UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR WORLD MINISTRIESvs.HON. JUDGE ALEJANDRO E.

SEBASTIAN

David Jacobson was an American citizen who had been a resident of the Philippines for more than thirty years. He left a will in which he "devised
and bequeathed" to the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital 60% of his shares of stocks in the Tagdangua Plantation Co., inc. which was incorporated
under Philippine law in 1948 and registered owner of a tract of land in Pantuhan Davao del Norte, with a total area of about 445 hectares.
The above-described legacy was disallowed on the ground that it was in effect an alienation of private agricultural land in favor of a transferee which
was not qualified under the Constitution of 1935.
4
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied. The Solicitor General disagreed at first,
insisting that the legacy was prohibited by the 1935 Constitution and did not come under any of the allowed exceptions.
Issue: WON the Legacy shall be disallowed
Held: WHEREFORE, the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. is hereby substituted for the United Church Board for World Ministries as petitioner in
this case and DECLARED to be qualified to accept the legacy of the late David Jacobson.
WILLEM BEUMER vs. AVELINA AMORES
FACTS: Petitioner, a Dutch National, and respondent, a Filipina, married in March 29, 1980. After several years, the RTC declared the nullity of their
marriage. Consequently,petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership dated praying for thedistribution of properties claimed to
have been acquired during the subsistence of their marriage. During trial, petitioner testified that while Lots W, X, Y, and Z, parcels of land,were
registered in the name of respondent, these properties were acquired with their money he received from the Dutch government as his disability
benefit since respondent did not have sufficient income. The RTC ruled that, petitioner could not have acquired any right whatsoever. 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
cometo court with clean hands. CA affirmed. Petitioner appealed.
ISSUE: W/N a foreigner may reimburse his investment in the purchase of Filipino land
DECISION:
The Court AFFIRMED the rulings of the RTC and CA. In In Re: Petition For Separationof 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 institutedby a foreigner against his former
Filipina spouse. It held that the foreigner cannot seekreimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowinglybought
the property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine landenshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
CHEESMAN V IAC 193 SCRA 93G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991
FACTS: Thomas Cheesman appealed to annul for lack of consent on his part the sale by his Filipino wife (Criselda) of a residential lot andbuilding to
Estelita Padilla December 4, 1970 Thomas Cheesman and Criselda Cheesman were married but have been separated since February 15, 1981
June 4, 1974 a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Possessory Rights was executed by Armando Altares,conveying a parcel of land in favor of
Criselda Cheesman, married to Thomas Cheesman. Thomas, although aware of the deed, did not object to the transfer being made only to his
wife. Tax declarations for the said property were issued in the name of Criselda Cheesman alone and she assumed exclusivemanagement and
administration of the property July 1, 1981 Criselda sold the property to Estelita Padilla without knowledge and consent of Thomas July 31, 1981
Thomas filed a suit for the annulment of the sale on the ground that the transaction hadbeen executed without his knowledge and consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the wife can dispose of the property in question; Whether or not Cheesman, beingan American citizen, can question the sale.
HELD: Section 14, Art. XIV of 1973 Constitution provides that: save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or
conveyed except toindividuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. At any rate, Cheesman had and
has NO CAPACITY TOQUESTION THE SUBSEQUENTSALE OF THE SAME PROPERTY BY HIS WIFE ON THETHEORY THAT IN SO DOING
HEIS MERELY EXERCISING THE PREROGATIVE OF AHUSBAND IN RESPECT OFCONJUGAL PROPERTY
CAMILO F. BORROMEO, Petitioner, vs.ANTONIETTA O. DESCALLAR, Respondent.
Wilhelm Jambrich, an Austrian, arrived in the Philippines in 1983 after he was assigned by his employer, Simmering-Graz Panker A.G., an Austrian
company, to work at a project in Mindoro. In 1984, he transferred to Cebu and worked at the Naga II Project of the National Power Corporation.
There, he met respondent Antonietta Opalla-Descallar and
live together in a rented house in Hernan Cortes, Mandaue City. Later, they transferred to their own house and lots at Agro-Macro Subdivision,
Cabancalan, Mandaue City. registration of said house was refused on the ground that Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands
of the public domain.
petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for recovery of real property before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Antoniet[t]a Opalla by. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals disagreed on the
decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Held: SC affirmed the Regional Trial Court.
As the property in dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The
objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER, Petitioner vs HELMUT MULLER, Respondent.
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 respondents 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 respondents 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. lower court dated August 12, 1996 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent Elena Buenaventura Muller is hereby ordered to REIMBURSE the
petitioner
Issue:
Held: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