Nool & Almojera v. CA, Nool & Nebre } GR No. 116635 } 7.24.97 }Sales } PANGANlBAN, ] p:F: Onelot formerlyownedbyVictorioNool hasanareaof 1hectare.AnotherlotpreviouslyownedbyFranciscoNool hasanareaof3.00hectares. !pouses "plainti#s$ %onchitaNool and&audencioAlmo'eraalle(ed that they are the owners of the sub'ect lands. )hey are in direneedof money* theyobtainedaloan+,-* securedbyareal estatemort(a(e on said parcels of land* which were still re(istered in the namesof Victorino and Francisco Nool* at the time* !ince the plainti#s failed topay the said loan* the mort(a(e was foreclosed. that within the period ofredemption* the plainti#s contacted Anacleto Nool for the latter toredeem the foreclosed properties from +,-* which the latter did. and as aresult* the titles of the / parcels of land in 0uestion were transferred toAnacleto. thataspartoftheirarran(ementorunderstandin(*Anacletoa(reedto buyfrom %onchita the/parcels of land*for a totalpriceof-100*000.00* -30*000.00 of which price was paid to %onchita* and uponpayment of thebalanceof -11*000.00* theplainti#s wereto re(ainpossessionofthe/hectares ofland*whichamountsspouses AnacletoNool and2miliaNebrefailedtopay. AnacletoNool si(nedtheprivatewritin(* a(reein( to return sub'ect lands when plainti#s have the moneyto redeem the same. defendant Anacleto havin( been made to believe*then* that hissister* %onchita* still hadtheri(ht toredeemthesaidproperties.l: ls the purchase of the subject lands to Anacleto valid73: Nono dat 0uod non habet* No one can (ive what he does not have.%ontract of repurchase inoperative thus void.Article 1404 of the %ivil %ode provides that 5where (oods are sold by aperson who is not the owner thereof* and who does not sell them underauthority or with consent of the owner* the buyer ac0uires no better titleto the (oods than the seller had* unless the owner of the (oods is by hisconduct precluded from denyin( the seller6s authority to sell.78urisprudence* on the other hand* teaches us that 5a person can sell onlywhat he owns or is authori9ed to sell. the buyer can as a conse0uenceac0uire no more than what the seller can le(ally transfer.7 No one can(ive what he does not have : nono dat 0uod non habet. ;n the presentcase* there is no alle(ation at all that petitioners were authori9ed by +,-to sell the property to the private respondents. Further* the contract ofrepurchasethat theparties enteredintopresupposes that petitionerscould repurchase the property that they 5sold7 to private respondents. Aspetitioners 5sold7 nothin(* it follows that theycanalso5repurchase7nothin(. ;n this li(ht* the contract of repurchase is also inoperative and bythe same analo(y* void.Nool & Almojera v. CA, Nool & Nebre } GR No. 116635 } 7.24.97 }Sales } PANGANlBAN, ] p:F: )wo parcels of land were mort(a(ed by herein petitioners to +,- tosecurealoan. )hesub'ectpropertieswereforeclosedbythebanrmed the decision of the lower court* hence* thispetition for review on certiorari.;: ?ON the sale to -3 by the ban< is void.3: A>rmed. )heprincipal contract of salecontainedandtheau@iliarycontract of 3epurchase areboth void. ;t is clear that the seller had nolon(er had any title to the parcels of land at the time the %ontract of !alewas drawn.)his conclusion of the two lower courts appears to =nd support in +i(nosvs. %ourt of Appeals* wherethe%ourt held: A,ethat asit may* it isevident that when petitioners sold said land to the %abi(as spouses* theywere no lon(er owners of the same and the sale is null and void.A ;n thepresentcase* itisclearthatthesellersnolon(erhadanytitletotheparcels of land at the time of sale. !ince 2@hibit +* the alle(ed contract ofrepurchase* was dependent on the validity of 2@hibit %* it is itself void. Avoid contract cannot (ive rise to a valid one. Verily* Article 11// of the%ivil %odeprovides that A"a$ contract whichis thedirect result of aprevious ille(al contract* is also void and ine@istent.ABoreover*the %ivil %ode itself reco(ni9es a sale where the (oods are tobe Aac0uired . . . by the seller after the perfection of the contract of sale*Aclearlyimplyin(that asaleispossibleevenif theseller wasnot theowner at the time of sale* provided he ac0uires title to the property lateron. ;n the present case however* it is li