0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
165 vues1 page
Alfred Frenzel, an Australian citizen, cohabited with and acquired real properties with Ederlina Catito, a Filipina. However, as an foreigner Alfred was prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, so the properties were registered under Ederlina's name. When their relationship soured, Alfred sued to recover the properties, claiming he was the real owner. The Court refused to declare Alfred as the owner because the property transactions violated the Philippine Constitution which prohibits foreigners from owning land. As a party to an illegal contract, Alfred cannot ask the courts to enforce the contract. Contracts that violate the law are void and confer no legal rights.
Alfred Frenzel, an Australian citizen, cohabited with and acquired real properties with Ederlina Catito, a Filipina. However, as an foreigner Alfred was prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, so the properties were registered under Ederlina's name. When their relationship soured, Alfred sued to recover the properties, claiming he was the real owner. The Court refused to declare Alfred as the owner because the property transactions violated the Philippine Constitution which prohibits foreigners from owning land. As a party to an illegal contract, Alfred cannot ask the courts to enforce the contract. Contracts that violate the law are void and confer no legal rights.
Alfred Frenzel, an Australian citizen, cohabited with and acquired real properties with Ederlina Catito, a Filipina. However, as an foreigner Alfred was prohibited from owning land in the Philippines, so the properties were registered under Ederlina's name. When their relationship soured, Alfred sued to recover the properties, claiming he was the real owner. The Court refused to declare Alfred as the owner because the property transactions violated the Philippine Constitution which prohibits foreigners from owning land. As a party to an illegal contract, Alfred cannot ask the courts to enforce the contract. Contracts that violate the law are void and confer no legal rights.
TOPIC: SECTION 7 PRIVATE LANDS FACTS: Alfred Fritz Frenzel, an Australian citizen of German descent, was married to Teresita Santos; while Ederlina Catito, a Filipina, was married to Klaus Muller. Alfred and Ederlina met and later cohabited in a common-law relationship, during which Alfred acquired real properties; and since he was disqualified from owning lands in the Philippines, Ederlinas name appeared as the vendee in the deeds of sale. When their relationship turned sour, Alfred filed an action for the recovery of the real properties registered in the name of Ederlina, claiming that he was the real owner. ISSUE: Whether or not Alfred is entitled to the property. HELD: No. The Court refused to declare Alfred as the owner mainly because of the constitutional prohibition. The Court added that being a party to an illegal contract, he could not come to court and ask to have his illegal objective carried out. Even if, as claimed by Alfred, 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. Alfred, 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.