Riosa v.

Tabaco La Suerte Corporation

Facts:

Riosa alleged that he was the owner and actual possessor of a commercial lot, and that
he acquired such property by deed of cession and quitclaim by his parents. He alose paid the
realty tax on the property. He obtained loans from Sia Ko Pio, and that he was presented a
document, purportedly the receipt for the loans he undertook, to pay the total amount. To his
surprise, he received a letter from La Suerte that the lot was already registered in its name.

Riosa claimed that by means of fraud, misrepresentation and deceit by Sia Ko Pio, he
was made to sign the document, which he thought was a receipt and undertaking to pay the
loan, but was actually a document of sale of the subject lot. He claimed that he did not
acknowledge the sale, and that he did not appear before the notary public and that the judge
was not authorized to notarize a deed of conveyance. He prayed for the nullification of the deed
of sale and the title in the name of La Suerte.

Respondent claims that it was the actual and lawful owner of the property, after
purchasing it from Riosa. The register of deeds covered the subject title in it's name, and that
through Sia Ko Pio, then Chief Executive Officer, sold the property to it. The RTC ruled in favor of
Riosa, annulling the deed of sale and reconveying the property to Riosa. The CA reversed the
decision of the RTC, declaring La Suerte as the owner of the subject lot.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a valid contract of sale between Riosa and Sia Ko Pio;

Ruling:

The Court agrees with the ruling of the RTC. There was no clear and convincing evidence
that Riosa definitely sold the subject property to La Suerte, nor was there evidence that Sia Ko
Pio ywas authorized to negotiate and conclude a purchase of the property. If Riosa intended to
sell the property to La Suerte, he would have religiously and continuously paid the real property
taxes. The fact that his daughter spent P300,000 for the renovation of the lot, and that La Suerte
did not ask him to transfer possession of the lot to it, shows that Riosa had no intention to sell
the property.