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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190846)

Factual Background

Jose G. Hosana and Milagros C. Hosana acquired a house and lot in Tinago, Naga City, originally covered by TCT No. 21229. On January 13, 1998, Milagros executed a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly as seller and as attorney-in-fact of Jose under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The Deed of Sale recited consideration of P200,000.00, but Tomas P. Tan, Jr. later asserted that he actually paid P700,000.00 in two installments of P350,000.00 each. After the transaction, the title was transferred and TCT No. 32568 was issued in the name of Tomas.

Trial Court Proceedings

Jose filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages alleging forgery of his signature on the SPA and lack of his consent to the sale. Tomas answered that he was a buyer in good faith and for value and asserted that the SPA had been annotated at the back of the title. The RTC declared Milagros in default for failure to answer and dismissed the Register of Deeds as a nominal party. Trial produced testimonial evidence for Jose from his brother Bonifacio, who testified to the alleged forgery and identified specimen signatures, while Tomas relied on his own testimony and that of Rosana Robles, who recounted a telephone confirmation by Jose. The RTC found the SPA void and declared the sale null and void, and it ordered Tomas and Milagros to indemnify Jose P20,000.00 as temperate damages.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding that the SPA and the Deed of Sale were void. The CA, however, modified the judgment by deleting the award of temperate damages and by ordering restitution to Tomas of P200,000.00 with interest under the principle of unjust enrichment, reasoning that the consideration recited in the notarized deed constituted prima facie evidence of the amount paid. The CA rejected Tomas’s claim of P700,000.00 for lack of convincing proof.

Petition to the Supreme Court

Tomas filed a petition for review on certiorari contesting the CA’s order to reimburse only P200,000.00 instead of the P700,000.00 he claimed to have paid. He advanced four principal contentions: that the terms of a void deed cannot be relied upon as evidence of payment; that the deed was not specifically offered to prove actual consideration; that his uncontroverted testimony established the P700,000.00 payment; and that Jose must return the full amount under the principle of solutio indebiti. Jose countered that Tomas was estopped from contesting the deed’s recited consideration and that parol evidence could not override the written terms.

Issues Presented

The case presented two core legal questions: whether the notarized Deed of Sale, declared void because it concerned conjugal property without spousal consent, could nonetheless be used as evidence of the amount of consideration paid; and whether Tomas’s testimony alone sufficiently established by a preponderance of evidence that he had paid P700,000.00.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision and resolution. The Court held that the issues raised concerning the sufficiency of proof that Tomas paid P700,000.00 were factual determinations resolved by the CA and not proper subjects of review on certiorari. The Court found that the exceptions allowing review of factual findings did not obtain and therefore deferred to the CA’s negative finding on the P700,000.00 claim. The Court also upheld the CA’s order that Jose reimburse Tomas P200,000.00 with interest under unjust enrichment principles.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied settled principles of appellate review and evidentiary law. It reiterated that this Court does not function as a trier of facts and will not reweigh evidence except under narrow exceptions such as findings based on speculation, grave abuse of discretion, or conclusions without citation of specific evidence, none of which were present. The Court stressed that the party alleging payment bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence and that mere uncorroborated allegation, even if uncontroverted, is not sufficient. With respect to the admissibility of a void document, the Court explained that while a void contract has no legal force as an obligation, it is nevertheless admissible as evidence to establish what each party gave in the course of its execution. The Court relied on Article 22 of the Civil Code to ground restitution where a person acquires or comes into possession of something at another’s expense without legal ground, and it observed that the deed of sale, though void for lack of spousal consent, could be used to determine the consideration paid so as to permit restitution and to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court invoked Section 1, Rule 128 and Section 3, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court concerning documentary evidence and noted the liberal policy favoring admission of evidence when relevancy or competency is in doubt. The notarized Deed of Sale was characterized as a public document and thus prima f

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190846)

Parties and Posture

Tomas P. Tan, Jr. was the petitioner and purchaser of the subject house and lot as named in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Jose G. Hosana was the respondent, co-owner of the conjugal property who filed suit to annul the sale, cancel title, reconvey the property, and recover damages.
The case originated as Civil Case No. 2001-0341 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, Naga City, and proceeded by appeal to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88645.
The present action is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' August 28, 2009 decision and November 17, 2009 resolution.

Key Facts

Jose G. Hosana and Milagros C. Hosana were married on January 14, 1979, and acquired a house and lot in Tinago, Naga City covered by TCT No. 21229.
On January 13, 1998, Milagros executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the property to Tomas, and TCT No. 21229 was cancelled and TCT No. 32568 was issued in Tomas' name.
The Deed of Sale expressly stated the purchase price as P200,000.00 while Tomas later claimed he actually paid P700,000.00 consisting of two payments of P350,000.00 each.
Milagros purportedly acted as attorney-in-fact under a Special Power of Attorney bearing Jose's signature, which Jose later alleged to be forged.
Jose filed suit on October 19, 2001, alleging conspiracy and forgery and seeking annulment of the sale, cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages.
At trial, Jose presented his brother Bonifacio as sole witness who testified that Jose's signature on the SPA was forged, while Tomas presented his goddaughter Rosana to testify that Jose had confirmed the sale by phone.
Milagros was declared in default for failure to answer, and the Register of Deeds was dismissed as a nominal party.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court declared the SPA and the Deed of Sale null and void and ordered the annulment of the sale on December 27, 2006.
The RTC held the SPA dated June 10, 1996 was null and void and ordered Tomas and Milagros to indemnify Jose joint and severally in the amount of P20,000.00 as temperate damages.
The RTC dismissed the claim against the Register of Deeds as merely nominal.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's finding that the SPA and Deed of Sale were void but deleted the award of temperate damages.
The Court of Appeals directed Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the amount of P200,000.00 with interest under the doctrine of unjust enrichment as the Deed of Sale stated that amount as consideration.
The Court of Appeals found Tomas' claim that he actua