This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Undeniably, there is an established rule under the law on sales that one cannot give what one does not have (Nemo dat quod non habet).[73] The CA, however, confuses the application of this rule with respect to time. It makes the nemo dat quod non habet rule a requirement for the perfection of a contract of sale, such that a violation thereof goes into the validity of the sale. But the Latin precept has been jurisprudentially held to apply to a contract of sale at its consummation stage, and not at the perfection stage.[74] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property, docketed as Civil Case No. 698.[9] Said case went up to this Court in Noel v. CA, where We rendered a Decision[10] on January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it.[11] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Through the years, Civil Case No. 698 was heard, decided, and appealed all the way to this Court in Noel v. Court of Appeals. On 11 January 1995, the Court rendered its Decision[4] in Noel, affirming the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria, such that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share therein to Deleste. Consequently, the intestate estate of Gregorio and Deleste were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in the same. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In a contract of sale, it is essential that the seller is the owner of the property he is selling.[12] Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, the principal obligation of a seller is to transfer the ownership of the property sold.[13] Also, Article 1459 of the Civil Code provides that the thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it is delivered. Maxima's execution of the Deed of Sale selling Parcel One, part of which is respondents' one half northern portion, was not valid and did not transfer ownership of the land to petitioners, as Maxima had no title or interest to transfer. It is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have -- nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[14] | |||||
|
2005-09-12 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legal title to the vendee a retro.[46] The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject to the resolutory condition of repurchase by a vendor a retro within the stipulated period.[47] Failure on the part of a vendor a retro to repurchase the property within the period agreed upon by them, or, in the absence thereof, as provided for by law, vests upon the vendee a retro absolute title and ownership over the property sold by operation of law.[48] The failure of the vendee a retro to consolidate his title under Art. 1607 of the New Civil Code does not impair such title and ownership because the method prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering and consolidating titles to the property.[49] Franklin Ong, and not the petitioner, was the lawful owner of the six parcels of land. The petitioner, thus, had no right to mortgage or sell the same to the respondent on September 30, 1991 under the deed of absolute sale. As the Latin adage goes: NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET.[50] Hence, the ruling of the CA that the respondent acquired ownership over the three parcels of land from the petitioner under the Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 30, 1991 is erroneous. Not being the owner of the parcels of land, the petitioner could not have lawfully sold the same to the respondent. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Absent any evidence of the market value of the locale as of the date of the contract, it cannot be concluded that the price at which the property was sold, or about P8.70 per square meter, was grossly inadequate. Mere inadequacy of price would not be sufficient. The price must be grossly inadequate,[74] or purely shocking to the conscience.[75] Since the property in question could have been worth as little as P20.00 per square meter in 1994, the price of P8.70 per square meter nine years earlier, in 1985, does not seem to be grossly inadequate. Indeed, respondents' Declaration of Real Property No. 10786, for the year 1987, shows the market value of the property to be only P34,470.00 for that year. | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Besides, the mere fact that the price is inadequate does not per se support the conclusion that the contract was a loan or that the property was not at all sold to Teodulfo Quimada. The price fixed in a sale with right to repurchase is not necessarily the true value of the land sold. The rationale is that the vendor has the right to repurchase the land. It is the practice to fix a relatively reduced price, although not a grossly inadequate one, in order to afford the vendor a retro every facility to redeem the land.[28] Thus, inadequacy of price is not sufficient to set aside a sale unless it is grossly inadequate[29] or purely shocking to the conscience.[30] | |||||