Tangalin v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Dr. Ramon L. Cocson and Josefina G. Cocson obtained a P3,200.00 loan from Atty. Pedro Martinez, secured by a mortgage on two parcels of land. The spouses defaulted on the loan, leading to the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged properties. Atty. Martinez was the sole bidder at the auction. Subsequently, the spouses Cocson executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for different parcels of land to Atty. Martinez. Atty. Martinez then sold one of these properties to Natividad T. Tangalin. The spouses Cocson later filed a complaint seeking the annulment of these sales, alleging damages. Procedural History: The trial court declared the mortgage contract valid but deemed the extra-judicial foreclosure and the subsequent Deed of Sale dated January 22, 1972, null and void. However, it respected the sale of one property to Natividad T. Tangalin, finding her to be a bona fide purchaser for value. Both the spouses Cocson and Atty. Martinez appealed. The spouses Cocson's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failure to pay docket fees. Atty. Martinez's appeal was also considered. The Court of Appeals later modified the trial court's decision, affirming the validity of the mortgage but declaring the extra-judicial foreclosure and the Deed of Sale dated January 22, 1972, null and void. Crucially, it also declared the sale to Natividad T. Tangalin null and void, ordering Atty. Martinez to return the consideration received from her. The Petition: Petitioner Natividad T. Tangalin seeks annulment of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution denying reconsideration via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The core of her argument is that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing or modifying the portion of the trial court's decision that had become final and executory regarding her purchase, specifically by declaring the Deed of Sale dated September 9, 1975, null and void, despite the trial court having respected it as a sale to a bona fide purchaser for value.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing or modifying the portion of the trial court's decision that had become final and executory as to the petitioner. Whether the sale executed by Atty. Martinez in favor of petitioner Natividad T. Tangalin on September 9, 1975, is valid despite the trial court's finding that the Deed of Sale dated January 22, 1972, between the spouses Cocson and Atty. Martinez, was null and void.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing or modifying the portion of the trial court's decision that had become final and executory as to the petitioner: The Supreme Court found that while normally a party cannot impugn a judgment not appealed from, the appellate court may consider unassigned errors if they involve plain errors not specified or clerical errors. In this case, it was a plain error for the trial court to rule that the sale dated January 22, 1972, was void and simultaneously state that the subsequent sale of the same property on September 9, 1975, should be respected. The Court held that the validity of the subsequent sale was indispensable to the resolution of the validity of the January 22, 1972 sale, thus justifying the appellate court's review. On the issue of the validity of the sale executed by Atty. Martinez in favor of petitioner Natividad T. Tangalin on September 9, 1975: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the spouses Cocson did not own the properties covered by Tax Declarations Nos. 28472 and 29310 on January 22, 1972, when they executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Atty. Martinez. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that these properties were still declared in the names of Editha G. Tiglao and Fe Gomez at that time. Consequently, the sale dated January 22, 1972, by the spouses Cocson to Atty. Martinez was null and void. Applying the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what one does not have), Atty. Martinez could not convey ownership of the property to petitioner Tangalin because he did not validly own it himself. Therefore, the sale on September 9, 1975, executed by Atty. Martinez in favor of petitioner Tangalin was also declared null and void.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent sale of a property is void if the seller did not validly acquire ownership from a prior sale, as no one can give what one does not have (nemo dat quod non habet). An appellate court may consider unassigned errors if they involve plain errors not specified, which are indispensable or necessary to the just resolution of the pleaded issues.