FACTS:

Jose Hosana married Milagros Hosana and the couple bought a house and lot in Naga City. Milagros later sold the property to Tomas Tan Jr., as evidenced by a deed of sale, with Milagros acting as attorney-in-fact for Jose. A new title was issued in Tomas' name. Jose filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale, claiming that Milagros forged his signature on the power of attorney. Tomas argued that he was a buyer in good faith and relied on the authenticity of the title and the annotation of the power of attorney. The trial court declared Milagros in default and dismissed Tomas' complaint against the Register of Deeds. The trial court later ruled in favor of Jose, nullifying the sale. The CA affirmed the ruling, but ordered Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the purchase price of P200,000.00. Tomas filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that he actually paid P700,000.00 as the purchase price. The CA denied the motion. Tomas filed a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the CA ruling on reimbursement. The main issues are whether the deed of sale can be used as the basis for the amount of consideration paid and whether Tomas' testimony is sufficient to establish the actual purchase price.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved that he paid P700,000.00 for the subject property.

2. Whether the CA correctly ordered the reimbursement of P200,000.00 based on the principle of unjust enrichment.

3. Whether a void document, specifically a void deed of sale, is admissible as evidence to determine the consideration paid by petitioner.

4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court granting the respondents' petition for annulment of sale.

5. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the reasonable rental value of the property.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner paid the purchase price is a question of fact. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and does not address questions of fact, unless certain exceptions are present. In this case, the exceptions do not apply. The CA had already resolved that the petitioner's claim of payment was unsubstantiated due to the lack of convincing evidence. Therefore, the CA's finding was upheld.

2. The Court affirmed the CA's order for the reimbursement of P200,000.00 based on the principle of unjust enrichment. The petitioner's argument that a null and void document cannot be used as evidence was rejected. While a void contract has no force and effect, it can still be used as evidence to prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the contract. In this case, the deed of sale was used to determine the consideration stated and its actual payment. Restitution was deemed necessary as a consequence of the void and inexistent contract.

3. Yes, a void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself. The consideration stated in the notarized deed of sale is prima facie evidence of the amount paid by the petitioner. The notarized deed of sale is a public document and is prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein. The consideration stated in the deed of sale constitutes prima facie evidence of the amount paid by the petitioner. 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.

4. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the trial court granting the respondents' petition for annulment of sale.

5. The petitioner is not entitled to the reasonable rental value of the property.

PRINCIPLES:

• The burden of proving payment lies on the party making the allegation.

• Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side.

• A mere allegation is not considered evidence.

• A void contract has no force and effect from the very beginning.

• Contracts that are declared void by positive provision of law are absolutely wanting in civil effects.

• Restitution may be ordered if any terms of a void contract have been performed.

• The terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced, but the contract can still be used as evidence of matters that occurred in its execution.

• Documentary evidence, such as a deed of sale, can be used to ascertain the truthfulness of a matter at issue.

• Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or rules of evidence.

• A void document is admissible as evidence because its purpose is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact.

• The safer policy is to be liberal in admitting evidence that appears to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent.

• The specific offer of a deed of sale to prove the actual consideration of the sale is not necessary if it is offered for the purpose of proving its execution and regularity.

• The consideration stated in a notarized deed of sale is prima facie evidence of the amount paid.

• Prima facie evidence is sufficient to establish a given fact unless rebutted or contradicted.

• The principle of unjust enrichment requires the person who received a benefit under a void contract to return what was received.

• The Court of Appeals, as an appellate court, has the power to review the findings of fact made by the trial court and to reverse, affirm, modify, or lower the penalty imposed.

• Annulment of sale may be granted when there is fraud, mistake, undue influence, or damage caused to the property by any party or by the judgment itself.

• In order for the petitioner to be entitled to the reasonable rental value of the property, there must be a showing that the petitioner is the rightful owner or possessor of the property.