BEUMER V. AMORES GR.

195670
FACTS:
RTC declared the nullity of marriage between the Petitioner and the
Respondent.
Petitioner, a Dutch National, filed a petition for Dissolution of Conjugal
Partnership of Properties A, B, C and D.
In defense, Respondent averred that they did not acquire any conjugal
properties during marriage and the truth being that she used her own
personal money to purchase lots out of her personal funds.
The Petitioner insisted that the money used to purchase properties came
from his own capital funds and that they were registered in the name of the
respondent only because of Constitutional Prohibition against foreign
ownership of the land.
RTC ruled the case in favour of the respondent, that the petitioner, being ta
foreigner is not allowed by law to acquire any private land in the Philippines
except through inheritance.
Petitioner plea for reimbursement for the amount he had paid on the basis of
equity.
However, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC on the same reason.
ISSUE:
WON Petitioner can invoke the equity to support his claim for reimbursement.
HELD:
No he cannot.
Petitioner openly admitted that he is well aware of constitutional prohibition
therefore his action to transfer the properties in the name of the respondent
is against public policy.
Even on the ground of equity, the court cannot grant the reimbursement
given that the petitioner acquired no rights due to unconstitutional purchase.
The provision on unjust enrichment does not apply if the action is proscribed
by the constitution neither an action thereto by accion in rem verso or pari
delicto cannot be invoked.