Rosaroso v.
Soria
G.R. L194846 – June 19, 2013
J. Carpio
Topic: Disputable Presumptions
Doctrine: Disputable presumptions operate against an adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut them. They create the
necessity of presenting evidence to rebut the prima face case they created, and which, if no proof to contrary is presented and
offered, will prevail
Petitioner: Hospicio D. Rosaroso, Antonio Rosaroso, Manuel Rosaroso, Algerica Rosaroso and Cleofe Labindao
Respondents: Lucila Laborte Soria, Spouses Ham Solutan and Laila Solutan, and Meridian Realty Corporation
Case Summary: The majority of the Rosaroso siblings contest the 2 sales that their sister Laila and her daughter Lucila
made with regard to properties owned by their father Luis. On the first sale, which is relevant to our topic, the petitioners
allege that the 4 properties were already sold to them by Luis as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. The respondents
contend that the sales were made with no consideration, therefore simulated, therefor invalid. The Court ruled that the sale
made to them was valid. Sufficient consideration for a contract is one of the disputable presumptions provided in the Rules
of Court. Upon this presumption is the burden upon the adverse party to show evidence that there was no consideration for
such contract. Given that the respondents were unable to show any proof as to the lack of consideration for the contract, then
the presumption is in favor of the petitioners, and therefore the 1st sale is found to be valid.
Facts:
Spouses Luis Rosaroso and Honorata Duazo acquired several real properties in Daan Bantayan, Cebu City
o The couple had 9 children namely: Hospicio, Arturo, Florita, Lucila, Eduardo, Manuel, Cleofe, Antonio
and Angelica
o On April 25, 1952, Honorata died, and Luis then married Lourdes Rosaroso
January 1995: Luis, as one of the plaintiffs, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of documents with damages
against Lucila, her daughter Laila, and Meridian
o Luis died in the middle of the proceedings and the husband of Laila, Ham, and Luis’ second wife Lourdes
were included as defendants
o In the amended complaint, the petitioners allege that on November 4, 1991, Luis, with his full knowledge
and consent of Lourdes, executed a deed of absolute sale (first sale) for properties that were all located in
Daan Bantayan, Cebu city
o FIRST SALE: They also allege that despite the fact that the properties were already sold to them, that
Laila, in conspiracy with Lucila (one of the children), obtained an SPA from Luis (who was then sick and
infirm), which purportedly authorized Laila to sell and convey 4 of the properties that were already sold to
them
o The petitioners further allege that there was a 2 nd SPA, which allowed Laila and Ham to mortgage a lot
(again one of the properties)
o SECOND SALE: The petitioners allege that in 1994, a second sale took place, when the respondents made
Luis sign the Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to Meridian 3 parcels of residential land; that Meridian was
in bad faith when it did not make inquiry as to who the occupants and owners of the land were
Petitioners filed the complaint and prayed that they be awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees,
actual damages, and litigation expenses and that the two SPAs and the deed of sale in favor of Meridian be declared
null and void ab initio
o Respondents contest the first sale in favor of petitioners (diba they got an SPA to sell them)
They even submitted that assuming it was valid, petitioners would then be estopped from
questioning the 2nd sale to Meridian, because they not only failed in effecting the necessary
transfer of title, but also in annotating their interests on the titles of the questioned properties
They also claim that the SPAs and deed of absolute sale executed by Luis were valid, as he was
conscious and of sound mind and body when he executed them that in fact it was Luis together
with Lourdes who received the check payment issued by Meridian where a big part was used to
foot his hospital and medical expenses
o Meridian: Luis was fully aware of the conveyances made!
o Lourdes (2nd wife): Lourdes alleged that her signature and that of her husband’s, on the deed of sale in
favor of petitioners (all other siblings), was obtained through fraud, deceit and trickery
That they felt bad for the kids as they said that it was for a loan application, and that there was no
consideration for the “First Sale”
With respect to the 2nd sale, she never encouraged the same and neither did she participate in it
purely her husband’s volition
RTC: Ruled in favor of petitioners; First sale to them was valid and Second sale to Meridian not valid
CA: Reversed and set aside the RTC Decision
o First Sale: Void, since they failed to prove that they tendered a consideration for the 4 parcels of land
(relied on the testimony of Lourdes that petitioners did not pay her husband); price was simulated and as if
none was made at all
o Second Sale: Valid, since the documents were notarized, and as such, they enjoyed the presumption of
regularity; that although the petitioners allege that Luis was manipulated into signing such, the evidence of
Dr. Pesquira’s testimony, being the physician of Luis, was enough for the Court to see that although he was
physically infirm, he was of sound mind during the time of execution of the SPA
Issues + Held:
1. W/N the first deed of sale was valid – YES
It is a fact that the first deed of sale was executed, conveying the properties in favor of petitioners this was never
contested by respondents
o What they insist is that the sale was simulated
o (RELEVANT PART) Under Rule 131, Section 3, the ff. are disputable presumptions: (1) private
transactions have been fair and regular; (2) the ordinary course of business has been followed; and (3)
there was sufficient consideration for a contract
These presumptions operate against an adversary who has not introduced proof to rebut them.
They create the necessity of presenting evidence to rebut the prima face case they created, and
which, if no proof to contrary is presented and offered, will prevail
The burden of proof remains where it is but, by the presumption, the one who has that burden is
relieved for the time being from introducing evidence in support of the averment, because
the presumption stands in the place of evidence unless rebutted
In this case, the respondents failed to trounce the presumption aside from bare allegation
that sale was made w/o consideration, they failed to supply evidence to back up the claim
It is elementary in procedural law that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are
not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court
o Granting that there was no delivery of the consideration, the seller would have no right to sell again what
he no longer owned his remedy would have been to rescind the sale for failure on the part of the buyer
to perform his part of their obligation pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code
Non-payment only creates a right to demand the fulfillment of the obligation or to rescind the
contract
2. W/N the second deed of sale was valid – NO (will only discuss the ruling, but not in detail na since not important to
our topic)
Meridian was not a buyer in good faith
o The fact that Meridian registered first will not help its case – in case of double sale, Article 1544 of the
Civil Code shall prevail
o The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in
case of a double sale of immovable property
When thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records in the Registry
of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed owner act of registration should be
coupled with good faith – registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his
vendor or must not have knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor, or must not have
been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be
necessary to acquaint him with the defects in title of his vendor
Meridian failed to take the ordinary precautions which a prudent man would have taken under the
circumstances, especially in buying a piece of land in the actual, visible and public possession of
another person, other than the vendor constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith
There were testimonies by Meridian’s employees which made it clear, that through their
agent, Meridian knew that the subject properties were in possession of persons other than the
seller
Instead of investigating, it chose to believe Luis still owned them failed to exercise the due
diligence required by law of purchasers acquiring a piece of land in possession of person or
persons other than seller
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. The ruling of the RTC
reinstated.
