ADELA G. RAYMUNDO vs. ERNESTO LUNARIA G.R. No. 171036 October 17, 200 !

"cts# Petitioners approached respondent Lunaria to help them find a buyer for their property situated at Marilao, Bulacan with an area of 12,126 square meters for the amount of P60,630,000 !espondent Lunaria was promised a "# a$ent%s commission in the e&ent that he finds a buyer 'fter respondents found a buyer, (ecilio )ipolito, an *+,clusi&e 'uthority to -ell* was e,ecuted embodyin$ the a$reement made by the parties 'fter the correspondin$ .eed of 'bsolute -ale of !eal Property was re$istered in the !e$istry of .eeds, a copy thereof was $i&en to the /ar +ast Ban0 and 1rust (o , which was then holdin$ in escrow the amount of P"0,000,000 to be disbursed or paid a$ainst the total consideration or price of the property (eferino 2 !aymundo, one of the co3owners, ad&ised respondents to $o to the ban0 to recei&e the amount of P1,146,000 as partial payment of their total commission 'lso, respondents were instructed to return after se&en days to $et the balance of the commission due them !espondents returned to the ban0 )owe&er, the chec0 co&erin$ the balance of their commission was already $i&en by the ban0 mana$er to Lourdes ! !aymundo, the representati&e of the petitioners !espondents tried to $et the chec0 from the petitioners, howe&er, they were told that there is nothin$ more due them by way of commission as they ha&e already di&ided and distributed the balance of the commissions amon$ their nephews and nieces /or their part, petitioners counter that there was a subsequent &erbal a$reement entered into by the parties after the e,ecution of the written a$reement -aid &erbal a$reement pro&ides that the "# a$ent%s commission shall be di&ided as follows5 26" for the a$ents, 26" for Lourdes !aymundo, and 16" for the buyer, )ipolito 1he share $i&en to Lourdes !aymundo shall be in consideration for the help she would e,tend in the processin$ of documents of sale of the property, the payment of the capital $ains ta, to the Bureau of 7nternal !e&enue and in securin$ an order from the court 1he 16" commission $i&en to )ipolito, on the other hand, will be used by him for the payment of realty ta,es )ence, for failure of the respondents to recei&e the balance of their a$ent%s commission, they filed an action for the collection of a sum

of money before the !1( of 8alen9uela (ity 1he trial court rendered a .ecision in fa&or of the respondents (ourt of 'ppeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that the amount of moral and e,emplary dama$es awarded to respondents shall be reduced Iss$e# :hether or not (' erred in requirin$ petitioners to establish their case by more than a preponderance of e&idence R$%&'(# ;o Petitioners contend that the appellate court erred in requirin$ them to pro&e the e,istence of the subsequent &erbal a$reement by more than a mere preponderance of e&idence since no rule of e&idence requires them to do so 7n support of this alle$ation, petitioners presented petitioner Lourdes !aymundo who testified that she was $i&en 26" share of the commission pursuant to the &erbal sharin$ scheme because she too0 care of the payment of the capital $ains ta,, the preparation of the documents of sale and of securin$ an authority from the court to sell the property /or their part, respondents counter that the appellate court did not require petitioners to pro&e the e,istence of the subsequent oral a$reement by more than a mere preponderance of e&idence :hat the appellate court said is that the petitioners failed to pro&e and establish the alle$ed subsequent &erbal a$reement e&en by mere preponderance of e&idence Petitioners% abo&ecited alle$ation has no merit By preponderance of e&idence is meant that the e&idence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other 7t refers to the wei$ht, credit and &alue of the a$$re$ate e&idence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term *$reater wei$ht of e&idence* or *$reater wei$ht of the credible e&idence* 7t is e&idence which is more con&incin$ to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto Both the appellate court and trial court ruled that the e&idence presented by the petitioners is not sufficient to support their alle$ation that a subsequent &erbal a$reement was entered into by the parties 7n fact, both courts correctly obser&ed that if Lourdes !aymundo was in reality offered the 26" share of the a$ent%s commission for the purpose of assistin$ respondent Lunaria in the documentation requirement, then why did the petitioners not present any written court order on her authority, ta, receipt or sales document to support her self3ser&in$ testimony< Moreo&er,

e&en the wor0sheet alle$edly reflectin$ the commission sharin$ was unilaterally prepared by petitioner Lourdes !aymundo without any showin$ that respondents participated in the preparation thereof or $a&e their assent thereto +&en the alle$ed payment of 16" of the commission to the buyer to be used in the payment of the realty ta,es cannot be $i&en credence since the payment of realty ta,es is the obli$ation of the owners, and not the buyer Lastly, if the said sharin$ a$reement was entered into pursuant to the wishes of the buyer, then he should ha&e been presented as witness to corroborate the claim of the petitioners )owe&er, he was not