2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J.

Panganiban : Third Division

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 116635. July 24, 1997]

CONCHITA  NOOL  and  GAUDENCIO  ALMOJERA,  petitioner,  vs.  COURT  OF

D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:

A contract of repurchase arising out of a contract of sale where the seller did not have any title to
the property sold is not valid. Since nothing was sold, then there is also nothing to repurchase.

Statement of the Case

This postulate is explained by this Court as it resolves this petition for review on certiorari assailing
the  January  20,  1993  Decision[1]  of  Respondent  Court  of  Appeals[2]  in  CA­G.R.  CV  No.  36473,
affirming the decision[3] of the trial court[4] which disposed as follows:[5]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for no cause of action, and
hereby:
1. Declaring the private writing, Exhibit C, to be an option to sell, not binding and
considered validly withdrawn by the defendants for want of consideration;
2. Ordering the plaintiffs to return to the defendants the sum of P30,000.00 plus interest
thereon at the legal rate, from the time of filing of defendants counterclaim until the
same is fully paid;
3. Ordering the plaintiffs to deliver peaceful possession of the two hectares mentioned in
paragraph 7 of the complaint and in paragraph 31 of defendants answer (counterclaim);
4. Ordering the plaintiffs to pay reasonable rents on said two hectares at P5,000.00 per
annum or at P2,500.00 per cropping from the time of judicial demand mentioned in
paragraph 2 of the dispositive portion of this decision, until the said two hectares shall
have been delivered to the defendants; and
5. To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.

The Antecedent Facts

The  facts,  which  appear  undisputed  by  the  parties,  are  narrated  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  as
follows:
Two (2) parcels of land are in dispute and litigated upon here. The first has an area of 1 hectare . It was
formerly owned by Victorino Nool and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-74950. With an
area of 3.0880 hectares, the other parcel was previously owned by Francisco Nool under Transfer
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 1/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Certificate of Title No. T-100945. Both parcels are situated in San Manuel, Isabela. The plaintiff
spouses, Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera, now the appellants, seek recovery of the
aforementioned parcels of land from the defendants, Anacleto Nool, a younger brother of Conchita, and
Emilia Nebre, now the appellees.

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, Victorino Nool and Francisco Nool; that as plaintiffs were
in dire need of money, they obtained a loan from the Iligan Branch of the Development Bank of the Philippines,
in Ilagan, Isabela, secured by a real estate mortgage on said parcels of land, which were still registered in the
names of Victorino Nool and Francisco Nool, at the time, and for the failure of plaintiffs to pay the said loan,
including interest and surcharges, totaling P56,000.00, the mortgage was foreclosed; that within the period of
redemption, plaintiffs contacted defendant Anacleto Nool for the latter to redeem the foreclosed properties from
DBP, which the latter did; and as a result, the titles of the two (2) parcels of land in question were transferred to
Anacleto Nool; that as part of their arrangement or understanding, Anacleto Nool agreed to buy from the plaintiff
Conchita Nool the two (2) parcels of land under controversy, for a total price of P100,000.00, P30,000.00 of
which price was paid to Conchita, and upon payment of the balance of P14,000.00, 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[6] was made; another covenant[7] was entered into by the parties, whereby defendants agreed to
return to plaintiffs the lands in question, at anytime the latter have the necessary amount; that plaintiffs asked the
defendants to return the same but despite the intervention of the Barangay 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.

In their answer defendants-appellees theorized that they acquired the lands in question from the
Development Bank of the Philippines, through negotiated sale, and were misled by plaintiffs when
defendant Anacleto Nool signed the private writing agreeing to return subject lands when plaintiffs have
the money to redeem the same; defendant Anacleto having been made to believe, then, that his sister,
Conchita, still had the right to redeem the said properties.
The pivot of inquiry here, as aptly observed below, is the nature and significance of the private
document, marked Exhibit D for plaintiffs, which document has not been denied by the defendants, as
defendants even averred in their Answer that they gave an advance payment of P30,000.00 therefor, and
acknowledged that they had a balance of P14,000.00 to complete their payment. On this crucial issue,
the lower court adjudged the said private writing (Exhibit D) as an option to sell not binding upon and
considered the same validly withdrawn by defendants for want of consideration; and decided the case in
the manner abovementioned.

