Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187013 2015-04-22	SPS. MAGDALINO v. FE BRAGAT PERALTA, J.
In fact, it is from this sale in 1978 that Fe Bragat derives title on the property and not from tjhe Deeds of Sale dated May 5, 1984 and October 2, 1987 executed between her as vendee and Pastrano as vendor. Pastrano could no longer sell any part of the property to Bragat on such later dates since he had already sold the same as early as November 18, 1968 to Ledesma. Well-settled is the rule that no one can give what one does not have - nemodat quod non habet - and, accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer acquires no better title than the seller.[44] Thus, the sales made on the dates May 5, 1984 and October 2, 1987 are void for being [simulated and for lack of a subject matter. On these sales, Bragat cannot clajim good faith as she herself knew of Pastrano's lack of ownership.
	GR NO. 146224 2007-01-26	VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the award of temperate damages, the increase in the amount thereof by the RTC is improper. The RTC could no longer examine the amounts awarded by the MeTC since respondent did not appeal from the Decision of the MeTC.[37] It is well-settled that a party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal.[38] While there are exceptions to this rule, such as if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors,[39] none apply here.
	GR NO. 132161 2005-01-17	CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK v. CA TINGA, J.
Moreover, it is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have-nemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[53] In this case, since the Madrid brothers were no longer the owners of the subject property at the time of the sale to Marquez, the latter did not acquire any right to it.
	GR No. 140707 2003-04-22	NORGENE POTENCIANO AND SPS. MANUEL JAYME AND NATIVIDAD ZAFRA-JAYME v. DWIGHT “IKE” B. REYNOSO PANGANIBAN, J.
Since the signature of the alleged vendor was a forgery, no rights were transferred from him to the alleged vendees. In turn, the Jayme spouses could not have conveyed ownership of the property to Petitioner Potenciano. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have.[30] Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.[31]