Conchita Nool v. Court of Appeals

Summary

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that contracts of sale and repurchase are void when the seller has no title to the property being sold. Petitioner-spouses Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera sought to enforce alleged repurchase rights over two parcels of land that had been foreclosed by DBP and subsequently purchased by private respondent Anacleto Nool directly from the bank. The Court applied the fundamental principle 'nemo dat quod non habet' (no one can give what he does not have), ruling that since the original sale contract was void due to the sellers' lack of title, the dependent repurchase agreement was likewise void. The decision established that void contracts cannot be validated by estoppel, ratification, or prescription, and ordered petitioners to return the P30,000.00 received and pay reasonable rents for their continued occupation of the property. This case reinforces the basic requirement that sellers must have legal title or authority to transfer ownership in valid sales transactions.