 at p. 74, citing I. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines (1990),
p. 85 and Marissey v. Bologna, 123 So. 2d 537 (1960).
35 Rollo, pp. 19-21.

781

VOL. 686, DECEMBER 3, 2012 781

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
4/21/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 686
Beumer vs. Amores

citizens 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 (2) houses
standing on Lots 1 and 2142 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 patrimony36
and it is this policy which the Court is duty-bound to protect.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the
assailed October 8, 2009 Decision and January 24, 2011 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01940 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ.,

concur. 

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.―Unjust enrichment exists “when a person unjustly

retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains
money or property of another against the fundamental principles of
justice, equity and good governance.” (Bank of the Philippine
Islands vs. Reyes, 664 SCRA 700 [2012])
The doctrine of quantum meruit (as much as one deserves)
prevents undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is
unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. (Sazon vs.
Vasquez-Menancio, 666 SCRA 707 [2012])
――o0o―― 
_______________
36 See Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 (1947).

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a3d20e51b264090e5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9