Acceptance by Corporation

Even assuming that the bank officer or employee whom petitioner claimed he had talked to regarding the March 22, 1984 letter had acceded to his own modified terms for the repurchase, their supposed verbal exchange did not bind respondent bank in view of its corporate nature.  There was no evidence that said Mr. Lazaro or Mr. Fajardo was authorized by respondent bank’s Board of Directors to accept petitioner’s counter-proposal to repurchase the foreclosed properties at the price and terms other than those communicated in the March 22, 1984 letter (Heirs of Fausto C. Ignacio Vs. Home Bankers Savings and Trust co., et al., G.R. No. 177783. January 23, 2013).

Expropriation

The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is guaranteed no less by our Constitution and is included in the Bill of Rights. As such, no legislative enactments or executive issuances can prevent the courts from determining whether the right of the property owners to just compensation has been violated.  It is a judicial function that cannot “be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.” Thus, we have consistently ruled that statutes and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of computing just compensation are not binding on courts and, at best, are treated as mere guidelines in ascertaining the amount thereof.

Notably, in all these cases, Napocor likewise argued that it is liable to pay the property owners for the easement of right-of-way only  and not the full market value of the land traversed by its transmission lines.  But we uniformly held in those cases that since  the high-tension electric current passing through the transmission lines will perpetually deprive the property owners of the normal use of their land, it is only just and proper to require Napocor to recompense them for the full market value of their property. 

In Republic v. Santos, we ruled that a commissioners’ land valuation which is not based on any documentary evidence is manifestly hearsay and should be disregarded by the court (National Power Corporation Vs. Spouses Rodolfo Zabala and Lilia Baylon, G.R. No. 173520. January 30, 2013).

Unlawful Aggression

Granting that the victim tried to steal the petitioner’s car battery, such did not equate to a danger in his life or personal safety.  At one point during the fight, Macario even tried to run away from his assailant, yet the petitioner continued to chase the victim and, using his .45 caliber pistol, fired at him and caused the mortal wound on his chest.  Contrary to the petitioner’s defense, there then appeared to be no “real danger to his life or personal safety,” for no unlawful aggression, which would have otherwise justified him in inflicting the gunshot wounds for his defense, emanated from Macario’s end (Ramon Josue y Gonzales Vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 199579. December 10, 2012).

Right of Alien Spouse over Conjugal Land

In In Re: Petition For Separation of Property-Elena Buenaventura Muller v. Helmut Muller the Court had already denied a claim  for reimbursement of the value of purchased parcels of Philippine land instituted by a foreigner Helmut Muller, against his former Filipina spouse, Elena Buenaventura Muller. It held that Helmut Muller cannot seek reimbursement on the ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought the property despite the prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

As also explained in Muller, the time-honored principle is that he who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Conversely stated, he who has done inequity shall not be accorded equity. Thus, a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful.

In any event, 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. It is well established that equity as a rule will follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of public policy, cannot be done directly. Surely, 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. Corollary thereto, under Article 1412 of the Civil Code, petitioner cannot have the subject properties deeded to him or allow him to recover the money he had spent for the purchase thereof. The law will not aid either party to an illegal contract or agreement; it leaves the parties where it finds them. Indeed, one cannot salvage any rights from an unconstitutional transaction knowingly entered into

Neither can the Court grant petitioner’s claim for reimbursement on the basis of unjust enrichment. As held in Frenzel v. Catito, a case also involving a foreigner seeking monetary reimbursement for money spent on purchase of Philippine land, the provision on unjust enrichment does not apply if the action is proscribed by the Constitution.

Nor would the denial of his claim amount to an injustice based on his foreign citizenship. Precisely, it is the Constitution itself which demarcates the rights of citizens and non-citizens in owning Philippine land. To be sure, the constitutional ban against foreigners applies only to ownership of Philippine land and not to the improvements built thereon, such as the two (2) houses standing on Lots 1 and 2142 which were properly declared to be co-owned by the parties subject to partition. Needless to state, the purpose of the  prohibition  is  to  conserve  the  national  patrimony and  it  is  this  policy which the Court is duty-bound to protect (Willem Beumer Vs. Avelina Amores, G.R. No. 195670. December 3, 2012).

Forum Shopping

In the present case, HFC did not commit forum shopping because the third element of litis pendentia is lacking.  As previously mentioned, the DARAB’s land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party.  The courts, in this case, the SAC, will still have to review with finality the determination, in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no identity between the two cases such that a judgment by the DARAB, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the case before the SAC (Land Bank of the Philippines Vs. Honeycomb Farms Corporation, G.R. No. 166259. November 12, 2012).

Post-Employment Medical Examination

While the mandatory reporting requirement obliges the seafarer  to be present  for the postemployment medical examination, which must be conducted within three (3) working days upon the seafarer’s return, it also poses the employer the implied obligation to conduct a meaningful and timely examination of the seafarer (Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. Vs. Salvadors T. Serna, G.R. No. 172086. December 3, 2012).

Ship Logbook

At any rate, we effectively stated in Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division) that the Court does not deem a logbook to be a comprehensive and exclusive record of all the incidents in a vessel (Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc., et al. Vs. Salvadors T. Serna, G.R. No. 172086. December 3, 2012).