There is no quibble over the fact that the two (2) parcels of land in dispute were mortgaged to the Development
Bank of the Philippines, to secure a loan obtained by plaintiffs from DBP (Ilagan Branch), Ilagan, Isabela. For
the non-payment of said loan, the mortgage was foreclosed and in the process, ownership of the mortgaged lands
was consolidated in DBP (Exhibits 3 and 4 for defendants). After DBP became the absolute owner of the two
parcels of land, defendants negotiated with DBP and succeeded in buying the same. By virtue of such sale by
DBP in favor of defendants, the titles of DBP were cancelled and corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title
(Annexes C and D to the complaint) issued to the dependants.[8]

It should be stressed that Manuel S. Mallorca, authorized officer of DBP, certified that the one­year
redemption  period  was  from  March  16,  1982  up  to  March  15,  1983  and  that  the  Mortgagors  right  of
redemption  was  not  exercised  within  this  period.[9]  Hence,  DBP  became  the  absolute  owner  of  said
parcels of land for which it was issued new certificates of title, both entered on May 23, 1983 by the
Registry  of  Deeds  for  the  Province  of  Isabela.[10] About  two  years  thereafter,  on  April  1,  1985,  DBP
entered into a Deed of Conditional Sale[11] involving the same parcels of land with Private Respondent
Anacleto Nool as vendee. Subsequently, the latter was issued new certificates of title on February 8,
1988.[12]
The Court of Appeals ruled:[13]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 2/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error infirming it, the appealed Judgment is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto. No pronouncement as to costs.

The Issues

Petitioners impute to Respondent Court the following alleged errors:
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Second Division has misapplied the legal import or meaning of
Exhibit C in a way contrary to law and existing jurisprudence in stating that it has no binding effect
between the parties and considered validly withdrawn by defendants-appellees for want of
consideration.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Second Division has miserably failed to give legal significance
to the actual possession and cultivation and appropriating exclusively the palay harvest of the two
(2) hectares land pending the payment of the remaining balance of fourteen thousand pesos
(P14,000.00) by defendants-appellees as indicated in Exhibit C.

3. The Honorable Court of Appeals has seriously erred in affirming the decision of the lower court by
awarding the payment of rents per annum and the return of P30,000.00 and not allowing the plaintiffs-
appellants to re-acquire the four (4) hectares, more or less upon payment of one hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) as shown in Exhibit D.[14]

The Courts Ruling

The petition is bereft of merit.

First Issue: Are Exhibits C and D Valid and Enforceable?

The petitioner­spouses plead for the enforcement of their agreement with private respondents as
contained in Exhibits C and D, and seek damages for the latters alleged breach thereof. In Exhibit C,
which was a private handwritten document labeled by the parties as Resibo ti Katulagan or Receipt of
Agreement,  the  petitioners  appear  to  have  sold  to  private  respondents  the  parcels  of  land  in
controversy covered by TCT No. T­74950 and TCT No. T­100945. On the other hand, Exhibit D, which
was  also  a  private  handwritten  document  in  Ilocano  and  labeled  as  Kasuratan,  private  respondents
agreed  that  Conchita  Nool  can  acquire  back  or  repurchase  later  on  said  land  when  she  has  the
money.[15]
In seeking to enforce her alleged right to repurchase the parcels of land, Conchita (joined by her
co­petitioner­husband) invokes Article 1370 of the Civil Code which mandates that (i)f the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning
of its stipulation shall control. Hence, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the trial courts finding and conclusion that said Exhibits C and D were not merely voidable but utterly
void and inexistent.
We cannot sustain petitioners view. Article 1370 of the Civil Code is applicable only to valid  and
enforceable  contracts.  The  Regional  Trial  Court  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  ruled  that  the  principal
contract of sale contained in Exhibit C and the auxilliary contract of repurchase in Exhibit D are both
void. This conclusion of the two lower courts appears to find support in Dignos vs. Court of Appeals,[16]
where the Court held:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 3/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Be that as it may, it is evident that when petitioners sold said land to the Cabigas spouses, they were no
longer owners of the same and the sale is null and void.
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.  Since  Exhibit  D,  the  alleged  contract  of  repurchase,  was  dependent  on  the  validity  of
Exhibit C, it is itself void. A void contract cannot give rise to a valid one.[17] Verily, Article 1422 of the
Civil Code provides that (a) contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract, is also void
and inexistent.
We  should  however  add  that  Dignos  did  not  cite  its  basis  for  ruling  that  a  sale  is  null  and  void
where the sellers were no longer the owners of the property. Such a situation (where the sellers were
no longer owners) does not appear to be one of the void contracts enumerated in Article 1409 of the
Civil Code.[18] Moreover, the Civil Code[19] itself recognizes a sale where the goods are to be acquired
x x x by the seller after the perfection of the contract of sale, clearly implying that a sale is possible
even if the seller was not the owner at the time of sale, provided he acquires title to the property later
on.
In the present case however, it is likewise clear that the sellers can no longer deliver the object of
the sale to the buyers, as the buyers themselves have already acquired title and delivery thereof from
the  rightful  owner,  the  DBP. Thus,  such  contract  may  be  deemed  to  be  inoperative[20]  and  may  thus
fall,  by  analogy,  under  item  no.  5  of  Article  1409  of  the  Civil  Code:  Those  which  contemplate  an
impossible service. Article 1459 of the Civil Code provides that the vendor must have a right to transfer
the ownership thereof [object of the sale] at the time it is delivered. Here, delivery of ownership is no
longer possible. It has become impossible.
Furthermore, Article 1505 of the Civil Code provides that where 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 acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his
conduct  precluded  from  denying  the  sellers  authority  to  sell.  Here,  there  is  no  allegation  at  all  that
petitioners were authorized by DBP to sell the property to the private respondents. Jurisprudence, on
the other hand, teaches us that a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell; the buyer
can as a consequence acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer.[21] No one can give
what  he  does  not  have  neno  dat  quod  non  habet.  On  the  other  hand,  Exhibit  D  presupposes  that
petitioners  could  repurchase  the  property  that  they  sold  to  private  respondents.  As  petitioners  sold
nothing, it follows that they can also repurchase nothing. Nothing sold, nothing to repurchase. In this
light, the contract of repurchase is also inoperative and by the same analogy, void.

