legal proceedings advice

[bikeinbatangas]

hi, i wondered if anyone else on this forum has had to take legal action against a filipina who refuses to return property/s bought in trust in her name, only to find she can not be trusted after all?

i'm wondering what chance i have of being succesful and how to go about it. i'm getting mixed suggestions from legal folks here and all they do is confuse me with the best course of action.

in short, i was with the girl 4 years, i bought 3 lots of land as investments for our future. thats the only reason i stayed with her so long as she is a headcase. in the end i had to get rid of her and cut losses.

last year we talked also of rebuilding her own lot as somewhere for me to stay when i returned to cavite, it would also be a buisness to make her self sufficient so i didnt have to send allowance monthly (which frankly crippled my finances for 4 years as she never attempted to work at all).

so just before i left last year, i gave her around 375,000 pesos to re-develop her run down lot.

a few weeks after i went home, i finally had enough of her and dumped her. needless to say she never attempted to build the house as promised, and just pocketed the money instead. she now even denies there was ever any discussion to develop her lot.

to add insult to injury i recently found that the deed of sale for 2 lots has the incorrect sale price (tax scam) so i am not even sure i can recover the full amount i paid for one of them. fortunately i have proof of the correct price of the other.

one lawyer said i could use this tax fiddle to threaten her into making a deal,as it could mean prison sentence while another told me the inland revenue would simply re-evaluate the taxes due, so it is a waste of time going that route.

i'm only looking for a fair deal here, what i paid out on 3 lots and the money i left with her to build the house for us.

i paid for lots more over 4 years, a failed anullment, her education for almost 3 years, plus how many other things not to mention carrying her for 4 years as she never attempted to help me out by getting her hands dirty.

anyone else had remotely similar experience and succesfully got back money?
would love to hear how, and what i might be able to claim back.
cheers

[KeithD]

If it's in her name and the fact a foreigner has no right to ownership, you have probably no chance of getting anything.

[Terpe]

Sadly this is not an unusual story.
I'm not going to give advice on what you should have done, it's too late for that now.

Win2Win has it about right.

If you managed to get anything back at all then you would be a very very rare breed.

Don't expect the legal system to be of any real help, that would also be a 'money' pit.

Your best possibility is to see what you can personally 'squeeze' back, but it may be a scenario of 'blood from a stone." Be wary of seeking help from the family.

So sorry to learn of this.

[aronbabev]

Felt so sorry about your story.Like Mr. Terpe and Mr.Winwin I agreed with them. The property might be given away to your girlfriend.The best thing that you can do is have a good conversation with your girlfriend she might have a conscience that can give you even half of the property.The next option is you can ask help from the Municipal office.they can offer you good advice and opinion regarding in this matter for sure,.Anyway where you in Batangas?Don't lose hope God is good all the time.

[Steve.r]

There is also the route of contacting the Brgy Captain and see if you can force the family into shame (as I am sure they have benefited from her windfall), and make them act in a proper manner. But again I am sure som under tha table funds might be required

[Terpe]

There is also the route of contacting the Brgy Captain and see if you can force the family into shame (as I am sure they have benefited from her windfall), and make them act in a proper manner. But again I am sure som under tha table funds might be required

That's a good idea.
Still needs care, though and keeping a low profile.

[sars_notd_virus]

the deed of sale for 2 lots has the incorrect sale price(tax scam) so i am not even sure i can recover the full amount i paid for one of them. fortunately i have proof of the correct price of the other.

one lawyer said i could use this tax fiddle to threaten her into making a deal,as it could mean prison sentence

Does this mean you are named in the Deed of Absolute Sale??

[bikeinbatangas]

no i was not mentioned in the deed of sale, but i made a memo of agreement with my gf at the lawyers office who handled the sales. it states we bought that particular lot jointly as it were. we were both mentioned as the buyer. the memo states the actual price 260k, while the deeds state the lot was sold 30k. the other lot i paid 450k, the deeds state 100k, but i do not have any proof of the real price for that one.

regarding shaming the family into taking action. they dont have any shame believe me, they more likely proud that one of their family got rich in such a way, they were a bunch of scroungers who only made trouble for our relationship. my gf fought them more than she fought me, and thats saying something.

i bought the first house from her aunt to save her from jail for debts. as soon as i had i saved her rear end from jail , they demanded extra for the house . then my gf built a wall around the house to keep the family from crossing our land only to find there was a right of way, so we had to pay them 10,000 to shut up about it, or i did.

