Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tan v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jan Camele Lawsin
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled on a case where a husband, Jose, contested the sale of a property he jointly owned with his wife, Milagros, while he was working abroad. Milagros had sold the property to Tomas, presenting a special power of attorney (SPA) that Jose claimed was a forgery. The trial court nullified the sale and SPA based on testimony that Milagros admitted to selling the property without Jose's consent because she needed the money. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the sale was valid.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    150. Tan v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846 digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled on a case where a husband, Jose, contested the sale of a property he jointly owned with his wife, Milagros, while he was working abroad. Milagros had sold the property to Tomas, presenting a special power of attorney (SPA) that Jose claimed was a forgery. The trial court nullified the sale and SPA based on testimony that Milagros admitted to selling the property without Jose's consent because she needed the money. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the sale was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    37 views1 page

    Tan v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jan Camele Lawsin
    The Supreme Court ruled on a case where a husband, Jose, contested the sale of a property he jointly owned with his wife, Milagros, while he was working abroad. Milagros had sold the property to Tomas, presenting a special power of attorney (SPA) that Jose claimed was a forgery. The trial court nullified the sale and SPA based on testimony that Milagros admitted to selling the property without Jose's consent because she needed the money. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the sale was valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    TOMAS P. TAN, JR.

    , petitioner
    Vs
    JOSE G. HOSANA, respondent

    G.R. No. 190846. February 3, 2016

    BRION, J:

    Facts:

    Jose and Milagros were married and bought a house and lot during their marriage. Later, Milagros sold
    the property to Tomas as evidence by deed of sale executed by Milagros and as attorney-in-fact of Jose
    SPA of Jose in her favor.

    Jose filed annulment of the sale against Milagros and Tomas. He 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.

    Tomas maintained that he was a buyer in good faith and for value. The SPA authorizing Milagros to sell
    the property was annotated at the back of the title.

    Bonifacio, brother of Jose, testified that he learned of the sale of the subject property from Milagros'
    son. When Bonifacio confronted Milagros that Jose would get angry because of the sale, Milagros
    retorted that she sold the property because she needed the money. Thus, immediately informed Jose.

    RTC nullified the sale of the property and the SPA was actually null and void.

    CA

    You might also like