Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMAS K. CHUA v. WESTMONT BANK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205879 2014-04-23	SKUNAC CORPORATION v. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG PERALTA, J.
In addition, evidence of the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed is the fact that it was notarized. The notarization of a private document converts it into a public document.[19] Moreover, a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[20] This presumption is affirmed if it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[21] To assail the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[22]
	GR No. 193804 2013-02-27	SPS. NILO RAMOS v. RAUL OBISPO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[12]
	GR No. 194014 2012-09-12	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SPS. ALEJANDRO AND MYRNA REBLANDO VELASCO JR., J.
Being a public document, it enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence. Absent such evidence, as in this case, the presumption must be upheld.[35] (Emphasis added.)
	GR No. 195592 2012-09-05	MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION REYES, J.
Taking into consideration the bank's allegations in its complaint and the totality of the evidence presented in support thereof, coupled with the said circumstance that the petitioners, by their own inaction, failed to make their timely objection or opposition to the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, presented by TMBC to support its case, we find no cogent reason to reverse the trial and appellate courts' findings. We stress that in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case only by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability to truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[33]