CONCHITA NOOL and GAUDENCIO ALMOJERA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEAL , ANACLETO NOOL and EMILIA NE!RE, respondents.

FACT "Two (2) parcels of land are in dispute and litigated upon. In their complaint, plaintiff-appellants alleged inter alia that they are the owners of subject parcels of land, and they bought the same from Conchita s other brothers, !ictorino "ool and #rancisco "ool$ that as plaintiffs were in dire need of money, two (2) parcels of land in dispute were mortgaged to the %&', to secure a loan obtained by plaintiffs from %&' (Ilagan &ranch). #or the non-payment of said loan, the mortgage was foreclosed and in the process, ownership of the mortgaged lands was consolidated in %&'. (owe)er, the one-year redemption was not e*ercised by the plaintiff. (ence, %&' became the absolute owner of said parcels of land.. 'laintiffs contacted defendant +nacleto "ool for the latter to redeem the foreclosed properties from %&'. +bout two years thereafter, %&' entered into a %eed of Conditional ,ale in)ol)ing the same parcels of land with 'ri)ate -espondent +nacleto "ool as )endee. ,ubse.uently, the latter was issued new certificates of title . That as part of their arrangement or understanding, +nacleto "ool agreed to buy( E#HI!IT C$ from the plaintiff Conchita "ool the two (2) parcels of land under contro)ersy, for a total price of '/00,000.00, '10,000.00 of which price was paid to Conchita, and upon payment of the balance of '/2,000.00, plaintiffs were to regain possession of the two (2) hectares of land, which amounts defendants failed to pay, and the same day the said arrangement was made$ another co)enant%E&'i(it D$ was entered into by the parties, whereby defendants agreed to return to plaintiffs the lands in .uestion, at anytime the latter ha)e the necessary amount$ that plaintiffs as3ed the defendants to return the same but despite the inter)ention of the &arangay Captain of their place, defendants refused to return the said parcels of land to plaintiffs$ thereby impelling them (plaintiffs) to come to court for relief. I UE " 45" 6*hibits 7C8 and 7%8 !alid and 6nforceable9

HELD" 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. ,ince 6*hibit %, the alleged contract of repurchase, was dependent on the )alidity of 6*hibit C, it is itself )oid. + )oid contract cannot gi)e rise to a )alid one.!erily, +rticle /222 of the Ci)il Code pro)ides that 7(a) contract which is the direct result of a pre)ious illegal contract, is also )oid and ine*istent.8 It is li3ewise clear that the sellers can no longer deli)er the object of the sale to the buyers, as the buyers themsel)es ha)e already ac.uired title and deli)ery thereof from the rightful owner, the %&'. Thus, such contract may be deemed to be inoperati)e:20; and may thus fall, by analogy, under item no. < of +rticle /20= of the Ci)il Code> 7Those which contemplate an impossible ser)ice.8 +rticle /2<= of the Ci)il Code pro)ides that 7the )endor must ha)e a right to transfer the ownership thereof :object of the sale; at the time it is deli)ered.8 (ere, deli)ery of ownership is no longer possible. It has become impossible. #urthermore, +rticle /<0< of the Ci)il Code pro)ides that 7where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under authority or with consent of the owner, the buyer ac.uires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller s authority to sell.8 (ere, there is no allegation at all that petitioners were authori?ed by %&' to sell the property to the pri)ate respondents. @urisprudence, on the other hand, teaches us that 7a person can sell only what he owns or is authori?ed to sell$ the buyer can as a conse.uence ac.uire no more than what the seller can legally transfer.8 "o one can gi)e what he does not ha)e A neno dat .uod non habet. 5n the other hand, 6*hibit % presupposes that petitioners could repurchase the property that they 7sold8 to pri)ate respondents. +s petitioners 7sold8 nothing, it follows that they can also Brepurchase8 nothing. "othing sold, nothing to repurchase. In this light, the contract of repurchase is also inoperati)e A and by the same analogy, )oid. 5ne 7repurchases8 only what one has pre)iously sold. In other words, the right to repurchase presupposes a )alid contract of sale between the same parties. Cndisputedly, pri)ate respondents ac.uired title to the property from %&', and not from the petitioners. +ssuming arguendo that 6*hibit % is separate and distinct from 6*hibit C and is not affected by the nullity of the latter, still petitioners do not thereby ac.uire a right to repurchase the property. In that scenario, 6*hibit % ceases to be a 7right to repurchase8 ancillary and incidental to the contract of sale$ rather, it becomes an

accepted unilateral promise to sell. +rticle /2D= of the Ci)il Code, howe)er, pro)ides that 7an accepted unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price.8 In the present case, the alleged written contract of repurchase contained in 6*hibit % is bereft of any consideration distinct from the price.