in short, her family are rubbish, her mother dis-owns her, her father is dead and nobody else cares about family honour. she wouldnt listen to her family anyway, she thinks she is the most important person in the world.

i'm quite amazed nobody else has been cheated and got any experience of it to share

[bikeinbatangas]

no, im not on the deeds. my ex and i made a memo of agreement stating us as buyers jointly. this document states the selling price 260k, while the deeds say 30k. i had hoped this tax fiddle would be a useful weapon, but now i'm not so sure. the other lot i paid 450k, the deeds say 100k, but ihave no written proof i paid 450k, only the reciepts from Xoom showing that i sent it.

her family would be no help. they have no pride,they do not care what the girl does as none of them really like her. they only suffer her for what they might get from her. her mother basically dis-owns her and her father is dead. she wouldnt listen to advice from them anyway. she only listens to herself

[bikeinbatangas]

my name is not on the deeds, it is on a memo of agreement i made at the lawyers office stating me and my ex as the buyers, and giving the correct price of 260k, the deeds say 30k

[bikeinbatangas]

im having trouble replying. i tried 3 times but my post does not appear. i'll try this last time.

my name is not on the deeds, it is on a memo of agreement i made with my ex. it states me and her as buyers and gives the correct price 260k, while the deeds give a false price of 30k

[aronbabev]

Mr bikeinbatangas, for your info. there are some instances that we really don't put the exact price in a deed of sale to avoid paying more tax, for example you paid 450k but in papers is just a half. both sellers and buyers should agreed on it.

[scottishbride]

You will need a lawyer to sort it out. But I don't think you stand a chance as you are a foreigner! You cannot own a land! You can only own a condominium. You should try to talk to your wife...

[bikeinbatangas]

i tried to talk to her, many many times, she is a spiteful hot headed brat. i know i am not able to own land in the philippines, but she used my money to buy the property. a lawyer told me nobody can acquire wealth at the expense of others, that is what my ex did. when we met she had nothing, when we split, she had more money than i did, to me that is a clear case of using me to get rich.

if the lawyer is right, and i hope so as she is also a judge, i have some chance of reclaiming money, i'm not trying to reclaim property as i cannot touch that i know. i do not think any court in a sane world can claim i gifted away the best part of 2 million pesos.

i have contacted another lawyer friend and he claims i have a sound case too to reclaim something. with no experience of philippine law i have to trust he knows when a case is viable or not, but who knows what philippines law is like with a filipino against foreigner case.

[bikeinbatangas]

Mr bikeinbatangas, for your info. there are some instances that we really don't put the exact price in a deed of sale to avoid paying more tax, for example you paid 450k but in papers is just a half. both sellers and buyers should agreed on it.

yes i see the reason why people try to cheat the governement of tax, this was explained to me already when i spotted the irregularity.

one lawyer told me i could use the tax fraud against my ex, while another told me to forget it as only the seller would be troubled by extra tax demands, not my ex. so i'm not exactly filled with confidence about lawyers here, some obviously don't know the law themselves.

it seems i'm wasting my time searching for advice here as nobody has experience of this themselves or they are not members of this forum if they have. thanks to those who made an effort.

[Terpe]

.......it seems i'm wasting my time searching for advice here as nobody has experience of this themselves or they are not members of this forum if they have. thanks to those who made an effort.

I hope you manage to find a way to get back something from your experience.

I also hope you will show extreme caution when choosing a lawyer in the Philippines.
I would hate to see you posting questions about spending all your money on a lawyer and getting nothing for it.
Tread carefully. That's also not an uncommon story.

[aronbabev]

Mr.BikeinBatangas,You don't have the right to complain about the irregularity since you are benefited on it.You agreed and give consent, in fact you did signed in it.Buyers should asked the Register of Deeds and Assessor's Office before buying any properties to avoid any problem. You have known about it.since you did it in your country,..You have known our laws that you cannot own a piece of Land,She is is just a girlfriend,"love is not blind... it sees, but it doesn't mind..Anyway I want to say all things begins right ,Ends well.

[sars_notd_virus]

when we met she had nothing, when we split, she had more money than i did, to me that is a clear case of using me to get rich.

