Willem Beumer, Petitioner vs Avelina Amores

FACTS
Petitoner, a Dutch National and respondent, a Filipina, gotmarried.
Ater several !ears, the "TC declared the nullit! o marriageon the #asis o the petitioner$s
ps!chological incapacit!
Petitioner iled a petition or dissolution o con%ugalpartnership pra!ing or the distri#ution o the
propertiesac&uired during the marriage ' B! purchase ( ) lots* #! +a!o inheritance ( , lots-
"espondent averred that she used her o+n personal mone!to purchase the ) lots and inherited
the , lots
Petitioner testiied that the purchased lots +ere registeredin the name o respondent, these
properties +ere ac&uired+ith the mone! he received rom the Dutch government ashis disa#ilit!
#eneit
"espondent maintained that the mone! used or thepurchase o lots came rom her personal
unds +hich +ereher earnings rom selling %e+elr!, products o avon, triumphand Tupper+are.
.SS/0
W1N petitioner could claim reim#ursement or the hal o the prorperties
203D
Sec.4, Art 5.. No private land shall #e transerred orconve!ed e6cept to individuals,
corporations or associations&ualiied to ac&uire or hold lands o the pu#lic domain.
Petitioner admitted that he is +ell a+are o theconstitutional prohi#ition, that is +h! he and
respondentregistered the su#%ect properties in the respondent$s name
2e +ho see7s e&uit! must do e&uit! and he +ho comes intoe&uit! must come +ith clean hands.
'2e +ho has doneine&uit! shall not have e&uit!-
The court cannot grant reim#ursement on the ground o e&uit! to petitioner given that he
ac&uired no right+hatsoever over the su#%ect properties. 1ne cannot salvagean! rights rom an
unconstitutional transaction 7no+ingl!entered into.
The court cannot grant reim#ursement on the ground o un%ust enrichment. The ma6im No
person should un%ustl!enrich himsel at the e6pense o another, does not appl!here since the
action is proscri#ed #! the Constitutiton. 8the o#%ection that a contract is immoral or illegal
as#et+een the plainti and deendant, sounds at all times ver! ill in the mouth o the deendant.
.t is not or his sa7e, ho+ever, that the o#%ection is ever allo+ed* #ut it is ounded in general
principles o polic!, +hich the deendant has the advantage o, contrar! to the real %ustice, as
#et+een him and the plainti.9'2olman v. :ohnson-
The improvements 'houses- #uilt on the lots are declared co;o+ned #! the parties su#%ect to
partition. The purchased lots #elong to the respondent #ecause o the constitutional prohi#ition.