This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-10-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We are inclined to give more credence to Alestre's Affidavit, which is essentially a recantation of her previous Salaysay, for the following reasons: First, Alestre has fully explained to our satisfaction why she initially misdeclared her dates of confinement in ZMC. In her desire to report and be compensated for one day of work, Alestre hied back and forth between school and the hospital. It is difficult to believe that she would risk her reputation as a public school teacher, as well as prosecution for violation of civil service rules, to be an abettor of ZMC. Second, Alestre truly cannot be in two places at the same time. But her narration clearly accounts for her whereabouts on 12 August 2003. She travelled at least 3 times to and from the hospital and school. She admitted that the school was a mere ten-minute drive away from the hospital so she can easily traverse between the two locations. Third, ZMC had in fact admitted to its error in indicating the dates of Alestre's confinement so there is no reason for ZMC to further conceal the actual days of Alestre's confinement. Fourth, the Salaysay is not notarized. While recantation is frowned upon and hardly given much weight in the determination of a case, the affidavit is still a notarized document which carries in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to contradict the same.[21] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[54] However, the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[55] A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private document.[56] Hence, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.[57] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law it allegedly committed, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. Thus, the Court is not duty-bound to evaluate and weigh the evidence all over again which were already considered in the proceedings below, except when, as in this case, the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court.[8] | |||||
|
2014-07-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.[40] Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[41] However, this rule admits exceptions, such as when the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court[42] such as in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
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] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Anent the first assigned error, petitioners are correct in pointing out that notarized documents carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.[20] However, the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[21] A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument.[22] Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.[23] | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| With the material contradictions in the Dela Peña's evidence, the CA cannot be faulted for upholding the validity of the impugned 4 November 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale. Having been duly notarized, said deed is a public document which carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[52] Regarded as evidence of the facts therein expressed in a clear, unequivocal manner,[53] public documents enjoy a presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.[54] The burden of proof to overcome said presumptions lies with the party contesting the notarial document[55] like the Dela Peñas who, unfortunately, failed to discharge said onus. Absent clear and convincing evidence to contradict the same, we find that the CA correctly pronounced the Deed of Absolute Sale was valid and binding between Antonia and Gemma. | |||||