ART. 22 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.
DOCTRINE: Memo cum alterius deter detremento protest”
CASE FACTS
BEUMER vs CA SUMMARY: A Dutch National seeks to reimburse funds he invested in
allowing his ex-Filipina spouse to buy parcels of Filipino land after their
marriage was declared null.
 Willem Beumer a Dutch national married Avelina Amores on
March 29, 1980 and had their marriage annulled on Nov. 10, 200
due to the reasons of psychological incapacity. Thus, Beumer
filed a petition for dissolution of conjugal properties which he
claimed were acquired during their marriage.
 Responded averred that she did not acquire any conjugal
properties during their marriage and that she bought four of
these lots with her personal funds and two lots were acquired by Section 7, Art. 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
way of inheritance.
 Petitioner claimed that these four lots were acquired with the
money he received from the Dutch Government for his disability
benefit and claimed that that the joint affidavit they submitted
before the Register of Deeds was contrary to Art. 89 of the
Family Code hence, invalid.
RTC ruled that all parcels of land be given to the respondent, tools, and
equipment in favor of the petitioner and the two houses on Lots 1 and
2142 as co-owned by the parties.
APPLICATION OF LAW
ART. 22
 "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
 foreigners may not own lands in the Philippines. However, there
are no restrictions to the ownership of buildings or structures on
lands of foreigners. As such, the two houses on Lots 1 and 2142
are considered co-owned by the parties.
 The Court cannot, even on the grounds of equity, grant
reimbursement to petitioner given that he acquired no right
whatsoever over the subject properties by virtue of its
unconstitutional purchase
 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.
CASE FACTS
WILLAWARE vs JESICHRIS  Respondent Jesichris Manufacturing Company, a duly registered
partnership engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
plastic and metal products, filed a complaint for damages for
unfair competition with prayer for permanent injunction to
enjoin petitioner Willaware Products Corporation from
manufacturing and distributing plastic-made automotive parts
similar to those of respondent.
 The complaint started from an incident sometime in November
2000, when Jesichris discovered that Willaware had been
manufacturing and distributing the same automotive parts with
exactly similar design, same material and colors but was selling
these products at a lower price as respondent’s plastic-made
automotive parts and to the same customers
RTC
 Ruled in favor of respondent, Jesichris, saying that petitioner
clearly invaded the rights or interest of respondent by
deliberately copying and performing acts amounting to unfair
competition-
 Petitioner’s acts of manufacturing similar plastic made
automotive parts such as those of respondent’s and the selling
of the same products to respondent’s customers, which it
cultivated over the years, will have to be enjoined
CA
 Affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC, saying that
despite the evidence showing that Willaware took dishonest
steps in advancing its business interest against Jesichris
 Found no basis for the award by the RTC of actual damages,
noting that one is entitled to actual damages as one has duly
proven
APPLICATION OF LAW
 The SC stressed that the instant case falls under Article 28 of
the Civil Code on human relations, and not unfair competition
under Republic Act No. 8293, as the present suit is a damage
suit and the products are not covered by patent registration.
A fortiori , in the existence of patent registration is immaterial in
the case.
 The concept of “unfair competition” under Article 28 is very
much broader than that covered by intellectual property laws.
Under the present article, which follows the extended concept of
“unfair competition” in American jurisdictions, the term covers
even cases of discovery of trade secrets of a competitor,
bribery of his employees, misrepresentation of all kinds,
interference with the fulfillment of a competitor’s contracts, or
any malicious interference with the latter’s business.
Article 28, NCC
“Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises
or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or
any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method
shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.”
 In dismissing Willaware’s petition and finding in behalf of
Jesichris, it found the former as having committed unfair
competition through with the following two characteristics:(1) it
involved an injury to a competitor or trade rival (Jesichris),
and(2) it involved acts (on the part of Willaware) which are
characterized as “contrary to good conscience,” or “shocking to
judicial sensibilities,” or otherwise unlawful; in the language of
our law, these include force, intimidation, deceit, machination or
any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method.
 The acts of the petitioner were clearly “contrary to good
conscience” as petitioner admitted having employed
respondent’s former employees, deliberately copied
respondent’s products and even went to the extent of selling
these products to respondent’s customers.