Elements of the Contract of Sale

Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera v. Court of Appeals, Anacleto Nool and Emilia Nebre G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 This is a dispute over the ownership of two parcels of land. Victorino Nool owner 1 parcel ( Land A) and his brother Francisco Nool owned the other (Land B). Both parcels were bought by Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera, who used them as securities for obtaining a loan. However, the titles were still registered to Victorino and Francisco. When they failed to pay the loan, the bank foreclosed the mortgage on both lands. Conchita and Gaudencio approached Anacleto to redeem the parcels of land, which the latter did. As a result, Anacleto's name is on the titles. However, petitioners executed a Receipt of Agreement where it appears that they sold the land to Anacleto (Exhibit C). Anacleto entered into an agreement with the petitioners, stating that the latter may redeem the lands at any time as long as they have the money to reimburse Anacleto for the cost of redeeming the parcels of land from the bank. (exhibit D). Petitioners now ask for the right to repurchase the lands, pursuant to the agreement they made with Anacleto. Whether or not the petitioners may ask the court to enforce the agreement on the redemption of the land. The Court held that the agreement is void. The agreement to repurchase the land is anchored on the validity of the sale between petitioners and respondents. As the sale never actually took place, since the petitioners no longer had the title at the time, the contract is void. The petitioners claim that Art. 1370 of the Civil Code is applicable in this case but Art. 1370 presupposes that the contract is valid and enforceable. . One can repurchase only what one has previously sold. In this instance, it is clear tha t petitioners never really sold the land so they cannot claim the right to repurchase the land.