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.