7/28/2019 NOOL vs CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nool-vs-ca 1/1

 

CONCHITA NOOL and GAUDENCIO ALMOJERA vs.CA 

Facts: One lot formerly owned by Victorio Nool has an area of 1 hectare. Another lotpreviously owned by Francisco Nool has an area of 3.0880 hectares. Spouses(plaintiffs) Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera alleged that they are the owners

of the subject lands. They are in dire need of money, they obtained a loan DBP ,secured by a real estate mortgage on said parcels of land, which were still registeredin the names of Victorino and Francisco Nool, at the time, Since the plaintiffs failed topay the said loan, the mortgage was foreclosed; that within the period of redemption,the plaintiffs contacted Anacleto Nool for the latter to redeem the foreclosedproperties from DBP, which the latter did; and as a result, the titles of the 2 parcels of land in question were transferred to Anacleto; that as part of their arrangement or understanding, Anacleto agreed to buy from Conchita the 2 parcels of land , for atotal price of P100,000.00, P30,000.00 of which price was paid to Conchita, andupon payment of the balance of P14,000.00, the plaintiffs were to regain possessionof the 2 hectares of land, which amounts spouses Anacleto Nool and Emilia Nebrefailed to pay. Anacleto Nool signed the private writing, agreeing to return subjectlands when plaintiffs have the money to redeem the same; defendant Anacletohaving been made to believe, then, that his sister, Conchita, still had the right toredeem the said properties.

Issue: Is the purchase of the subject lands to Anacleto valid?

Held: Nono dat quod non habet, No one can give what he does not have; Contract of repurchase inoperative thus void. 

 Article 1505 of the Civil Code provides that “where goods are sold by a person who is

not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under authority or with consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unlessthe owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’sauthority to sell.” 

Jurisprudence, on the other hand, teaches us that “a person can sell only what heowns or is authorized to sell; the buyer can as a consequence acquire no more thanwhat the seller can legally transfer.” No one can give what he does not have — nonodat quod non habet.

In the present case, there is no allegation at all that petitioners were authorized byDBP to sell the property to the private respondents. Further, the contract of 

repurchase that the parties entered into presupposes that petitioners couldrepurchase the property that they “sold” to private respondents. As petitioners “sold”nothing, it follows that they can also “repurchase” nothing. In this light, the contract of repurchase is also inoperative and by the same analogy, void.

The agreement to repurchase the land is anchored on the validity of the “sale” between petitioners and respondents. As the sale never actually took place, sincethe petitioners no longer had the title at the time, the contract is void. The petitionersclaim that Art.1370 of the Civil Code is applicable in this case but Art.1370 presupposes that the contract is valid and enforceable. One can repurchaseonly what one has previously sold. In this instance, it is clear that petitioners never really sold the land so they cannot claim the right to repurchase the land.