CHAPTER 13 NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
ISSUE: Ruling:
G.R. NO. 195670. DECEMBER 3, 2012.
WILLEM BEUMER, PETITIONER, VS. AVELINA AMORES
- Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a Filipina,
was married and was later on declared null and void on
the basis of the formers psychological incapacity.
- During dissolution of properties petitioner testified that
Lots 1, 2142, 5845 and 4 were registered in the name of
respondent, these properties were acquired with the
money he received from the Dutch government as his
disability benefit12 since respondent did not have
sufficient income to pay for their acquisition.
- Petitioner wanted to be reimbursed of the half of the
properties which he paid on the ground of equity.
RTC: The parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Titles Nos. 22846, 21974, 21306, 21307, 23567 and 23575
are hereby declared paraphernal properties of respondent
Avelina Amores due to the fact that while these real
properties were acquired by onerous title during their
marital union, Willem Beumer, being a foreigner, is not
allowed by law to acquire any private land in the
Philippines, except through inheritance.
- Petitioners plea for reimbursement for the amount he had
paid to purchase the foregoing properties on the basis of
equity was likewise denied for not having come to court
with clean hands. (he knew of the prohibition)
Whether or not the Court erred in NOT SUSTAINING THE
PETITIONERS ATTEMPT AT SUBSEQUENTLY
ASSERTING OR CLAIMING A RIGHT OF HALF OR
WHOLE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE USED IN THE
PURCHASE OF THE REAL PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF
THIS CASE?
- In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena
Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut Muller 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 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.
- Application: petitioner openly admitted that he is well
aware of the [above-cited] constitutional prohibition and
even asseverated that, because of such prohibition, he
and respondent registered the subject properties in the
latters name. Clearly, petitioners actuations showed his
palpable intent to skirt the constitutional prohibition
EQUITY: Surely, a contract that violates the Constitution
and the law is null and void, vests no rights, creates no
obligations and produces no legal effect at all.
CHAPTER 13 NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
G.R. NO. 143855. SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
ESPINA V. ZAMORA
- Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 (RA 8762 - signed
into law by Pres. Estrada. It expressly repealed R.A. 1180,
which absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging
in the retail trade business.
- R.A. 8762 also allows natural-born Filipino citizens, who
had lost their citizenship and now reside in the
Philippines, to engage in the retail trade business with
the same rights as Filipino citizens.
Petitioners:
First, the law runs afoul of Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article
II of the Constitution which enjoins the State to place the
national economy under the control of Filipinos to achieve
equal distribution of opportunities, promote industrialization
and full employment, and protect Filipino enterprise against
unfair competition and trade policies.
Second, the implementation of R.A. 8762 would lead to
alien control of the retail trade, which taken together with
alien dominance of other areas of business, would result in
the loss of effective Filipino control of the economy.
Respondents:
- the Constitution mandates the regulation but not the
prohibition of foreign investments. It directs Congress to
reserve to Filipino citizens certain areas of investments
upon the recommendation of the NEDA and when the
national interest so dictates. But the Constitution leaves
to the discretion of the Congress whether or not to make
such reservation. It does not prohibit Congress from
enacting laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain
industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino
citizens.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 8762 is unconstitutional FOR PREJUDICING
THE RIGHTS OF THE SMALL TIME BUSINESSES?
- provisions on National economy and Patrimony Article 12?
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of
the economic and planning agency, when the national
interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of
investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises
whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign
investments within its national jurisdiction and in
accordance with its national goals and priorities.
xxxx
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced
goods, and adopt measures that help make them
competitive.
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that
serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and
arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity.
RULING:
No, it is not unconstitutional
IS THERE A VIOLATION TO THE STATE POLICIES? NONE
Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the
development of a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not
impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic
environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or
interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure
that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development.
- Thus, while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of
Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it also
recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of
the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign
competition and trade practices that are unfair.
- the 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry
of foreign investments, goods, and services. While it does
not encourage their unlimited entry into the country, it does
not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on
the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on
foreign competition that is unfair.
CAN THE CONGRESS PASS A LAW?(SEC. 10, art 12)
Congress can determine what policy to pass and when to
pass it depending on the economic exigencies. It can enact
laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain industries
not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino citizens. (NEDA
in this case, approved the passage of the law)
WERE THE FILIPINOS RIGHT TO THE
PROPERTY IMPAIRED BY RA 8762?
NO. Here, to the extent that R.A. 8762, the Retail Trade
Liberalization Act, lessens the restraint on the foreigners
right to property or to engage in an ordinarily lawful
business, it cannot be said that the law amounts to a denial
of the Filipinos right to property and to due process of law.
Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the kinds of
retail business to which the law in question has permitted
the entry of foreign investors.
CHAPTER 13 NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
CHEESMAN V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ISSUE:
G.R. NO. 74833 JANUARY 21, 1991
WHETHER OR NOT CHEESMAN HAS A RIGHT TO RECOVER
- Thomas Cheesman and Criselda P. Cheesman were
married on December 4, 1970 but have been separated
since February 15,1981.
- DURING THEIR COHABITATION, a "Deed of Sale and
Transfer of Possessory Rights" was executed by Armando
Altares conveying a parcel of unregistered land and the
house thereon (at No. 7 Neptune Street, Gordon Heights,
Olongapo City) in favor of "Criselda P. Cheesman, of legal
age, Filipino citizen, married to Thomas Cheesman, and
residing at Lot No. 1, Blk. 8, Filtration Road, Sta. Rita,
Olongapo City . . ."2 Thomas Cheesman, although aware of
the deed, did not object to the transfer being made only to
his wife.3
- Thereafterand again with the knowledge of Thomas
Cheesman and also without any protest by himtax
declarations for the property purchased were issued in
the name only of Criselda Cheesman and Criselda
assumed exclusive management and administration of
said property, leasing it to tenants.
- On July 1, 1981, Criselda Cheesman sold the
property to Estelita M. Padilla, without the
knowledge or consent of Thomas Cheesman.5 The
deed described Criselda as being" . . . of legal age,
married to an American citizen,. . .
- CFI: declares the sale to Padilla even without consent:
legal presumption in Article 160 could not apply
inasmuch as the husband-plaintiff is an American citizen
and therefore disqualified under the Constitution to
acquire and own real properties
- IAC: same
Contention of Petitioner: The IAC failed to declare that
Thomas Cheesman's citizenship is not a bar to his action to
recover the lot and house for the conjugal partnership, the
property being conjugal
RULING:
HE HAS NO RIGHT.
THE PROPERTY FROM PADILLA?
LAW: 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.
**** HE KNEW ABOUT THE PROHIBITION
APPLICATION: 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.31 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.
CHAPTER 13 NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY