G.R. No. L-46935 December 21, 1987
SPOUSES GREGORIO DE GUZMAN, JR. and CORAZON QUINTO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and RAYMUNDA RINGOR QUIRIMIT, respondents.
FACTS
Deogracias Queriza executed a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale over an unregistered residential land in favor of his niece, respondent Raymunda Ringor Quirmit, on July 20, 1957, for P500. The deed stipulated a five-year repurchase period, after which the sale would become absolute. Quirmit took possession but did not register the deed. Queriza failed to repurchase within the stipulated period. Subsequently, in 1967, Queriza executed a deed of donation over the same land in favor of his nephew, Miguel Queriza, who then registered it. Miguel later sold the land to petitioner spouses Gregorio de Guzman, Jr. and Corazon Quinto in 1970, who also registered their deed.
Upon petitioners’ demand to vacate, Quirmit refused, leading petitioners to file an action for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them owners and ordering Quirmit to vacate. It characterized the pacto de retro sale as an equitable mortgage and upheld the validity of the subsequent donation and sale.
ISSUE
The core issue is who between the petitioners-spouses and the private respondent has a better right of ownership over the disputed unregistered land.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring Quirmit the lawful owner. The Court clarified that the appellate court erred in applying Article 1544 on double sales, as the case involved a prior pacto de retro sale and a subsequent donation, not two sales. However, this error was not fatal, as the fundamental issue of better right was properly addressed.
The Court upheld the transaction between Queriza and Quirmit as a true pacto de retro sale, not an equitable mortgage. The consideration was not grossly inadequate given the land’s assessed value, and Quirmit took possession and enjoyed the fruits. Upon Queriza’s failure to repurchase within the stipulated period, absolute ownership vested in Quirmit by operation of law in 1962. Consequently, when Queriza donated the land to Miguel Queriza in 1967, he had no ownership left to convey. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet applies: one cannot give what one does not have.
Thus, Miguel Queriza acquired no title from the void donation, and petitioners derived no valid title from him. Registration of the donation and subsequent sale did not vest ownership, as registration is merely a ministerial act and not a mode of acquiring title. Petitioners were purchasers in bad faith with prior knowledge of Quirmit’s possession and claim. Therefore, Quirmit retained superior ownership.
