Heirs of Gozo v. Philippine Union Mission Corp. of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, [G.R. No. 195990] Case Digest

 

Heirs of Gozo v. Philippine Union Mission Corp. of the Seventh Day Adventist Church,

G.R. No. 195990

 

Facts:

Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of the Spouses Gozo who, before their death, were the original owners of a parcel of land located in Sitio Simpak, Brgy. Lala, Municipality of Kolambugan, LDN. The respondents claim that they own a 5,000 square-meter portion of the property. The assertion is based on the 28 February 1937 Deed of Donation in favor of respondent. On the date the Deed of Donation is executed in 1937, the Sps Gozo were not the registered owners of the property yet although they were the lawful possessors thereof. It was only on October 1953 that the OCT No. P-642 covering the entire property was issued in the name of Rafael Gozo.

Concepcion (Heirs of Gozo) caused the survey and the subdivision of the entire property including the portion occupied by respondent.  It was at this point that respondents brought to the attention of Concepcion that the said portion of the property is already owned by respondent in view of the Deed of Donation.

The absence of annotation of the so-called encumbrance in the title prompted petitioners not to recognize the donation claimed by the respondents. Around six decades after the Deed of Donation was executed, petitioners filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Document, Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages against respondent in RTC Kapatagan LDN. RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the petitioners. CA reversed the RTC Decision and ordered the dismissal of petitioners' complaint on the ground of laches.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the actions of the petitioners were barred on the ground of laches.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

It is clear under the law [Public Land Act] that before compliance with the foregoing conditions and requirements the applicant has no right over the land subject of the patent and therefore cannot dispose the same even if such disposal was made gratuitously. It is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet.

It is beyond question that at the time the gratuitous transfer was effected by the Spouses Gozo on 28 February 1937, the subject property was part of the public domain and is outside the commerce of man.

As a void contract, the Deed of Donation produces no legal effect whatsoever. Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum34 That which is a nullity produces no effect.35 Logically, it could not have transferred title to the subject property from the Spouses Gozo to PUMCO-SDA and there can be no basis for the church's demand for the issuance of title under its name. Neither does the church have the right to subsequently dispose the property nor invoke acquisitive prescription to justify its occupation. A void contract is not susceptible to ratification, and the action for the declaration of absolute nullity of such contract is imprescriptible.