Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Bustos v. Lucero - G.R.No. L-2068

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the deed of sale between Tomas P. Tan, Jr. and Milagros C. Hosana was void due to the lack of valid authorization from Jose G. Hosana. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party making allegations, and Tomas failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of a higher purchase price. Consequently, the consideration stated in the deed of sale, P200,000.00, was deemed the actual amount paid and subject to return under the principle of unjust enrichment.

Uploaded by

Cardenas Juster
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Bustos v. Lucero - G.R.No. L-2068

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that the deed of sale between Tomas P. Tan, Jr. and Milagros C. Hosana was void due to the lack of valid authorization from Jose G. Hosana. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the party making allegations, and Tomas failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of a higher purchase price. Consequently, the consideration stated in the deed of sale, P200,000.00, was deemed the actual amount paid and subject to return under the principle of unjust enrichment.

Uploaded by

Cardenas Juster
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. JOSE G.

HOSANA
G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016, BRION, J.

FACTS: The respondent Jose G. Hosana (Jose) married Milagros C. Hosana (Milagros) on January 14,
1979. During their marriage, Jose and Milagros bought a house and lot located at Tinago, Naga City.
On January 13, 1998, Milagros sold to the petitioner Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (Tomas) the subject property, as
evidenced by a deed of sale executed by Milagros herself and as attorney-in-fact of Jose, by virtue of a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by Jose in her favor. The Deed of Sale stated that the purchase
price for the lot was P200,000.00.
On October 19, 2001, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale/Cancellation of Title/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 by forging Jose’s signature making it appear that Jose had authorized Milagros to sell the subject
property to Tomas.
In his Answer, Tomas maintained that he was a buyer in good faith and for value. Before he paid the full
consideration of the sale, Tomas claimed he sought advice from his lawyer-friend who told him that the
title of the subject lot was authentic and in order. Furthermore, he alleged that the SPA authorizing
Milagros to sell the property was annotated at the back of the title.
After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.
In its decision dated December 27, 2006, the RTC decided in favor of Jose and nullified the sale of the
subject property to Tomas. The RTC held that the SPA dated June 10, 1996, wherein Jose supposedly
appointed Milagros as his attorney-in-fact, was actually null and void.
Tomas appealed the RTC’s ruling to the CA however, it affirmed the RTC ruling that the deed of sale and
the SPA were void. Tomas filed a motion for the reconsideration of the CA decision but The CA denied
the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Tomas filed the present petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA ruling.

Issue/s: (1) whether the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid; and
(2) whether the testimony of Tomas is sufficient to establish the actual purchase price of the sale.

Held: (1) The Supreme Court uphold the CA’s finding.


In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a
preponderance of evidence. Moreover, the parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not
upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and
is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater
weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means
probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto.
It is settled in jurisprudence that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests
on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. A mere
allegation is not evidence, and the person who alleges has the burden of proving his or her allegation
with the requisite quantum of evidence, which in civil cases is preponderance of evidence.
(2) The offer of the deed of sale to prove its regularity necessarily allowed the lower courts to consider
the terms written therein to determine whether all the essential elements 59 for a valid contract of sale
are present, including the consideration of the sale. The fact that the sale was declared null and void
does not prevent the court from relying on consideration stated in the deed of sale to determine the
actual amount paid by the petitioner for the purpose of preventing unjust enrichment.
Hence, the specific offer of the Deed of Sale to prove the actual consideration of the sale is not
necessary since it is necessarily included in determining the regular execution of the sale.

The notarized deed of sale is a public document and is prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts
stated therein.
Tomas failed to substantiate his claim that he paid to Milagros the amount of P700,000.00, instead of the
amount of P200,000.00 stated in the deed of sale. No documentary or testimonial evidence to prove
payment of the higher amount was presented, apart from Tomas’ sole testimony. Tomas’ sole testimony
of payment is self-serving and insufficient to unequivocally prove that Milagros received P700,000.00 for
the subject property.
Hence, the consideration stated in the deed of sale remains sufficient evidence of the actual amount the
petitioner paid and the same amount which should be returned under the principle of unjust
enrichment.

You might also like