THE marriage of a foreigner and his Filipino spouse was declared null and void by the court. Following the nullity of the marriage, the foreigner filed a petition for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership and the distribution of their real properties before the Regional Trial Court.
The court ordered the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of the parties and awarded all the parcels of land to the Filipino spouse and the houses to the two parties as co-owners.
The foreigner spouse elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the money used to purchase the lands came from his capital funds. He further prayed for reimbursement of one-half of the value of what he had paid. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court.
When the case was submitted to the Supreme Court, the latter court affirmed the judgment and resolution of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, respectively. This was based on the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine land under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states, “Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.”
The Supreme Court also denied the claim for reimbursement on the basis of equity or unjust enrichment because granting the reimbursement will still be a violation of the Constitutional provision. The foreigner was well aware of the constitutional prohibition by having the properties registered in the name of the Filipino wife. He cannot make any claims on the basis of equity when he himself committed acts of dishonesty in order to go around the Constitutional prohibition.
The Supreme Court further ruled that this denial is not an injustice to the foreign national because the Constitution itself clearly delineates the rights of the citizens and the non-citizens in owning lands in the Philippines. While there is no prohibition for the foreigner to own houses, under the Constitution, the foreigner does not have the right to own lands. Thus, there is no injustice committed against the foreigner because he has no existing right to be protected. (Beumer vs. Amores, G.R. 195670 [2012]
This community education column from Quota International of Metro Cebu (QIMC) is not intended to take the place of legal advice. Consult with a private attorney of your choice to review the facts, laws, and remedies specific to your case.
QIMC is a non-profit service organization for the disadvantaged women and children, hearing-impaired and speech-impaired. For comments/feedback, send email to qi.metrocebu@gmail.com.