Tan v. Hosana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose G. Hosana (Jose) and Milagros C. Hosana (Milagros) were married and during their marriage, they acquired a house and lot. On January 13, 1998, Milagros sold the property to Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (Tomas) for P200,000.00, purportedly acting as attorney-in-fact for Jose via a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). The title was subsequently transferred to Tomas. Procedural History: Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale/Cancellation of Title/Reconveyance and Damages against Milagros and Tomas, alleging that Milagros conspired with Tomas and forged his signature on the SPA to sell the property without his consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Milagros in default and dismissed the case against the Register of Deeds. The RTC ruled in favor of Jose, nullifying the sale and ordering Tomas and Milagros to jointly and severally indemnify Jose. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the nullity of the sale but deleted the temperate damages and ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the P200,000.00 purchase price with interest, based on unjust enrichment. The CA denied Tomas' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Tomas filed a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the CA's ruling on the reimbursement amount, arguing that he paid P700,000.00 and that the void deed of sale should not be the basis for the reimbursement amount. He contended that his testimony on the actual purchase price was uncontroverted and that Jose should return the full amount paid under the principle of solutio indebiti.
Issue(s)
Whether the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid. Whether the testimony of Tomas is sufficient to establish the actual purchase price of the sale.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the question of whether Tomas paid P700,000.00 is a question of fact not proper for a petition for certiorari. The Court upheld the CA's finding that Tomas failed to present convincing evidence to prove payment of P700,000.00. The Court also affirmed the CA's order for reimbursement of P200,000.00, holding that a void deed of sale is admissible to prove matters that occurred during its execution, such as the consideration paid, to prevent unjust enrichment, and that the consideration stated in the notarized deed of sale serves as prima facie evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's use of the P200,000.00 consideration stated in the deed of sale. The Court clarified that while a void contract has no force and effect, it does not preclude its admissibility as evidence to prove matters that occurred during its execution, such as what each party has given. The deed of sale, even if void, can be used to ascertain the truth respecting the consideration paid, not to enforce the contract itself. This is consistent with the principle of restitution under Article 22 of the Civil Code to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court also noted that the deed of sale was formally offered by both parties, and its offer to prove regularity necessarily allowed the consideration stated therein to be considered for determining restitution. The notarized deed of sale is considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including the consideration paid, and Tomas failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut this. On whether the testimony of Tomas is sufficient to establish the actual purchase price of the sale: The Supreme Court held that Tomas' claim of paying P700,000.00 was a question of fact that the CA had already resolved in the negative. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and does not typically delve into factual findings unless exceptions apply, which were not met in this case. The Court emphasized that in civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the party making allegations, and a mere allegation, even if uncontroverted, does not automatically constitute proof. Tomas' bare allegation of paying P700,000.00, without other convincing evidence, was deemed insufficient to establish his claim. The Court noted that Tomas' sole testimony was self-serving and insufficient to unequivocally prove payment of the higher amount.
Main Doctrine
A void document, such as a deed of sale declared null and void by law, is admissible as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of its execution, like the consideration paid, for the purpose of restitution and preventing unjust enrichment. The consideration stated in a notarized deed of sale serves as prima facie evidence of the amount paid, which can only be rebutted by satisfactory evidence.