TAN V HOSANA

Jose Hosana is married to Milagros Hosana. On January 14, 1979, during their marriage, they bought a
house and lot located at Tinago, Naga City. (TCT 21229)

On January 12, 1998, Milagros sold to Tomas Tan the subject property. This was evidenced by a deed go
sale executed by Milagros herself as the attorney-in fact of Jose by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney
executed by Jose in her favor.

The deed of sale stated that the purchase price of the property was P200,000. Then TCT 21229 was
cancelled and TCT 32568 was issued to Tomas Tan.

On Oct 19, 2001, Jose filed a complaint for the annulment of sale or cancellation of the title or the
reconveyance and damages against Milagros, Tomas and the Register of Deeds of Naga City.

Jose averred that while he was working in Japan, Milagros without his consent and knowledge conspired
with Tomas to execute the SPA to make it seem that Jose had authorised Milagros to sell the property.

Tomas answered and maintained that he was a buyer in good faith and for value. He claimed that before
he paid the full consideration, that he sought the advice of a lawyer-friend who told him that the title of
the lot was authentic and in order. The SPA was annotated at the back of the title. Tomas filed a cross
claim against Milagros and claimed compensatory and moral damages, attorneys fees, expenses for
litigation if judgment would rule in favor of Jose.

RTC ruled Milagros in default for failure to file her answer to Jose’s complain and Tomas’ cross-claim.

Jose presented his brother, Bonifacio as the sole witness and testified that he learned of the sale from
Milagros’ son. When he confronted Milagros that Jose would be angry because of the sale, Mliagros
retorted and said that she needed the money.

Jose was furious when he found out about the sale and immediately went back to the Philippines. Jose and
Bonifacio confirmed the sale with the register of deeds and discovered that the title has been transferred
to Tomas. Bonifacio further testified that Jose’s signature were forged. He presented documents that
contained Jose’s signature for comparison.

Tomas submitted his own account of events which was corroborated by his god daughter, Rosana Robles.
He directed her to go to the house of Mliagros to confirm if Jose knew about the sale and through a phone
call of Milagros to Jose, she was able to talk to Jose who confirmed that he was aware and actually gave
authority to his wife.

Tomas made partial payment of P350,000 and another P350,000 upon the delivery of the deed of absolute
sale. He noticed that the consideration in the contract was only P200,000 so he asked Milagros and the
latter explained that it was so to save on taxes and that she needed the money because Jose stopped
sending her money.

RTC RULING
RTC ruled in favor of Jose and nullified the sale. The SPA was null and void. It also ordered Tomas and
Milagros to jointly and severally indemnify Jose the amount of P20,000 as temperated damages.

CA RULING
They affirmed the decision of the lower court but with modification. First, they deleted the award for
temperate damages. Second, they directed Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the purchase price of
P200,000 with interest under the principle of unjust enrichment.

Despite Tomas’ allegation that he paid P700,000, the court of appeals found no convincing evidence that
establishes this claim.

Tomas Tan filed this petition for a review on certiorari. His contentions are as follows:
1. All the matters contained in the deed of sale cannot be used as evidence since it as declared null and
void.
2. The deed of sale was not specifically offered to prove the actual consideration of the sale.
3. His testimony establishing the actual purchase price of P700,000 was uncontroverted
4. Jose must return the full amount actually paid under the principles of solution indebiti.

Jose’s contention:
1. He is estopped from questioning the purchase price for failing to immediately raise this question.
2. Tje terms of an agreement reduced into writing are deemed to include all the terms agreed upon and
no other evidence can be admitted other than the terms of the agreement itself.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid.
2. Whether the testimony of Tomas is sufficient to establish the actual purchase price.

RULING:
Whether Tomas paid the purchase price of P700,000 is a question of fact and not proper in petition for
review on certiorari. The Supreme Court does not address allegations of facts which requires them to rule
on “the truth or falsehood of alleged facts”. In civil cases, th party making the allegations has the burden
of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. The parties must rely in the strength of the evidence and
not on the weakness of the defence.

Furthermore, Tomas’ allegation that he paid Milagros P700,000 cannot be considered as proof pr payment
without any other convincing evidence to establish such claim. Although it ws uncontroverted, it doe not
automatically entitle it to be given weight and credence.The petitioner claims that the CA erred in relying
on the consideration stated in the deed pf sale as basis fir the reimbursable amount because a null and
void contract cannot be used as evidence. However, the Supreme Court stated that a void contract has no
force and effect from the very beginning. This rule applies to contracts that are declared void by positive
provision of law such as in this case wherein a conjugal property was sold without the written consent of
the other spouse.

A void contact is equivalent to nothing and is wanting to civil effects. It cannot be validate by either
ratification or prescription.

However, if any of the terms of a void contract have been performed, an action to declare it inexistence is
necessary to allow restitution of what has been given.

The consideration stated in the deed of sale constitutes prima facie evidence of the amount paid by Tomas
for the transfer of the property to his name. He failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to rebut the
consideration stated as the actual consideration and amount paid to Milagros and Jose. There was nit
documentary or testimonial evidence to prove payment if the higher amount was presented.