Willem Beumer, Petitioner vs.
Avelina Amores, Respondent
G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012
FACTS:
Willem Beumer, a Dutch national, is married to a Filipina named Avelina Amores on March 29,
1980. After 20 years of marriage, the RTC declared the nullity of their marriage on the basis of the
Beumer’s psychological incapacity.
Beumer filed for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership praying for the distribution of properties
claimed to have been acquired during the subsistence of their marriage. These properties include house
and lots.
In Amores’ defense, save for two residential houses, she and Buemer did not acquire any
conjugal properties during their marriage because she used her own personal money to purchase some
lots being claimed for reimbursement by Beumer.
RTC ruled in favor of Amores due to the fact while these properties were acquired during their
marital union, Willem Beumer, being a foreigner, is not allowed by law, a constitutional provision, to
acquire any private land in the Philippines, except through inheritance. The two houses standing on the
lots are hereby declared to be co-owned by both.
Beumer appealed to CA insisting that the money used to purchase these properties came from
his own capital funds and that they were registered in the name of his Avelina only because of the
constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership. Therefore, he prays for the reimbursement of ½ of
the value of what he had paid in the purchase of said properties. However, CA affirmed the decision of
RTC. Thus, the appeal to Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not Willem Beumer is entitled to the reimbursement of the said properties.
RULING:
No. He is not entitled to any reimbursement of the said properties.
In the case of Muller v. Helmut Muller, 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 Muller. Helmut 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. Undeniably, Beumer is also aware of this provision, therefore the Court
finds no reason why it should not apply the Muller ruling and accordingly deny him of his reimbursement
claim.
In this case, Beumer’s statements regarding the real source of the funds used to purchase the
said properties weakens the accuracy of his claims. He admitted before on a joint affidavit that Avelina’s
personal funds were used to purchase the Lot 1 property, however, under this litigation, he claims that
his personal disability funds were used to acquire the same. These inconsistencies show his
untruthfulness. Thus, as Beumer has come before the Court with unclean hands, he is now barred from
seeking any equitable refuge.
The Court couldn’t also grant reimbursement to Beumer as he has no right over the subject
matter due to its unconstitutional purchase. A contract which violates the Constitution and the law is
considered null and void, vesting no rights, creating no obligations and producing no legal effect at all.
ARTICLE 22 OF THE CIVIL CODE
Beumer holds on to Article 22 of the Civil Code which states that”
ARTICLE 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.
This provision does not apply in this case because the action is forbidden by the Constitution or
by the application of the pari delicto doctrine which indicates that two persons or entities are equally at
fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort.
It is the Constitution itself which demarcates the rights of citizens and non-citizens in owning
Philippine land. the purpose of the prohibition is to conserve the national patrimony36 and it is this policy
which the Court is duty-bound to protect
ACCION IN REM VERSO:
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."
