G.R. No.

181508 October 2, 2013

OSCAR CONSTANTINO, MAXIMA CONSTANTINO and

CASIMIRA MATURINGAN vs.
HEIRS OF PEDRO CONSTANTINO, JR., represented by ASUNCION
LAQUINDANUM

Latin for "in equal fault," in pari delicto connotes that two or more
people are at fault or are guilty of a crime. Neither courts of law nor
equity will interpose to grant relief to the parties, when an illegal
agreement has been made, and both parties stand in pari delicto.21 Under
the pari delicto doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally
culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it
shall leave the parties where it finds them. This doctrine finds
expression in the maxims "ex dolo malo nonoritur actio" and "in pari
delicto potior est conditio defendentis."22

As a result of execution of "Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver" dated

December 5, 1968 (Exh. "2") executed by the heirs of Pedro Constantino,
Jr., a son of Pedro Constantino, Sr. and the subsequent execution of
another deed denominated as "Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman"
dated August 10, 1992 (Exh. "E") executed by the heirs of Santiago and
Bruno Constantino, also other sons of Pedro Constantino, Sr., to the
exclusion of the other heirs, namely, those of ANTONIA, CLARA, and
EDUARDO CONSTANTINO, both plaintiffs and defendants acted
equally at fault. They are in pari delicto, whereby the law leaves them as
they are and denies recovery by either one of them. (See:Yu Bun Guan v.
Ong, 367 SCRA 559). Parties who are equally guilty cannot complain
against each other. (Sarmiento v. Salud, 45 SCRA 213.)

Supplementing the law on the matter, that is, the provision of Article 19
of the New Civil Code whereby every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith, is the legal
maxim that "he who comes to court to demand equity must come with
clean hands." (LBC Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 602).

Although, plaintiffs-heirs of Pedro Constantino, Jr., including Asuncion

Laquindanum and Josefina Cailipan, are not parties or signatories to the
"Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver" dated December 5, 1968, they are
successors-in-interest of Pedro Constantino, Jr. They areconsidered
"privies" to said deed, and are bound by said extrajudicial settlement.
(See: Cabresos v. Tiro, 166 SCRA 400). In other words, they are "PRIVIES
IN ESTATE". (Correa v. Pascual, 99 Phil. 696, 703).

Consequently, plaintiffs are now estopped from claiming otherwise.

(See: PNB v. CA, 94 SCRA 357). They are estopped to share in the real
property subject matter of this case. In fine, they are not entitled to the
reliefs prayed for.1âwphi1 (Communication Materials & Design, Inc. v.
CA, 260 SCRA 673).

G.R. No. 195670 December 3, 2012

WILLEM BEUMER vs. AVELINA AMORES

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.27

G.R. No. 201264 January 11, 2016

FLORANTE VITUG vs. EVANGELINE A. ABUDA

After years of benefiting from the proceeds of the loans bearing an interest rate
of 6% to 7% per month and paying for the same, Jocelyn cannot now go to
court to have the said interest rate annulled on the ground that it is
excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, exorbitant, and absolutely
revolting to the conscience of man. "This is so because among the
maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he
who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a
frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he
who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that 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 as
to the controversy in issue."

G.R. No. 148376. March 31, 2005

LEONARDO ACABAL and RAMON NICOLAS vs.

VILLANER ACABAL, EDUARDO ACABAL, SOLOMON ACABAL,
GRACE ACABAL, MELBA ACABAL, EVELYN ACABAL, ARMIN
ACABAL, RAMIL ACABAL, and BYRON ACABAL

Even assuming that the disposition of the property by Villaner was

contrary to law, he would still have no remedy under the law as he and
Leonardo were in pari delicto, hence, he is not entitled to afirmative relief
– one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean
hands. In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.62

The principle of pari delicto is grounded on two premises: first, that

courts should not lend their good offices to mediating disputes among
wrongdoers;64 and second, that denying judicial relief to an admitted
wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality. 65 This doctrine of
ancient vintage is not a principle of justice but one of policy as
articulated in 1775 by Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnson:66

The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between the

plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the
defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever
allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the
defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between
him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may so say. The principle of public
policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio.67 No court will lend its aid to a
man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If,
from the plaintiff’s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears
to arise ex turpi causa,68 or the transgression of a positive law of this
country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon
that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but
because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff
and the defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring
his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage
of it; for where both are equally in fault potior est conditio defendentis.69