Title
Tan, Jr. vs. Hosana
Case
G.R. No. 190846
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2016
Jose contested the sale of marital property by Milagros, alleging forgery. Courts ruled the sale void, ordered reimbursement of P200,000 to buyer Tomas, and denied claims of P700,000 payment.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 190846)

Facts:

Petitioner Tomas P. Tan, Jr. bought a house and lot in Tinago, Naga City (TCT No. 21229) from Milagros C. Hosana on January 13, 1998 by a deed of sale executed by Milagros as attorney-in-fact purportedly under a Special Power of Attorney; TCT No. 21229 was cancelled and TCT No. 32568 was issued in Tomas's name.
Respondent Jose G. Hosana, who alleged forgery of his signature on the SPA, filed suit on October 19, 2001 before the RTC, Branch 62, Naga City; the RTC on December 27, 2006 annulled the sale and voided the SPA and the CA on August 28, 2009 affirmed nullity but ordered reimbursement of P200,000 to Tomas; the CA denied reconsideration on November 17, 2009 and Tomas filed the present petition.

Issues:

  • Whether the deed of sale may be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid?
  • Whether Tomas's testimony was sufficient to establish that he actually paid P700,000.00 for the property?

Ruling:

The Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. The Court held that the notarized Deed of Sale was admissible and prima facie evidence of the consideration of P200,000, and that Tomas failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that he paid P700,000.00, a factual matter the Court would not re-evaluate on certiorari.

Ratio:

A void contract remains admissible to prove facts concerning what was given in its execution and to permit restitution under Article 22 of the Civil Code to prevent unjust enrichment. A notarized deed is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Rule 128, and Tomas did not present documentary or convincing testimonial evidence to overcome the deed's prima facie showing; moreover, credibility and weight of evidence are factual determinations that the Court will not disturb on a petition for review except under narrowly defined exceptions.

Doctrine:

  • A void contract may be admitted as evidence to determine the restoration of benefits conferred and to prevent unjust enrichment.
  • (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.