G.R. No. 195670 ; December 3, 2012
WILLEM BEUMER, Petitioner, vs. AVELINA AMORES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Willem Beumer, a Dutch national, and respondent Avelina Amores, a Filipina, were married in 1980. Their marriage was subsequently declared null and void by the RTC in 2000 on the ground of petitioner’s psychological incapacity. Following the nullity, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, seeking the distribution of several properties, including four parcels of land (Lots 1, 2142, 5845, and 4) acquired during the marriage and registered in respondent’s name. Petitioner claimed these properties were conjugal, purchased using funds from his Dutch disability benefits. Respondent countered that these lots were her paraphernal properties, acquired using her exclusive personal funds from her business ventures. She also presented a joint affidavit executed by both parties attesting that Lot 2142 was purchased with her own money.

ISSUE

Whether the subject parcels of land, acquired during the marriage and registered in the name of the Filipino spouse, form part of the conjugal partnership or are the exclusive property of the Filipino spouse, considering the constitutional prohibition against alien ownership of private lands.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings awarding the disputed lots to respondent as her exclusive properties. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional and statutory prohibition under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution and the Public Land Act, which absolutely forbid aliens from acquiring private agricultural lands, including residential lots. The Court applied the doctrine that “the nationality of the owner of the land is an essential element of the right of ownership.” Since petitioner is a foreigner, he is absolutely prohibited from owning land. Any property right he might have attempted to acquire over the lands is deemed void from the beginning. Consequently, the lots could not have entered the conjugal partnership, as the law prohibits the partnership itself from holding title to land on behalf of an alien spouse. The properties are therefore considered the exclusive property of the Filipino spouse, respondent Amores. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of his alleged contributions, applying the principle of in pari delicto (where both parties are at fault), as petitioner knowingly attempted to circumvent the constitutional prohibition. The two houses built on the lots, however, were correctly declared as co-owned, as there is no prohibition against aliens owning buildings or improvements.