Separation of property BUENAVENTURA MULLER G.R. No. 149615 August 29, 2006

Dear Sir, Madam
I post again after sometime of absence from this forum having a question I cannot find an answer to.

It pertains the case mentioned above.

Long story short:
Helmut Claimed refund of money used to buy land and construction of a house.

Helmut used his personal money acquired by inheritance.

His claim was granted by the court of Appeal but later rectified by the Supreme Court; see below.

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.

My confusion.

Why the SC did not grant refund of that part of the money used for construction of the house? Did that particular part not become part of their absolute community property?

Foreigners are allowed to own a house except the lot on which it is built. Would it not be fair to grant his request for this particular part?

2nd The court ordered partition of personal property in this country I understand that this does not include the house itself ?

As far as owning land by foreigners the law is clear. I understand that for that part no reimbursement can be granted.
It seems inconsistent however to refuse full reimbursement or at least half of for the part of the house which should be part of of the absolute community property.Foreigners may own a house but not the lot on which it is built.

Hopefully you are willing to share your thoughts about this as it appears rather confusing

Kindest regards and mailgayang pasko at manigong bagong taon sa inyo.

Pjottr

Well. I GUESS it was a foreigner marrying a Filipina and the foreigner finance everything WITHOUT thinking of what happen if the marriage break.
And when a lawyer is involved to do it proper, then it's common they make a CRAP "solurion". The two cases I know of close, lawyers have made the SAME crap "solution" for the foreigners. That can't be a coincidence... I don't know if it depend of incompetence, lazyness or favour the Filipina ON PURPOUSE, although the lawyers were hired and paid by the FOREIGNERS!!!
(The two cases I know of close, the Filipinas are FAIR, so they see it as it's not theirs at all/only the small land. One of them even worked to sell the property and pay ALL to the foreigner, although the reason they broke was the alcoholic foreign beat her !!! But IF it had become a court fight, then would probably the Filipinas got all, BECAUSE of the by lawyers made CRAP "solutions"... )

"Why the SC did not grant refund of that part of the money used for construction of the house? "
I don't believe there are any such possibility in the law in marriage split cases,
but odd you didn't get half of the value =Owner forced to sell and split with you, if owner can't buy out your share.

"Did that particular part not become part of their absolute community property?"
"2nd The court ordered partition of personal property in this country I understand that this does not include the house itself ?"
Well. Spouse have right to half of the TOTAL assets NORMALY,
but perhaps the lawyer "solution" mess that up somehow...

"As far as owning land by foreigners the law is clear. I understand that for that part no reimbursement can be granted."
Well. I don't know if VALUE of land is included when separate assets, but foreigners CAN INHERIT land, so it would be inconsequent to not include the value of land when spliting assets. But perhaps the lawyer messed it up by for instance a prenup saying the WIFE had the land when you married...?


Foreigners CAN be protected by law by have a 25 (+ 25 possible extension) years LEASE of land and own a house on it in the FOREIGNER'S name.
BUT when a LEASE ENDS, then what's left there belong to the LAND owner.
I guess you DON'T have such solution...
An other disadvantage with that solution is the house CAN'T be used as collatreral for a loan.
((I SUPPOUSE the leasee CAN'T just tear the house down and leave a mess = leave the house OR if take away the house, then leave the land in ok shape.))

BUT (when married after 1987) even WITHOUT any lawyer "solution" the spouse (=in your case you) have right to HALF of the TOTAL assets, when a couple SPLIT. Total assets mean INCLUDING OTHER assets than the real estate, so PERHAPS the SC see it as the wife got the property and you got other assets of similar value. Or what REASON did SC say?
OR - An OTHER reason is perhaps the SC see it as a "DUMMY" case, which is ILLEGAL, so they can have punnished you for that by an uneven split of assets.
(A more obvious break of the "Anti-Dummy" law is OFTEN done by LAWYERS as "solution" concerning business owning!!!)
OR don't you have OTHER assets than the real estate? Perhaps the SC suppouse you have, the wife get the real estate and you get the other assets.
OR don't SC see it as your marriage is splited yet? IF so, then you have right to half when your marriage is legaly splited

Thanks for your reply
I will study this subject more profoundly since it has my interest.There are in my opinion many inconsistencies. However I am not the SC. They follow the law and jurisprudence pur sang so what can one do?
Thanks for your time
Regards

pjottr wrote:Thanks for your reply
I will study this subject more profoundly since it has my interest.There are in my opinion many inconsistencies. However I am not the SC. They follow the law and jurisprudence pur sang so what can one do?
Thanks for your time
Regards

Well. Sometimes courts don't follow the law
I know of two murder cases when they have been RIDICILOUS unfair against the foreigner side
(One foreigner were found guilty to do a murder HIMSELF, although he could prove he wasn't even in the country when it happened !!!
An OBVIOUS case was when 2 (4) young rich Filipinos were found only guilry to only a SMALL crime when 2 of them run after a middle age foreigner and stabbed him to death The murder was shown on cctv VIDEO, so it was hard for the judge to not find them guilty at all...