Issue:

1. Is the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication made by Jose Sabado proper?

2. Is the there a valid contract of sale between Jose Sabado and Eduardo Costales?

Arguments:

1. The Affidavit of Self-Adjudication made by Jose Sabado is not proper.

Rule 74, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court provides that “… If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate
to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds”
In the case at bar, Jose’s affidavit of self-adjudication is of without effect for it was executed by
Jose knowing fully well that he is not the only heir of Juan Sabado. Jose may not anchor his
actions on the fact that the tax declarations over the subject land was transferred to him only
because the law is very clear, he may not execute an affidavit of self-adjudication adjudicating
the subject land to himself when he has siblings that are very much entitled, just like him, to
inherit form their father. Therefore it was not lawful for Jose to execute an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication when by law he is not qualified and is prohibited to do so.

2. There is no valid contract of sale between Jose and Eduardo.

“Nemo dat quod non habet” (no one can give what he does not have), this latin maxim means
that one cannot transfer a right which he does not possess (Armando Alano vs. Loan
Association, Inc., GR. 171628).
A seller can only convey a thing which he owns to another or that which by law he has an
authority to do so. In the case at bar, Jose executed a deed of sale through the affidavit of self-
adjudication which is null and void for it was executed in the existence of co-heirs of Jose. The
deed of sale was void for do not have the authority under the law to convey the property
therein stated. Article 1458 of the New Civil Code provides that:
“By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the
ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to party pay therefor a price
certain in money or its equivalent”
Jose is not in any position to fulfil this obligation because he does not own the subject property,
the property being an inheritance form his father who died intestate entitling him and his
siblings to inherit form their father in equal shares. When Juan died, Jose and his siblings
automatically became co-owners of the inherited land, therefore Jose is only entitled to ¼ of the
land inherited which can be subjected to the rights of ownership of Jose.
Article 1459 of the New 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.”
Jose is not the owner of the whole estate, and the property subject of the contract of sale as
discussed above, therefore he did not have any authority to transfer the ownership of the
subject property and therefore did not have any authority of delivering the same. The only
thing that Jose might convey is his ¼ portion of the inherited property representing his share in
the inheritance form his father.
The sale being a void must be nullified by this court to achieve the end of justice.