Lessons learned

no, im not on the deeds. my ex and i made a memo of agreement stating us as buyers jointly.

your lawyer is right , there is a chance to reclaim something from the property depends on what is stipulated in the memorandum of property agreement
goodluck to you!!

[sars_notd_virus]

But I don't think you stand a chance as you are a foreigner! You cannot own a land! You can only own a condominium. You should try to talk to your wife...

sorry to disagree scottishbride,...I can put my husbands name( a foreigner) in Deed of Absoulute Sale in any property I wish to purchase in the Philippines!!
with regards to condominium ... a foreigner can purchase of not more than 40% interest in a condominium project.
the only problem of bikeinbatangas is that he is not married to the filipina ex but they both signed memorandum of property agreement in which it is done legally and notarized in front of the lawyer..meaning, he got a chance to reclaim something

[scottishbride]

sorry to disagree scottishbride,...I can put my husbands name( a foreigner) in Deed of Absoulute Sale in any property I wish to purchase in the Philippines!!
with regards to condominium ... a foreigner can purchase of not more than 40% interest in a condominium project.
the only problem of bikeinbatangas is that he is not married to the filipina ex but they both signed memorandum of property agreement in which it is done legally and notarized in front of the lawyer..meaning, he got a chance to reclaim something

I am actually referring my post to Bikeinbatangas as they are not married. When he/she married to a foreigner that's a different story...
according to this link ... http://real-estate-guide.philsite.net/foreigners.htm To make things clear...

[sars_notd_virus]

You cannot own a land! You can only own a condominium. You should try to talk to your wife...

To make things clear, your opinion on post #13 is very misleading!!

[scottishbride]

To make things clear, your opinion on post #13 is very misleading!!

I am not trying to mislead or anything.. Members post here to help not to mislead.. Did you also read some of the post of moderators and other members above? It is just my opinion base on what I read and experience. Peace! If I am wrong... nobody's perfect and I am not perfect!

[tanga]

Walk away! You may have a very slim case but the aggravation,time scale and payments to an attorney will take a toll on your sanity and health.
Sounds very much like your ex will appear to benefit for now but mark my words she will be on skid row within a year or so.

[fred]

x2

[fred]

sorry..just saw the topic. here is a test case ..filipina v German for you to read ..
all land we have purchased here has always shown a lesser amount than on the deed..its because the sellers cant afford the crazy inheritance taxes based on the sales price..its an accepted practice here ..dont believe what your lawyer is telling you..he wants your money over the long haul to no where..read below..all of it.


DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari[1] assails the February 26, 2001 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59321 affirming with modification the August 12, 1996 Decision 3] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 in Civil Case No. Q-94-21862, which terminated the regime of absolute community of property between petitioner and respondent, as well as the Resolution[4] dated August 13, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller and respondent Helmut Muller were married in Hamburg, Germany on September 22, 1989. The couple resided in Germany at a house owned by respondent's parents but decided to move and reside permanently in the Philippines in 1992. By this time, respondent 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 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 219438[5] of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila.

Due to incompatibilities and respondent's alleged womanizing, drinking, and maltreatment, the spouses eventually separated. On September 26, 1994, respondent filed a petition[6] for separation of properties before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

On August 12, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision which terminated the regime of absolute community of property between the petitioner and respondent. It also decreed the separation of properties between them and ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country, excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage. With regard to the Antipolo property, the court held that it was acquired using paraphernal funds of the respondent. However, it ruled that respondent cannot recover his funds because the property was purchased in violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution. Thus –

However, pursuant to Article 92 of the Family Code, properties acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse during the marriage shall be excluded from the community property. The real property, therefore, inherited by petitioner in Germany is excluded from the absolute community of property of the herein spouses. Necessarily, the proceeds of the sale of said real property as well as the personal properties purchased thereby, belong exclusively to the petitioner. However, the part of that inheritance used by the petitioner for acquiring the house and lot in this country cannot be recovered by the petitioner, its acquisition being a violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution which provides that "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 law will leave the parties in the situation where they are in without prejudice to a voluntary partition by the parties of the said real property. x x x

x x x x

As regards the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 219438 of the Registry of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila, situated in Antipolo, Rizal and the improvements thereon, the Court shall not make any pronouncement on constitutional grounds.[7]

