Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49731)
Petitioner
Tomas purchased the subject property from Milagros on January 13, 1998 by a Deed of Absolute Sale which recited a purchase price of P200,000.00. Tomas claims he actually paid P700,000.00 (partial payments of P350,000.00 and another P350,000.00), contending he relied on advice that the title was in order and that the SPA was annotated on the title. He asserts entitlement to reimbursement of the full amount he paid if the sale is annulled.
Respondent
Jose alleges that while he was working in Japan, his wife Milagros conspired with Tomas to forge his signature on an SPA which purportedly authorized Milagros to sell the conjugal property without his consent. Jose filed suit for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages.
Key Dates and Procedural History
- Marriage: January 14, 1979.
- Deed of Sale executed: January 13, 1998.
- Complaint filed by Jose: October 19, 2001 (Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Naga City; Civil Case No. 2001‑0341).
- RTC decision: December 27, 2006 — annulled sale and SPA, awarded temperate damages (P20,000.00) against Tomas and Milagros.
- Court of Appeals (CA) decision: August 28, 2009 — affirmed nullity of deed and SPA, deleted temperate damages, ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas P200,000.00 with interest under unjust enrichment.
- CA resolution denying reconsideration: November 17, 2009.
- Present petition for review on certiorari filed by Tomas, seeking recovery of P700,000.00.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution (governing framework for cases decided post‑1990).
- New Civil Code: Article 22 (unjust enrichment), Articles 1318 and 1458 (essential requisites of a contract of sale).
- Rules of Court: Rule 128, Section 1 (definition/admissibility of evidence) and Section 3 (relevancy).
- Jurisprudential standards on appellate review of factual findings and evidentiary burdens (as cited in the decision).
Trial Evidence and Positions
Jose presented Bonifacio Hosana, who testified regarding discovery of the sale, Jose’s fury upon learning of it, and that Jose’s signature on the SPA was forged; documentary exhibits of Jose’s known signatures were offered for comparison. Tomas testified he first sought confirmation that Jose knew and consented (via his goddaughter Rosana Robles who spoke with Jose by telephone), relied on assurances, and made payments totaling P700,000.00; Tomas also relied on the notarized deed which recited P200,000.00 as consideration. Tomas formalized a cross‑claim against Milagros for damages in the event Jose prevailed. Milagros defaulted for failure to answer.
RTC Ruling
The RTC declared the SPA void and nullified the sale, ordering indemnification (temperate damages of P20,000.00) against Tomas and Milagros. The RTC found the SPA invalid and concluded the sale had to be annulled.
CA Ruling
The CA affirmed the nullity of the SPA and the deed of sale but modified relief: it deleted the temperate damages awarded by the RTC and, applying unjust enrichment principles, ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas P200,000.00 (the consideration stated in the notarized deed), with interest. The CA found Tomas failed to present convincing evidence to substantiate his claim that he actually paid P700,000.00.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the deed of sale (declared null and void) may be used as evidence of the amount of consideration paid.
- Whether Tomas’s testimony sufficed to establish payment of P700,000.00 such that reimbursement should be for that amount instead of P200,000.00.
Standard of Review on Factual Findings
The Supreme Court reiterated that resolution of factual disputes is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari; it is not a trier of facts. Appellate factual findings will be disturbed only under exceptional circumstances (e.g., findings based entirely on speculation, manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, misappreciation of facts, conflicting findings, conclusions without citation of evidence, or where facts in briefs are undisputed). The present case did not fall within any of these exceptions.
Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence
The Court emphasized established civil evidentiary rules: the party asserting payment bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence. A mere uncorroborated allegation or self‑serving testimony is insufficient. Tomas’s bare testimony of paying P700,000.00, unaccompanied by documentary proof or independent corroboration, did not meet the preponderance requirement. The CA’s finding that Tomas failed to substantiate the higher payment was upheld.
Admissibility and Effect of a Void Deed as Evidence
The Court clarified the distinction between the legal effect of a void contract and the admissibility of the void contract as evidence. Although a contract void ab initio (for example, sale of conjugal property without the other spouse’s consent) has no enforceable effects, terms or documents from such a contract may be admissible to prove facts concerning what was performed under the void contract. Under Rule 128 and jurisprudential policy favoring the liberal admission of evidence, a notarized deed of sale remains admissible to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-49731)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (Tomas), buyer who acquired the subject house and lot and obtained TCT No. 32568 in his name.
- Respondent: Jose G. Hosana (Jose), husband of Milagros C. Hosana, who filed suit to annul the sale, cancel title, reconvey, and recover damages.
