TAN VS.

HOSANA

FACTS: Jose Hosana was married to Milagros Hosana on January 14, 1979. During said
marriage, they were able to purchase a house and lot situated in Tinago, Naga City. Sometime in
1998, Milagros sold the property to Tomas Tan for P200k, evidenced by a deed of sale executed
by the former and as the attorney-in-fact of Jose. A special power of attorney (SPA) was executed
by Jose in favor of Milagros.

On October 19, 2001, Jose filed a complaint before the RTC for annulment of sale/cancellation
of title against Milagros, Tomas, and the Register of Deeds of Naga. Jose argued that he had
been working in Japan when Milagros sold the property without his knowledge and consent; that
his alleged signature in the SPA was forged. Due to her failure to file an answer, Milagros was
declared in default. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. Jose reiterated that he gave no consent to
sell the property, nor did he have knowledge of the same. He then presented documents bearing
his signature as specimens for comparison to the alleged forged signature in the SPA. Tan alleged
that he was a purchaser in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of Jose and nullified the sale of the property. It found that the SPA was
null and void. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, also finding the SPA to be null and void.
It further ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tan the amount of P200k. Tan appealed to the
Supreme Court, arguing that the actual amount he paid was P700k instead of P200k; that the CA
erred in relying on the deed of sale which was already declared void.

ISSUE: WON the contents of the deed of sale, including the consideration stated, which was
declared null and void may be used as evidence?

RULING: YES. First, whether Tan paid P700k is a question of fact not proper in a petition for
review on certiorari. In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making allegations has the
burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the
weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on the either side and is usually considered to
be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence”. The mere allegation of Tan that
he paid Milagros P700k cannot be considered proof of payment, without any other convincing
evidence to establish this claim. Such allegation, albeit uncontroverted, does not automatically
entitle it to be given weight and credence.

A void or inexistent contract has no force and effect from the very beginning. However, a void
contract which has been performed, the restoration of what has been given is in order. While the
terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does
not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the
course of executing the contract; such as what each party has given in the execution of the
contract. The deed of sale as documentary evidence may be used as a means to ascertain the
truthfulness of the consideration stated and its actual payment. The purpose of introducing the
deed of sale as evidence is not to enforce the terms written therein, but as a means to determine
matters that occurred in the execution of such contract.

Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the
Rules. Thus, the decision of the CA was affirmed, the respondents were ordered to reimburse
only P200k to Tan.