FRENZEL v. CATITO

FRENZEL v. CATITO

G.R. No. 143958. July 11, 2003

Ponente: J. CALLEJO Sr.

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

FACTS:

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.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner could recover the money used in purchasing the several properties

HELD:

No, 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

PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

G.R. No. L-17587. September 12, 1967

Ponente: J. Castro

DOCTRINE:

            Even if the contract appears to be valid, if the provisions is against a constitutional prohibition, the same should be considered null and void.  

FACTS:

Justina Santos executed on a contract of lease in favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased to him and another portion fronting Florentino Torres street. The lease was for 50 years, although the lessee was given the right to withdraw at any time from the agreement.

On December 21 she executed another contract giving Wong the option to buy the leased premises for P120,000, payable within ten years at a monthly installment of P1,000. The option, written in Tagalog, imposed on him the obligation to pay for the food of the dogs and the salaries of the maids in her household, the charge not to exceed P1,800 a month. The option was conditioned on his obtaining Philippine citizenship, a petition for which was then pending in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

It appears, however, that this application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered that he was not a resident of Rizal. On October 28, 1958 she filed a petition to adopt him and his children on the erroneous belief that adoption would confer on them Philippine citizenship. The error was discovered and the proceedings were abandoned.

In two wills executed on August 24 and 29, 1959, she bade her legatees to respect the contracts she had entered into with Wong, but in a codicil of a later date (November 4, 1959) she appears to have a change of heart. Claiming that the various contracts were made by her because of machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now directed her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts.

ISSUE:

            Whether the contracts involving Wong were valid

HELD:

            No, the contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, but considered collectively, they reveal an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the Constitution directly prohibits. To be sure, a lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship.

            But if an alien is given not only a lease of, but also an option to buy, a piece of land, by virtue of which the Filipino owner cannot sell or otherwise dispose of his property, this to last for 50 years, then it becomes clear that the arrangement is a virtual transfer of ownership whereby the owner divests himself in stages not only of the right to enjoy the land but also of the right to dispose of it— rights the sum total of which make up ownership. If this can be done, then the Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines, is indeed in grave peril.

RELLOSA v. GAW CHEE HUN

RELLOSA v. GAW CHEE HUN

G.R. No. L-1411. September 29, 1953

Ponente: J. Bautista Angelo

DOCTRINE:

The “In Pari Delicto” doctrine provides that the proposition is universal that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation.

FACTS:

On February 2, 1944, Dionisio Rellosa sold to Gaw Chee Hun a parcel of land, together with the house erected thereon, situated in the City of Manila, Philippines, for the sum of P25,000. The vendor remained in possession of the property under a contract of lease entered into on the same date between the same parties.

Alleging that the sale was executed subject to the condition that the vendee, being a Chinese citizen, would obtain the approval of the Japanese Military Administration in accordance with (seirei) No. 6 issued on April 2, 1943, by the Japanese authorities, and said approval has not been obtained, and that, even if said requirement were met, the sale would at all events be void under article XIII, section 5, of our Constitution.

The vendor instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of the sale

ISSUES:

1.    Whether the sale was void because it is against the constitution

2.  Whether the petitioner have the sale declared null and void and recover the property considering the effect of the law governing rescission of contracts

HELD:

1) Yes, the court held that under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or public agricultural lands, including residential lands. This matter has been once more submitted to the court for deliberation, but the ruling was reaffirmed. This ruling fully disposes of the question touching on the validity of the sale of the property herein involved.

2) No, even if the plaintiffs can still invoke the Constitution to set aside the sale in question, they are now prevented from doing so if their purpose is to recover the lands that they have voluntarily parted with, because of their guilty knowledge that what they were doing was in violation of the Constitution. They cannot escape this conclusion because they are presumed to know the law.

            

Circle of Life

The life of man is really interesting.

You start as a baby, oblivious to the realities of life, can barely walk, can't intelligibly speak and really needs nurturing.

As soon as the man grows up, given the proper care and nutrition; he could speak clearly, can now walk or even run.

Fast forward to a man in the latter stages of his life. He goes back to phase 1. He can barely walk, can't speak and hear well and would find difficulty walking around.

I saw this first-hand when I personally took care of my 57-year old uncle during my Christmas break. 

He has undergone numerous surgeries a year ago. He had a brain surgery to remove the water which is accumulating in his brain. He stayed in the ICU for almost a month. He couldn't speak after the operation because he also had a surgery in his throat to clear the passage of air and phlegm. 

It was painful to see him that way knowing that during the prime of his years, he was stocky big fellow. He loves to shares stories, he loves to joke around. You could recognize his voice when you are inside the room even with a lot of people because he has a booming voice. The kind of voice that would let you sit back and listen to. I rarely saw him sad. The one event when I saw him sad was when his wife, Auntie Nora, succumbed to stage IV breast cancer.

He tried to go back to work as the MTC Clerk of Court in Baguio as early as June of this year. He walks around the office with a cane. His hearing was a little off because of all the medications he has to take. The doctors told him that it was the natural side-effect. He can now speak. Though, he could no longer drive, he has his trusted aide to drive him to work.

I thought his recovery would go smoothly as possible. 

For some reasons I wouldn't know, he basically became deaf. Even with 2 state of the art hearing aids couldn't help his hearing. He could no longer walk even with the cane or walker.

Hope he could still recover his hearing this year and regain his mobility. Or just his hearing. We could only communicate to him through writing in a white board. I hope this will happen the next time I see him.

As I go back to Manila because our Christmas Break is about to end, I bid goodbye to him and he high-fived me. 

That is the most touching High-Five I ever got in my life.