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