Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER v. HELMUT MULLER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200233 2015-07-15	LEONILA G. SANTIAGO v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
Furthermore, it is a basic concept of justice that no court will “lend its aid to x x x one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded.”[41] If the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or that which involves a transgression of positive law, parties shall be left unassisted by the courts. [42]As a result, litigants shall be denied relief on the ground that their conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.[43]
	GR No. 187930 2015-02-23	NEW WORLD DEVELOPERS v. AMA COMPUTER LEARNING CENTER SERENO, C.J.
In the sphere of personal and contractual relations governed by laws, rules and regulations created to promote justice and fairness, equity is deserved, not demanded. The application of equity necessitates a balancing of the equities involved in a case,[37] for "[h]e who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."[38] Persons in dire straits are never justified in trampling on other persons' rights. Litigants shall be denied relief if their conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in issue.[39] The actions of AMA smack of bad faith.
	GR No. 195670 2012-12-03	WILLEM BEUMER v. AVELINA AMORES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The issue to be resolved is not of first impression. In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut Muller[23] the Court had already denied a claim for reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine land[24] enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which reads: Section 7. 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.
	GR No. 164584 2009-06-22	PHILIP MATTHEWS v. BENJAMIN A. TAYLOR NACHURA, J.
Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, by virtue of the aforecited constitutional provision, they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands.[19] The primary purpose of this constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimony.[20] Our fundamental law cannot be any clearer. The right to acquire lands of the public domain is reserved only to Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos.[21]
	GR No. 130115 2008-07-16	FELIX TING HO v. VICENTE TENG GUI PUNO, CJ.
In the case of Muller v. Muller,[18] wherein the respondent, a German national, was seeking reimbursement of funds claimed by him to be given in trust to his petitioner wife, a Philippine citizen, for the purchase of a property in Antipolo, the Court, in rejecting the claim, ruled that:Respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition and expressly admitted his knowledge thereof to this Court. He declared that he had the Antipolo property titled in the name of the petitioner because of the said prohibition. His attempt at subsequently asserting or claiming a right on the said property cannot be sustained.
	GR NO. 156364 2007-09-03	JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST v. PR BUILDERS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
.. The capacity to acquire private land is made dependent upon the capacity to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Private land may be transferred or conveyed only to individuals or entities "qualified to acquire lands of the public domain." The 1987 Constitution reserved the right to participate in the disposition, exploitation, development and utilization of lands of the public domain for Filipino citizens[25] or corporations at least 60 percent of the capital of which is owned by Filipinos.[26] Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring public lands; hence, they have also been disqualified from acquiring private lands.[27]