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision modifying the trial court's Decision. It held that respondent merely prayed for reimbursement for the purchase of the Antipolo property, and not acquisition or transfer of ownership to him. It also considered petitioner's ownership over the property in trust for the respondent. As regards the house, the Court of Appeals ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits respondent from acquiring the same. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the lower court dated August 12, 1996 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent Elena Buenaventura Muller is hereby ordered to REIMBURSE the petitioner the amount of P528,000.00 for the acquisition of the land and the amount of P2,300,000.00 for the construction of the house situated in Antipolo, Rizal, deducting there from the amount respondent spent for the preservation, maintenance and development of the aforesaid real property including the depreciation cost of the house or in the alternative to SELL the house and lot in the event respondent does not have the means to reimburse the petitioner out of her own money and from the proceeds thereof, reimburse the petitioner of the cost of the land and the house deducting the expenses for its maintenance and preservation spent by the respondent. Should there be profit, the same shall be divided in proportion to the equity each has over the property. The case is REMANDED to the lower court for reception of evidence as to the amount claimed by the respondents for the preservation and maintenance of the property.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, the instant petition for review raising the following issues:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT USED TO PURCHASE THE LAND AS WELL AS THE COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, FOR IN SO RULING, IT INDIRECTLY ALLOWED AN ACT DONE WHICH OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE DIRECTLY x x x DONE, WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION THAT AN ALIEN IS PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN OWNERSHIP OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CLOTHED UNDER THE GUISE OF CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT.

Petitioner contends that respondent, being an alien, is disqualified to own private lands in the Philippines; that respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition but circumvented the same; and that respondent's purpose for filing an action for separation of property is to obtain exclusive possession, control and disposition of the Antipolo property.

Respondent claims that he is not praying for transfer of ownership of the Antipolo property but merely reimbursement; that the funds paid by him for the said property were in consideration of his marriage to petitioner; that the funds were given to petitioner in trust; and that equity demands that respondent should be reimbursed of his personal funds.

The issue for resolution is whether respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property.

The petition has merit.

Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution 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.

Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain. Hence, they are also disqualified from acquiring private lands.[9] The primary purpose of the constitutional provision is the conservation of the national patrimony. In the case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds,[10] the Court held:

Under section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included in Article XIII, and it reads as follows:

"Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."

This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which agricultural resources may leak into aliens' hands. It would certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens. x x x

x x x x

If the term "private agricultural lands" is to be construed as not including residential lots or lands not strictly agricultural, the result would be that "aliens may freely acquire and possess not only residential lots and houses for themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and that "they may validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes, factories, industrial plants, fisheries, hatcheries, schools, health and vacation resorts, markets, golf courses, playgrounds, airfields, and a host of other uses and purposes that are not, in appellant's words, strictly agricultural." (Solicitor General's Brief, p. 6.) That this is obnoxious to the conservative spirit of the Constitution is beyond question.

Respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition and expressly admitted his knowledge thereof to this Court.[11] He declared that he had the Antipolo property titled in the name of petitioner because of the said prohibition.[12] His attempt at subsequently asserting or claiming a right on the said property cannot be sustained.

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created and resulted by operation of law in view of petitioner's marriage to respondent. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondent's disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed. Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud. [13] To hold otherwise would allow circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.

Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity, is likewise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly.[14] He who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.[15]

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

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. As expressly held in Cheesman v. Intermediate Appellate Court:[16]

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 Cheesman 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.

As already observed, the finding that his wife had used her own money to purchase the property cannot, and will not, at this stage of the proceedings be reviewed and overturned. But even if it were a fact that said wife had used conjugal funds to make the acquisition, the considerations just set out to militate, on high constitutional grounds, against his recovering and holding the property so acquired, or any part thereof. And whether in such an event, he may recover from his wife any share of the money used for the purchase or charge her with unauthorized disposition or expenditure of conjugal funds is not now inquired into; that would be, in the premises, a purely academic exercise. (Emphasis added)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59321 ordering petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller to reimburse respondent Helmut Muller the amount of P528,000 for the acquisition of the land and the amount of P2,300,000 for the construction of the house in Antipolo City, and the Resolution dated August 13, 2001 denying reconsideration thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The August 12, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 in Civil Case No. Q-94-21862 terminating the regime of absolute community between the petitioner and respondent, decreeing a separation of property between them and ordering the partition of the personal properties located in the Philippines equally, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.