SUBJECT MATTER POSSIBLE

Conchita Nool and Gaudencio

Almojera vs. Court of Appeals,
Anacleto Nool and Emilia Nebre.
G.R. No.116635. July 24, 1997
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS: Two parcels of land are the
subject of dispute in this case. The
first area was formerly owned by
Victorino Nool and the other parcel of
land previously owned by Francisco
Nool. Both parcels of land located in
San
Manuel,
Isabela.
Petitioner
spouses Conchita and Gaudencio seek
recovery of the parcel of land from
defendant, Anacleto Nool, younger
brother of Conchita and Emilia,
respondents in this case
Petitioners contend that they are the
owners of subject of land and that it
bought the same from Conchitas
brothers, Francisco and Victorino.
Because they are in need of money,
they applied and were granted of a
loan by DBP, secured by real estate
mortgage on the said parcels of land.
The title of the lands then was still in
the names of the previous owners.
Since the petitioners defaulted in
paying the loan the mortgaged lands
were foreclosed. The ownership of the
lands was conveyed with DBP for
being the highest bidder in the auction
sale. As requested by Conchita,
Anacleto,
brother
of
Conchita
redeemed the foreclosed property with
DBP; as a result, the titles of two
parcels
of
were
transferred
to
Anacleto. That as part of their
agreement (Conchita and Anacleto),

Anacleto agreed to buy from the

petitioners the parcels of land for
100,000, 30,000 of which price is paid
to Conchita and upon payment of 14,
000 petitioners were to regain
possession of the two parcel of land.
which defendants failed to pay.
Because of this another agreement
was entered into by the parties,
whereby respondents agreed to return
the parcels of land at anytime when
the petitioners have the necessary
amount, When petritioners asked to
return the parcels of land, respondents
refused to return the same. Hence,
petitioners filed this complaint to seek
recovery of the disputed land.
Lower court ruled in favor of the
respondents.
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed Lower Court Decision. Hence
this petition
ISSUES: Whether or not the agreement
entered into by the parties (Petitioners
and respondents) with respect to the
sale and period of redemption of the
parcels of land valid and enforceable?
Whether or not the Respondent is
estopped in impugning the validity of
the agreement with the petitioner?
RULING:
Supreme
Court
ruled
affirming the decision of the Court of
Appeals and the Lower Court. The SC
held that the sellers (petitioners) no
longer had any title to the parcels of
land at the time of sale. And since
delivery is not possible in this case
without transferring ownership of such
parcels of land, the contract of sale
between petitioners and respondent is
void. Further since the right to redeem
the property is dependent upon the
validity of the sale of the parcels of

land, such right to redeem is also void.

The petitioners in this case cannot
assert the right to repurchase the
property with the respondents, since
respondent Anacleto redeemed the
property
after
the
period
of
redemption given to the petitioners.
Thus, the ownership of the parcels of
land was transferred already to DBP
and then conveyed to Respondent
upon buying the said property to DBP.

Moreover, respondent cannot be

estopped from raising the defense of
nullity of contract, since they acted in
good faith, believing that petitioners
are still the owners of the parcels of
land. Article 1410 of the Civil Code
provides that the action or defense for
the declaration of the inexistence of a
contract does not prescribe. Thus,
respondent Anacleto can impugn the
nullity of the agreement at anytime.