Contract of Repurchase
Dependent on Validity of Sale

As borne out by the evidence on record, the private respondents bought the two parcels of land
directly  from  DBP  on  April  1,  1985  after  discovering  that  petitioners  did  not  own  said  property,  the
subject of Exhibits C and D executed on November 30, 1984. Petitioners, however, claim that they can
exercise  their  alleged  right  to  repurchase  the  property,  after  private  respondents  had  acquired  the
same from DBP.[22] We cannot accede to this, for it clearly contravenes the intention of the parties and
the nature of their agreement. Exhibit D reads:

W R I T I N G

Nov. 30, 1984

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 4/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

That I, Anacleto Nool have bought from my sister Conchita Nool a land an area of four hectares (4 has.)
in the value of One Hundred Thousand (100,000.00) Pesos. It is our agreement as brother and sister that
she can acquire back or repurchase later on said land when she has the money. [Underscoring supplied]
As proof of this agreement we sign as brother and sister this written document this day of Nov. 30, 1984,
at District 4, San Manuel, Isabela.
Sgd ANACLETO NOOL
Anacleto Nool
Sgd Emilio Paron
Witness

Sgd Conchita Nool

Conchita Nool[23]

One  repurchases  only  what  one  has  previously  sold.  In  other  words,  the  right  to  repurchase
presupposes  a  valid  contract  of  sale  between  the  same  parties.  Undisputedly,  private  respondents
acquired title to the property from DBP, and not from the petitioners.
Assuming arguendo that  Exhibit  D  is  separate  and  distinct  from  Exhibit  C  and  is  not  affected  by
the nullity of the latter, still petitioners do not thereby acquire a right to repurchase the property. In that
scenario, Exhibit D ceases to be a right to repurchase ancillary and incidental to the contract of sale;
rather,  it  becomes  an  accepted  unilateral  promise  to  sell.  Article  1479  of  the  Civil  Code,  however,
provides  that  an  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. In the
present  case,  the  alleged  written  contract  of  repurchase  contained  in  Exhibit  D  is  bereft  of  any
consideration  distinct  from  the  price.  Accordingly,  as  an  independent  contract,  it  cannot  bind  private
respondents.  The  ruling  in  Diamante  vs.  CA[24]  supports  this.  In  that  case,  the  Court  through  Mr.
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. explained:

Article 1601 of the Civil Code provides:

