Maria and Dieter were married in Canada in 1989. The couple resided in Canada at a house owned by Dieter’s parents but decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines in 1992. By this time, Dieter had inherited the house in Germany from his parents which he sold and used the proceeds for the purchase of a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal at the cost of P528,000.00 and the construction of a house amounting to P2,300,000.00. The Antipolo property was registered in the name of petitioner under a Transfer Certificate of Title of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila.

After experiencing the nightlife Manila has to offer, Dieter became abusive and cruel to Maria until Maria was forced to file for legal separation. After the judgment was rendered, Dieter filed a civil claim to seek reimbursement from his wife for the purchase and construction of their conjugal home.

WILL DIETER BE REIMBURSED FOR HIS EXPENSES IN PURCHASING THEIR CONJUGAL HOME?

There is an express prohibition against foreigners owning land in the Philippines. In putting the house in the name of Maria, Dieter tried to do indirectly what he is prohibited from doing directly. Because of this, the Philippine Supreme Court denied his claim citing the constitutional prohibition on foreigners owning land in Philippines and we quote:

Xxx Further, the distinction made between transfer of ownership as opposed to recovery of funds is a futile exercise on respondent’s part. To allow reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a property which he is not allowed to own. Thus, it is likewise proscribed by law. Xxx As expressly held in xxxxx v. Intermediate Appellate Court:

Finally, the fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land. Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution ordains that, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Petitioner Thomas xxxxx was, of course, charged with knowledge of this prohibition.

Thus, assuming that it was his intention that the lot in question be purchased by him and his wife, he acquired no right whatever over the property by virtue of that purchase; and in attempting to acquire a right or interest in land, vicariously and clandestinely, he knowingly violated the Constitution; the sale as to him was null and void. In any event, he had and has no capacity or personality to question the subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in so doing he is merely exercising the prerogative of a husband in respect of conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would permit indirect controversion of the constitutional prohibition. If the property were to be declared conjugal, this would accord to the alien husband a not insubstantial interest and right over land, as he would then have a decisive vote as to its transfer or disposition. This is a right that the Constitution does not permit him to have.

xxxThus, in the instant case, Dieter cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the constitutional prohibition. xxx

Note: Names were changed and legal document numbers/ blocked to protect privacy of individuals

(Legal Disclaimer: This article is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be neither formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.)

 

Munting Nayon News Magazine