Willem Beumer vs Avelina Amores

Topic: Reimbursement of conjugal funds

Facts:

Willem Beumer (dutch national)

Avelina Amores (Filipina)

Dissolution and distribution of properties filed by the petetioner

Involves lot 1, 2142, 5845, and 4

Petitioner testified that the lots were acquirred with the money he received from the dutch government as his disability benefit since respondent did not have sufficient income.

Respondent testified that the money used for the purchase of lots came from her own earnings by way of selling jewelry, Avon, triumph and tupperwares.

She submitted a joint affidavit executed by her and petitioner attesting to the fact that she purchase lot 2142 and the improvements using her own personal money.

RTC Ruling: Granted the dissolution of the conjugal partnership. The said lots shall be awarded to the respondent.

Willem Beumer being a foreigner is not allowed by law to acquire any private land in the Philippines, except through inheritance.

Petitioner elevated the matter to the CA, contesting only the RTC's award of lots 1, 2142, 5845, and 4 in favor of the respondent. He insisted that the money used to purchase the foregoing properties came from his own capital funds but was named to his wife because of the constitutional prohibition. Thus, he prayed for the reimbursement of the 1/2 of the value he paid in the purchase of the properties.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner has the right for the reimbursement of the amount used in the purchase of the said property.

Held:

No. Regardless of the source of funds for the acquisition of funds. Petitioner does not have any right whatsoever over the properties. Petitioner knowing that the constitution prohibits foreigners to own private lands still attempted to acquire them. 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. Petitioners plea for reimbursement for the amount he paid to purchase the foregoing properties on the basis of equity was likewise denied for not having come to court with clean hands. Petitioner was well aware of the constitutional prohibition, hence he cannot invoke equity to support his claim for reimbursement.