GONZALES Vs Heirs of Thomas
GONZALES Vs Heirs of Thomas
GONZALES Vs Heirs of Thomas
Held: YES.
The clear intent of the 9th par. was for respondents to obtain a separate and
distinct TCT in their names. This was necessary to enable them to show their
ownership of the stipulated portion of the land and their concomitant right to
dispose of it. It is a well-settled principle in law 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 that what the seller can transfer legally. Because the
9th clause required respondents to obtain a separate and distinct TCT in their
names and not in the name of petitioner, it logically follows that such under
taking was a condition precedent to the latters obligation to purchase and pay
for the land.