Frenzel vs. Catito
Gr.
No. 143958, July 11, 2003
Callejo, SR., J.
Parties
of the Case:
alfred fritz frenzel (petitioner)
ederlina p. catito (respondent)
Nature:
Petition for review of the decision of the CA which affirmed the
decision of the RTC of Davao City dismissing the petitioner complaint, and the
resolution of the CA denying his motion for reconsideration of the said
decision.
Keywords: Alien having an affair with Filipina, Bought properties in the Philippines under the name of Filipina, Bad Faith
Summary: Petitioner
Alfred Fritz Frenzel is an Australian citizen of German descent. He was so
enamored with Ederlina that he bought her numerous properties such as house and
lot in Quezon City and in Davao City. He also put up a beauty parlor business
in the name of Ederlina. Alfred was unaware that Ederlina was married until her
spouse Klaus Muller wrote a letter to Alfred begging the latter to leave her
wife alone.
When Alfred and Ederlinas relationship started
deteriorating. Ederlina had not been able to secure a divorce from Klaus. The
latter could charge her for bigamy and could even involve Alfred, who himself
was still married. To avoid complications, Alfred decided to live separately
from Ederlina and cut off all contacts with her.
On October 15, 1985, Alfred wrote to Ederlinas
father, complaining that Ederlina had taken all his life savings and because of
this, he was virtually penniless. He further accused the Catito family of
acquiring for themselves the properties he had purchased with his own money. He
demanded the return of all the amounts that Ederlina and her family had stolen
and turn over all the properties acquired by him and Ederlina during their
coverture.
Facts: Petitioner Alfred Fritz Frenzel is an
Australian citizen of German descent. He is an electrical engineer by
profession, but worked as a pilot with the New Guinea Airlines. He arrived in
the Philippines in 1974, started engaging in business in the country; two years
thereafter, he married Teresita Santos, a Filipino citizen.
In 1981, Alfred and Teresita separated from bed
and board without obtaining a divorce.
In 1983, Alfred arrived in Sydney, Australia
for a vacation. He went to King’s Cross, a night spot in Sydney, for a massage
where he met Ederlina Catito, a Filipina and a native of Bajada, Davao City.
Unknown to Alfred, she resided for a time in
Germany and was married to Klaus Muller, a German national. She left Germany
and tried her luck in Sydney, Australia, where she found employment as a
masseuse in the King’s Cross nightclub.
Alfred was so enamored with Ederlina that he
persuaded her to stop working at King’s Cross, return to the Philippines, and
engage in a wholesome business of her own. He also proposed that they meet in
Manila, to which she assented. Alfred gave her money for her plane fare to the
Philippines. Within two weeks of Ederlina’s arrival in Manila, Alfred joined
her. Alfred reiterated his proposal for Ederlina to stay in the Philippines and
engage in business, even offering to finance her business venture. Ederlina was
delighted at the idea and proposed to put up a beauty parlor. Alfred happily
agreed.
Alfred told Ederlina that he was married but
that he was eager to divorce his wife in Australia. Alfred proposed marriage to
Ederlina, but she replied that they should wait a little bit longer.
Alfred went back to Papua New Guinea to resume
his work as a pilot.
Since Alfred knew that as an alien he was
disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines, he agreed that only
Ederlina’s name would appear in the deed of sale as the buyer of the property,
as well as in the title covering the same. After all, he was planning to marry
Ederlina and he believed that after their marriage, the two of them would
jointly own the property.
When Ederlina left for Germany to visit Klaus,
she had her father Narciso Catito and her two sisters occupy the property.
Alfred decided to stay in the Philippines for
good and live with Ederlina. He returned to Australia and sold his fiber glass
pleasure boat to John Reid in 1984. He also sold his television and video
business in Papua New Guinea. He had his personal properties shipped to the
Philippines and stored at San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City.
On July 28, 1984, while Alfred was in Papua New
Guinea, he received a Letter dated December 7, 1983 from Klaus Muller who was
then residing in Berlin, Germany. Klaus informed Alfred that he and Ederlina
had been married on October 16, 1978 and had a blissful married life until
Alfred intruded therein.
Klaus stated that he knew of Alfred and
Ederlina’s amorous relationship, and discovered the same sometime in November
1983 when he arrived in Manila. He also begged Alfred to leave Ederlina alone
and to return her to him, saying that Alfred could not possibly build his
future on his (Klaus’) misfortune.
Alfred had occasion to talk to Sally MacCarron,
a close friend of Ederlina. He inquired if there was any truth to Klaus’
statements and Sally confirmed that Klaus was married to Ederlina.
When Alfred confronted Ederlina, she admitted
that she and Klaus were, indeed, married. But she assured Alfred that she would
divorce Klaus. Alfred was appeased. He agreed to continue the amorous
relationship and wait for the outcome of Ederlina’s petition for divorce. After
all, he intended to marry her. He retained the services of Rechtsanwältin
Banzhaf with offices in Berlin, as her counsel who informed her of the progress
of the proceedings. Alfred paid for the services of the lawyer.
Ederlina often wrote letters to her family
informing them of her life with Alfred. In a Letter dated January 21, 1985, she
wrote about how Alfred had financed the purchases of some real properties, the
establishment of her beauty parlor business, and her petition to divorce Klaus.
In the meantime, Ederlina’s petition for
divorce was denied because Klaus opposed the same. A second petition filed by
her met the same fate. Klaus wanted half of all the properties owned by
Ederlina in the Philippines before he would agree to a divorce. Worse, Klaus
threatened to file a bigamy case against Ederlina.