Conventional redemption shall take place when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the
thing sold, with the obligation to comply with the provisions of article 1616 and other
stipulations which may have been agreed upon.
In Villarica, et al. Vs. Court of Appeals, et al., decided on 29 November 1968, or barely seven
(7) days before the respondent Court promulgated its decisions in this case, this Court,
interpreting the above Article, held:
The right of repurchase is not a right granted the vendor by the vendee in a subsequent
instrument, but is a right reserved by the vendor in the same instrument of sale as one of the
stipulations of the contract. Once the instrument of absolute sale is executed, the vendor can not
longer reserve the right to repurchase, and any right thereafter granted the vendor by the vendee
in a separate instrument cannot be a right of repurchase but some other right like the option to
buy in the instant case. x x x.
In the earlier case of Ramos, et al. vs. Icasiano, et al., decided in 1927, this Court had already
ruled that an agreement to repurchase becomes a promise to sell when made after the sale,
because when the sale is made without such an agreement, the purchaser acquires the thing sold
absolutely, and if he afterwards grants the vendor the right to repurchase, it is a new contract
entered into by the purchaser, as absolute owner already of the object. In that case the vendor
has nor reserved to himself the right to repurchase.
In Vda. De Cruzo, et al. vs. Carriaga, et al. this Court found another occasion to apply the
foregoing principle.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 5/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Hence, the Option to Repurchase executed by private respondent in the present case, was merely a
promise to sell, which must be governed by Article 1479 of the Civil Code which reads as follows:
Art. 1479. A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally
demandable.
An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to 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.

Right to Repurchase Based on
Homestead or Trust Non­Existent

Petitioners  also  base  their  alleged  right  to  repurchase  on  (1)  Sec.  119  of  the  Public  Land  Act[25]
and (2) an implied trust relation as brother and sister.[26]
The Court notes that Victorino Nool and Francisco Nool mortgaged the land to DBP. The brothers,
together with Conchita Nool and Anacleto Nool, were all siblings and heirs qualified to repurchase the
two parcels of land under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act which provides that (e)very conveyance of
land  acquired  under  the  free  patent  or  homestead  provisions,  when  proper,  shall  be  subject  to
repurchase  by  the  applicant,  his  widow  or  legal  heirs,  within  a  period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of
conveyance. Assuming the applicability of this statutory provision to the case at bar, it is indisputable
that  Private  Respondent  Anacleto  Nool  already  repurchased  from  DBP  the  contested  properties.
Hence,  there  was  no  more  right  of  repurchase  that  his  sister  Conchita  or  brothers  Victorino  and
Francisco  could  exercise.  The  properties  were  already  owned  by  an  heir  of  the  homestead  grantee
and the rationale of the of the provision to keep homestead lands within the family of the grantee was
thus fulfilled.[27]
The claim of a trust relation is likewise without merit. The records show that private respondents
did not purchase the contested properties from DBP in trust for petitioners. The former, as previously
mentioned, in fact bought the land from DBP upon realization that the latter could not validly sell the
same. Obviously, petitioners bought it for themselves. There is no evidence at all in the records that
they  bought  the  land  in  trust  for  private  respondents.  The  fact  that  Anacleto  Nool  was  the  younger
brother  of  Conchita  Nool  and  that  they  signed  a  contract  of  repurchase,  which  as  discussed  earlier
was void, does not prove the existence of an implied trust in favor of petitioners.

Second Issue: No Estoppel in Impugning the
Validity of Void Contracts

Petitioners argue that when Anacleto Nool took the possession of the two hectares, more or less,
and  let  the  other  two  hectares  to  be  occupied  and  cultivated  by  plaintiffs­appellants,  Anacleto  Nool
cannot later on disclaim the terms or contions (sic) agreed upon and his actuation is within the ambit of
estoppel x x x.[28] We disagree. The private respondents cannot be estopped from raising the defense
of  nullity  of  contract,  specially  in  this  case  where  they  acted  in  good  faith,  believing  that  indeed
petitioners could sell the two parcels of land in question. Article 1410 of the Civil Code mandates that
(t)he action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. It is well­
settled doctrine that as between parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is
prohibited by law or it is against public policy (19 Am. Jur. 802). It is not within the competence of any
citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.[29] Thus, it is immaterial that private
respondents initially acted to implement the contract of sale, believing in good faith that the same was
valid. We stress that a contract void at inception cannot be validated by ratification or prescription and
certainly cannot be binding on or enforceable against private respondents.[30]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 6/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Third Issue: Return of P30,000.00 with Interest
and Payment of Rent

Petitioners  further  argue  that  it  would  be  a  miscarriage  of  justice  to  order  them  (1)  to  return  the
sum of P30,000.00  to  private  respondents  when  allegedly  it  was  Private  Respondent  Anacleto  Nool
who owed the former a balance of P14,000.00 and (2) to order petitioners to pay rent when they were
allowed to cultivate the said two hectares.[31]
We  are  not  persuaded. Based  on  the  previous  discussion,  the  balance  of  P14,000.00  under  the
void contract of sale may not be enforced. Petitioners are the ones who have an obligation to return
what they unduly and improperly received by reason of the invalid contract of sale. Since they cannot
legally  give  title  to  what  they  sold,  they  cannot  keep  the  money  paid  for  the  object  of  the  sale.  It  is
basic that (e)very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires
or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall
return the same.[32] Thus, if a void contract has already been performed, the restoration of what has
been  given  is  in  order.[33]  Corollarily  and  as  aptly  ordered  by  respondent  appellate  court,  interest
thereon will run only from the time of private respondents demand for the return of this amount in their
counterclaim.[34]  In  the  same  vein,  petitioners  possession  and  cultivation  of  the  two  hectares  are
anchored  on  private  respondents  tolerance.  Clearly,  the  latters  tolerance  ceased  upon  their
counterclaim and demand on the former to vacate. Hence, their right to possess and cultivate the land
ipso facto ceased.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
that of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 20­25.

