Scribd
Upload
792 views1 page

Nool v. Court of Appeals - 2276 SCRA 149 (1997)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract of repurchase for land. The plaintiffs obtained a loan secured by their land but failed to repay, resulting in foreclosure. They then contacted the defendant to redeem the land, and signed an agreement for the defendant to buy the land from the plaintiffs and later sell it back to them when they could repay. However, the plaintiffs' redemption period had expired, so the bank became the absolute owner and the plaintiffs no longer had rights to the land. The Court held that the contract of repurchase was invalid since the plaintiffs had nothing to sell in the first place, as they no longer owned the land after the redemption period expired. One can only sell what they own.

Uploaded by

Abigail Tolabing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
792 views1 page

Nool v. Court of Appeals - 2276 SCRA 149 (1997)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract of repurchase for land. The plaintiffs obtained a loan secured by their land but failed to repay, resulting in foreclosure. They then contacted the defendant to redeem the land, and signed an agreement for the defendant to buy the land from the plaintiffs and later sell it back to them when they could repay. However, the plaintiffs' redemption period had expired, so the bank became the absolute owner and the plaintiffs no longer had rights to the land. The Court held that the contract of repurchase was invalid since the plaintiffs had nothing to sell in the first place, as they no longer owned the land after the redemption period expired. One can only sell what they own.

Uploaded by

Abigail Tolabing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CONCHITA NOOL and GAUDENCIO ALMOJERA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ANACLETO NOOL and EMILIA NEBRE, respondents.

G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997

PANGANIBAN, J.:
General Rule of Law/Doctrine: A contract of repurchase arising out of a contract of sale where the seller did not have any title
to the property "sold" is not valid. Since nothing was sold, then there is also nothing to repurchase.

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

FACTS: Spouses (plaintiffs) Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera alleged that they are the owners of the subject lands. In dire
need of money, they obtained a loan from (Development Bank of the Philippines) DBP, secured by a real estate mortgage on 2
parcels of land in question.

Since the plaintiffs failed to pay the said loan, the mortgage was foreclosed. Within the period of redemption, the plaintiffs
contacted Anacleto Nool for the latter to redeem the foreclosed properties, which the latter did; and as a result, the titles of the
2 parcels of land in question were transferred to Anacleto.

As part of their arrangement, Anacleto agreed to buy from Conchita the 2 parcels of land, for a total price of P100,000.00. The
same day the said arrangement was made; another covenant was entered into by the parties. Anacleto Nool signed the private
writing, agreeing to return subject lands when plaintiffs have the money to redeem the same; defendant Anacleto having been
made to believe, then, that his sister, Conchita, still had the right to redeem the said properties.

It should be stressed that DBP certified the one-year redemption period was from March 16, 1982 up to March 15, 1983 and
that the mortgagors' right of redemption was not exercised within this period. Hence, DBP became the absolute owner of said
parcels of land for which it was issued new certificates of title.

ISSUE: Is the contract of repurchase valid and binding, thus Petitioners can enforce it?

HELD: No, there is no allegation at all that petitioners were authorized by DBP to sell the property to the private respondents.
Further, the contract of repurchase that the parties entered into presupposes that petitioners could repurchase 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.

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,
unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.” 

You might also like