Dignos vs.

Court of Appeals

Dignos owned a lot which was sold to Jabil on June 1965 payable in two installment with an assumption of indebtedness
with First Insular Bank in the sum of 12000 which was paid to Digno and the next installment to be payed on September of
the same year.

On November 1965, Dignos sold the same property to Cabigas. A deed of sale was executed and registered with the Register
of Deed.

As Dignos refused the payment of second installment from Jabil, and after the knowledge by the latter of the sale to Cabigas,
Jabil filed the instant case.

CFI Cebu rendered a decision voiding the sale of Dignos to Cabigas and awarding the sale to Jabil. CA affirmed the decision.

SC: Dignos reiterated that the sale is conditional and not absolute, such the same is subject to suspensive
condition of payment in two installment.

A sale is absolute although denominated as contract of conditional sale where no where in the contract is a
stipulation to effect that the title of the property is reserved to vendor until full payment, nor is there a
stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the contract upon non-fulfillment of
obligation. The present case presents the same situation.

Valid elements of the contract of sale: 1. consent or meetings of the mind, 2. determinate subject matter, 3.
price certain in money or its equivalent.

Dignos claimed that when they sold the property to Cabigas the previous contract has been already
rescinded. It is undisputed that Dignos never notified Jabil of the rescission nor they filed in court an
action to rescind such. SC AFFIRMED in toto the CA decision.


Nool vs. Court of Appeals

Conchita Nool owned a lot which was mortgaged to DBP when she secured a loan. Upon non-payment of loan it was
foreclosed by DBP. Within the time of redemption Conchita contacted Anacleto Nool to redeem the foreclosed property
which the latter did. The titles were transferred to Anacleto but it was agreed that Conchita can get back the property soon
when she has money. Conchita asked the Anacleto for the return of the property but the latter refused even after the
intervention of the barangay. The case was filed.

Anacleto theorized that the lands were acquired by them from DBP through negotiated sale. He argued that he was made to
believe that the property was still owned by Conchita when they agreed of redemption.

RTC said it was DBP who was the owner of the property when the sale to Anacleto was made. DBP became the absolute
owner of the property after the redemption period of the foreclosed property had lapsed. RTC denied the action by Conchita.
It was affirmed by CA.

SC: The contract of repurchase entered by Conchita and Anacleto was void there being no subject to speak
of. It is clear that Conchita was no longer the owner of the property when such agreement was made with
Anacleto. It is likewise clear that the seller can no longer deliver the object of the sale to the buyer, as the
buyer had already acquired the title from the rightful owner. Jurisprudence teaches us that a person can
only sell what he owns or is authorized to sell ; the buyer can acquire no more that what the seller can
legally transfer.

The right to repurchase presupposes a valid contract of sale between the same parties. CA is decision
AFFIRMED. Petition is DENIED.