[2] Second Division, composed of J. Fidel P. Purisima, ponente and Chairman, and JJ. Asaali  S.  Isnani  and  Corona  Ibay

[4] Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Isabela, Second Judicial Region, Branch 23, presided by Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol.

[5] Decision of the Regional Trial Court, p. 5; Record of the Regional Trial Court, p. 180.

[6] Exhibit C, executed in the parties native dialect, Ilocano, dated November 30, 1984, Record of the Regional Trial Court,
p. 95.
[7] Exhibit D, executed in the parties native dialect, Ilocano, dated November 30, 1984, Record of the Regional Trial Court,
p. 97.
[8] Decision of the Court of Appeals, pp. 2­3; rollo, pp. 21­22.

[9] Affidavit of Non­redemption, p. 1; Record of the Regional Trial Court, p. 27.

[10] DBP Transfer Certificates of Title, Record of the Regional Trial Court, pp. 28­29.

[11] Record of the Regional Trial Court, pp. 30­32.

[12] Anacleto Nools Transfer Certificates of Title, Record of Regional Trial Court, pp. 33­34.

[13] Ibid., p. 5; rollo, p. 24.

[14] Petition, pp. 7­8; rollo, pp.8­9.

[15] Exhibit D­1, English translation of the document marked as Exhibit D; records, p. 98.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 7/8
2/12/2019 Nool vs CA : 116635 : July 24, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division
[16] 158 SCRA 375, 383, February 29, 1988.

[17] Ibid., p. 732.

[18]
 Article 1409 of the Civil Code provides.
ART. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(1) Those whose case, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose case or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal obejct of the contract cannot be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived.
[19] Article 1402. Civil Code.

[20] Cf. Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence (1993), p. 547.

[21] Segura vs. Segura, 165 SCRA 368, 374, September 19, 1988.

[22] Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 14­15; rollo, pp. 58­59.

[23]
Records, p. 98. The original document in Ilocano reads as follows:
Kasuratan
Nov. 30, 1984
Siak ni Anacleto Nool adda ginatang ko keni kabsat ko nga ni Conchita Nool nga daga nga uppat nga hectarya (4 has.)
nga aggatad iti One Hundred Thousand (100,000.00) pesos. Ket nagtulagan mi nga agkabsat nga mabalin nanto nga
pasublien wenno repurchase nanto to nasao nga daga no maadaan iti kuwarta.
Kas pammaneknek iti daytoy nga katulagan agpirma kami nga agkabsat iti daytoy nga kasuratan ita nga aldaw Nov. 30,
1984 ditoy Dist. No. 4 San Manuel, Isabela.
(Sgd.) Emilio Padron (Sgd.) Anacleto Nool
Testigo
(Sgd.) Conchita Nool
(Records p. 97)
[24] 206 SCRA 52, 60­61, February 7, 1992.

[25] Memorandum, p. 12; rollo, p. 56.

[26] Ibid., p. 14; rollo, p. 58.

[27] See Ferrer vs. Mangente, 50 SCRA 424, April 13, 1973.

[28] Petition, pp. 12­13; rollo, pp. 13­14.

[29] Prudential Bank vs.  Panis,  153  SCRA  390,  398,  August  31,  1987;  citing  Arsenal  vs. IAC,  143  SCRA  54,  (1986)  and
Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. vs. De los Amas and Alino, supra.
[30] Tolentino, Arturo A., Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 633, Vol. IV, (1991).

[31] Memorandum, p. 13; rollo, p. 57.

[32] Article 22, Civil Code of the Philippines.

[33] Tolentino, supra,  p.  632;  citing  Perez  Gonzales  &  Alguer;  1­I  Ennecerus,  Kipp  &  Wolff  364­366;  3  Von  Tuhr  311;  3
Fabres 231.
[34] Answer with Counterclaim, p. 7; Record of the Regional Trial Court, p. 22.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/116635.htm 8/8