G.R. No. 190846 - Tan, Jr. vs. Hosana

Jose G. Hosana (Jose) and Milagros C. Hosana married on January 14, 1979.
During marriage they acquired a house and lot in Tinago, Naga City, covered by TCT No. 21229.

On January 13, 1998, Milagros, acting under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) allegedly granted by Jose, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the property to Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (Tomas) for a stated price of ₱200,000.
TCT No. 21229 was cancelled and TCT No. 32568 was issued in Tomas’s name.

On October 19, 2001, Jose filed before RTC Branch 62, Naga City, a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance, and Damages against Milagros, Tomas, and the Register of Deeds, alleging forgery of his SPA signature and conspiracy.
Tomas answered, asserting he was a buyer in good faith and for value, that title and SPA were authentic, and filed a cross-claim against Milagros for damages and attorney’s fees.

Jose’s sole witness, his brother Bonifacio, testified to discovering the sale, confronting Milagros, ascertaining the forged SPA signature by comparing specimen signatures, and noting the title transfer to Tomas.
Tomas’s witness, Rosana Robles, testified that she confirmed via telephone call with Jose in Japan that he was aware of and consented to the sale; Tomas made partial payment of ₱350,000 and another ₱350,000 upon deed execution, and Milagros explained the ₱200,000 notation was for tax-saving.

Declared the SPA and Deed of Sale null and void for lack of spousal consent.
Ordered Tomas and Milagros to indemnify Jose ₱20,000 as temperate damages; dismissed the Register of Deeds as a nominal party; declared Milagros in default.

On August 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the nullity of sale and SPA, deleted temperate damages, and directed Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the ₱200,000 purchase price with legal interest for unjust enrichment; found no proof of ₱700,000 paid.
On November 17, 2009, the CA denied Tomas’s motion for reconsideration.

Tomas filed a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the CA’s reimbursement of only ₱200,000 and asserting he actually paid ₱700,000, relying on his uncontroverted testimony and solutio indebiti.
Jose opposed, arguing estoppel and the parol evidence rule bar varying the written purchase price.

Whether the Deed of Sale, though declared void, may be used as basis for determining the amount of consideration to be reimbursed.
Whether Tomas’s uncorroborated testimony suffices to establish that he paid ₱700,000 for the property.