Alfred proposed the creation of a partnership
to Ederlina, or as an alternative, the establishment of a corporation, with
Ederlina owning 30% of the equity thereof. She initially agreed to put up a
corporation and contacted Atty. Armando Dominguez to prepare the necessary
documents. Ederlina changed her mind at the last minute when she was advised to
insist on claiming ownership over the properties acquired by them during their
coverture.
Alfred and Ederlina’s relationship started
deteriorating. Ederlina had not been able to secure a divorce from Klaus. The
latter could charge her for bigamy and could even involve Alfred, who himself
was still married. To avoid complications, Alfred decided to live separately
from Ederlina and cut off all contacts with her. In one of her letters to
Alfred, Ederlina complained that he had ruined her life. She admitted that the
money used for the purchase of the properties in Davao were his. She offered to
convey the properties deeded to her by Atty. Mardoecheo Camporedondo and
Rodolfo Morelos, asking Alfred to prepare her affidavit for the said purpose
and send it to her for her signature. The last straw for Alfred came on
September 2, 1985, when someone smashed the front and rear windshields of
Alfred’s car and damaged the windows. Alfred thereafter executed an
affidavit-complaint charging Ederlina and Sally MacCarron with malicious
mischief.
On October 15, 1985, Alfred wrote to Ederlina’s
father, complaining that Ederlina had taken all his life savings and because of
this, he was virtually penniless. He further accused the Catito family of
acquiring for themselves the properties he had purchased with his own money. He
demanded the return of all the amounts that Ederlina and her family had
“stolen” and turn over all the properties acquired by him and Ederlina during
their coverture.
Alfred filed a Complaint dated October 28,
1985, against Ederlina, with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, for
recovery of real and personal properties located in Quezon City and Manila. In
his complaint, Alfred alleged, inter alia, that Ederlina, without his knowledge
and consent, managed to transfer funds from their joint account in HSBC Hong
Kong, to her own account with the same bank. Using the said funds, Ederlina was
able to purchase the properties subject of the complaints. He also alleged that
the beauty parlor in Ermita was established with his own funds, and that the
Quezon City property was likewise acquired by him with his personal funds.
Ederlina failed to file her answer and was
declared in default. Alfred adduced his evidence ex-parte.
Alfred prayed that after hearing, judgment be
rendered in his favor.
Issue: whether or not an alien under our
Constitution may acquire residential land.
Held: No. “Public agricultural lands” mentioned in
Sec. 1, Art. XIII of the 1935 Constitution, include residential, commercial and
industrial lands, the Court stated:
‘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.
Thus Section 5, Article XIII provides:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned except to
individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
the public domain in the Philippines.
Ratio: The trial court ruled that based on
documentary evidence, the purchaser of the three parcels of land subject of the
complaint was Ederlina. The court further stated that even if Alfred was the
buyer of the properties, he had no cause of action against Ederlina for the
recovery of the same because as an alien, he was disqualified from acquiring
and owning lands in the Philippines.
The sale of the three parcels of land to the
petitioner was null and void ab initio. Applying the pari delicto doctrine, the
petitioner was precluded from recovering the properties from the respondent.
Alfred appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeals in which the petitioner posited the view that although he prayed in his
complaint in the court a quo that he be declared the owner of the three parcels
of land, he had no intention of owning the same permanently.
His principal intention therein was to be
declared the transient owner for the purpose of selling the properties at
public auction, ultimately enabling him to recover the money he had spent for
the purchase thereof.
On March 8, 2000, the CA rendered a decision
affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the
petitioner knowingly violated the Constitution; hence, was barred from
recovering the money used in the purchase of the three parcels of land. It held
that to allow the petitioner to recover the money used for the purchase of the
properties would embolden aliens to violate the Constitution, and defeat,
rather than enhance, the public policy.
Even if, as claimed by the petitioner, the
sales in question were entered into by him as the real vendee, the said
transactions are in violation of the Constitution; hence, are null and void ab
initio.
A contract that violates the Constitution and
the law, is null and void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It
produces no legal effect at all. The petitioner, being a party to an illegal
contract, cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objective
carried out. One who loses his money or property by knowingly engaging in a
contract or transaction which involves his own moral turpitude may not maintain
an action for his losses. To him who moves in deliberation and premeditation,
the law is unyielding. The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract
or agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them.
Under Article 1412 of the New Civil Code, the
petitioner cannot have the subject properties deeded to him or allow him to
recover the money he had spent for the purchase thereof. 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. Where the wrong of one party equals
that of the other, the defendant is in the stronger position ... it signifies
that in such a situation, neither a court of equity nor a court of law will
administer a remedy. The rule is expressed in the maxims: EX DOLO MALO NON
ORITUR ACTIO and IN PARI DELICTO POTIOR EST CONDITIO DEFENDENTIS.
Futile, too, is petitioner’s reliance on
Article 22 of the New Civil Code which reads:
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall
return the same to him.
The provision is expressed in the maxim: “MEMO
CUM ALTERIUS DETER DETREMENTO PROTEST” (No person should unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another). An action for recovery of what has been
paid without just cause has been designated as an accion in rem verso. This
provision does not apply if, as in this case, the action is proscribed by the
Constitution or by the application of the pari delicto doctrine. It may be
unfair and unjust to bar the petitioner from filing an accion in rem verso over
the subject properties, or from recovering the money he paid for the said
properties, but, as Lord Mansfield stated in the early case of Holman vs.
Johnson: “The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between the
plaintiff and the defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the
defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed;
but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the
advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff.”
Ruling: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition
is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.
Doctrine: A contract that violates the Constitution and
the law, is null and void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It
produces no legal effect at all. The petitioner, being a party to an illegal
contract, cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objective
carried out
