8/13/2019 nool VS CAhjj

1/2

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 Conchitas 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 %&'. oweer, 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 inoling the same parcels of land with 'riate espondent +nacleto

"ool as endee. ubseuently, 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 controersy, 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 '/,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 arrangementwas made$ another coenant%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 hae the

necessary amount$ that plaintiffs as3ed the defendants to return the same but despite the interention 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.

IUE"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 gie rise to a alid one.!erily, +rticle /22 of the Ciil Code proides that

7(a) contract which is the direct result of a preious illegal contract, is also oid and ine*istent.8

It is li3ewise clear that the sellers can no longer delier the object of the sale to the buyers, as the buyers

themseles hae already acuired title and deliery thereof from the rightful owner, the %&'. Thus, such

contract may be deemed to be inoperatie:20; and may thus fall, by analogy, under item no. < of +rticle /0=

of the Ciil Code> 7Those which contemplate an impossible serice.8 +rticle /

8/13/2019 nool VS CAhjj

2/2

accepted unilateral promise to sell. +rticle /D= of the Ciil Code, howeer, proides 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.