- Original action: Complaint for Annulment of Sale / Cancellation of Title / Reconveyance and Damages filed by Jose on October 19, 2001 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Naga City (docketed as Civil Case No. 2001-0341).
- RTC decision: December 27, 2006, nullified the sale and the SPA, and ordered Tomas and Milagros to jointly and severally indemnify Jose P20,000.00 as temperate damages.
- Court of Appeals (CA) decision: August 28, 2009, affirmed voidness of deed of sale and SPA but deleted temperate damages and ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas P200,000.00 with interest under the principle of unjust enrichment; found Tomas’s claim of paying P700,000.00 unsubstantiated.
- CA resolution: November 17, 2009, denied Tomas’s motion for reconsideration.
- Present remedy: Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s reimbursement amount (Rollo references at pp. 4–20; decision and resolution at pp. 26–36, 46–47).
Material Facts
- Marriage and property:
- Jose and Milagros were married on January 14, 1979.
- During marriage they acquired a house and lot located at Tinago, Naga City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21229.
- Sale transaction:
- On January 13, 1998, Milagros sold the subject property to Tomas by a deed of sale executed by Milagros personally and as attorney-in-fact of Jose, purportedly under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Jose in her favor.
- The Deed of Sale stated the purchase price as P200,000.00.
- After the sale, TCT No. 21229 was cancelled and TCT No. 32568 was issued in the name of Tomas.
- Allegations of forgery and lack of consent:
- Jose alleged that while he was working in Japan, Milagros, without his consent and knowledge, conspired with Tomas to execute the SPA by forging Jose’s signature so it would appear Jose had authorized Milagros to sell the property.
- Tomas’s claimed payments and conduct:
- Tomas maintained he was a buyer in good faith and for value.
- He claimed he sought advice from a lawyer-friend who told him the title was authentic and in order.
- Tomas alleged the SPA was annotated at the back of the title.
- Tomas testified to having paid a total of P700,000.00 (in two P350,000.00 payments), though the deed of sale reflected only P200,000.00; Milagros reportedly explained the lower written consideration as a tax-saving measure.
Trial Evidence and Witnesses
- For Jose:
- Sole witness: Bonifacio Hosana (Jose’s brother).
- Bonifacio testified he learned of the sale from Milagros’s son; confronted Milagros who said she sold the property because she needed the money; he informed Jose in Japan; Jose returned and verified title transfer with the Register of Deeds.
- Bonifacio asserted that Jose’s signature in the SPA was forged.
- Bonifacio presented documents for comparison containing Jose’s signature: Philippine passport, complaint-affidavit, duplicate original of SPA dated 16 February 2002, notice of lis pendens, community tax certificate, voter’s affidavit, specimen signatures, and a handwritten letter.
- For Tomas:
- Tomas testified and was corroborated by Rosana Robles (his goddaughter).
- Rosana testified that she was sent to Milagros’s house; Milagros phoned Jose and Rosana spoke to Jose, who allegedly confirmed awareness and authority for the sale.
- Tomas testified he made partial payment of P350,000.00 and another P350,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale; noticed the deed stated P200,000.00 and was told this was to save on taxes.
- Procedural notes in trial:
- RTC declared Milagros in default for failure to answer.
- RTC dismissed the Register of Deeds as a nominal party.
- Tomas filed a cross-claim against Milagros for compensatory and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses in the event judgment favored Jose.
RTC Ruling (December 27, 2006)
- Findings and conclusions:
- The SPA dated June 10, 1996, was null and void.
- The deed of sale was nullified.
- Tomas and Milagros were ordered to jointly and severally indemnify Jose in the amount of P20,000.00 as temperate damages.
- Basis:
- RTC accepted Jose’s allegations regarding lack of consent and forgery sufficient to void the SPA and the sale (Rollo, pp. 21–24).
Court of Appeals Ruling (August 28, 2009) and Resolution (November 17, 2009)
- CA holdings:
- Affirmed RTC that deed of sale and SPA were void.
- Modified RTC judgment by deleting the award of temperate damages.
- Ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas P200,000.00 with interest under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
- Evidentiary assessment:
- CA found Tomas’s allegation that he paid P700,000.00 unconvincing and not supported by convincing evidence.
- Post-decision:
- Tomas moved for reconsideration arguing the actual consideration paid was P700,000.00; CA denied the motion for lack of merit (Rollo, pp. 35, 37–44, 46–47).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the deed of sale can be used