Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
97 /
Sales / PANGANIBAN, J p:
F: Two parcels of land were mortgaged by herein petitioners to DBP to
secure a loan. The subject properties were foreclosed by the bank for
failure of the private petitioners to pay their loan. After DBP became the
absolute owner of the two parcels of land, Anacleto, a younger brother of
Conchita, negotiated with DBP and succeeded in buying the lands. New
titles were issued in name private respondents. Petitioners seek recovery
of the aforementioned parcels of land from the respondents on the
strength of two private documents. The first, an agreement which
appeared to have sold to respondents the two parcels of land and the
second, in which there was an agreement that Conchita can repurchase
the said lands when she has the money. The trial court voided both
contracts and decided in favor of the respondents. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the lower court, hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.
I: WON the sale to PR by the bank is void.
R: Affirmed. The principal contract of sale contained and the auxiliary
contract of Repurchase are both void. It is clear that the seller had no
longer had any title to the parcels of land at the time the Contract of Sale
was drawn.
This conclusion of the two lower courts appears to find support in Dignos
vs. Court of Appeals, where the Court held: "Be that as it may, it is
evident that when petitioners sold said land to the Cabigas spouses, they
were no longer owners of the same and the sale is null and void." In the
present case, it is clear that the sellers no longer had any title to
the parcels of land at the time of sale. Since Exhibit D, the
alleged contract of repurchase, was dependent on the validity of
Exhibit C, it is itself void. A void contract cannot give rise to a
valid one. Verily, Article 1422 of the Civil Code provides that "(a)
contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract, is
also void and inexistent."
Moreover, the Civil Code itself recognizes a sale where the goods are to
be "acquired . . . by the seller after the perfection of the contract of sale,"
clearly implying that a sale is possible even if the seller was not the
owner at the time of sale, provided he acquires title to the property later
on. In the present case however, it is likewise clear that the sellers
can no longer deliver the object of the sale to the buyers, as the
the
the
the
the
of the interests of innocent third persons dealing with the corporate entity
which the law aims to protect by this doctrine.
equal level of courts and Judge Cruz's court acquired original jurisdiction
of the case.