Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HARRIS SY CHUA v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183034 2014-03-12	SPS. FERNANDO AND MA. ELENA SANTOS v. LOLITA ALCAZAR DEL CASTILLO, J.
"There is no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to documents the genuineness and due execution of which are admitted by the adverse party."[34] With the consequent admission engendered by petitioners' failure to properly deny the Acknowledgment in their Answer, coupled with its proper authentication, identification and offer by the respondent, not to mention petitioners' admissions in paragraphs 4 to 6 of their Answer that they are indeed indebted to respondent, the Court believes that judgment may be had solely on the document, and there is no need to present receipts and other documents to prove the claimed indebtedness. The Acknowledgment, just as an ordinary acknowledgment receipt, is "valid and binding between the parties who executed it, as a document evidencing the loan agreement they had entered into."[35] The absence of rebutting evidence occasioned by petitioners' waiver of their right to present evidence renders the Acknowledgment as the best evidence of the transactions between the parties and the consequential indebtedness incurred.[36] Indeed, the effect of the admission is such that "a prima facie case is made for the plaintiff which dispenses with the necessity of evidence on his part and entitles him to a judgment on the pleadings unless a special defense of new matter, such as payment, is interposed by the defendant."[37]
	GR No. 173339 2010-11-24	LEDESCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. WORLDWIDE STANDARD INTERNATIONAL REALTY MENDOZA, J.
In Harris Sy Chua v. Court of Appeals and State Financing Center, Inc.,[44] it was held that before private documents can be received in evidence, proof of their due execution and authenticity must be presented. This may require the presentation and examination of witnesses to testify as to the due execution and authenticity of such private documents.[45] When there is no proof as to the authenticity of the writer's signature appearing in a private document, such private document may be excluded.[46]
	GR NO. 137247 2006-08-07	ANATALIA B. RAMOS v. SPS. DOMINGO A. DIZON AND EDNA MEDINA DIZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Similarly, relied upon by petitioner was our holding in Chua v. Court of Appeals[24] where we declared that:The offer of evidence is necessary because it is the duty of the judge to rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Such offer may be made orally or in writing sufficient to show that the party is ready and willing to submit the evidence to the court.
	GR NO. 157075 2006-07-17	RAMCAR v. HI-POWER MARKETING TINGA, J.
Our rule on evidence provides the procedure on how to present documentary evidence before the court, as follows: firstly, the documents should be authenticated and proved in the manner provided in the rules of court; secondly, the documents should be identified and marked; and thirdly, it should be formally offered to the court and shown to the opposing party so that the latter may have the opportunity to object thereto.[32]
	GR NO. 140608 2004-09-23	PERMANENT SAVINGS v. MARIANO VELARDE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires that private documents be proved of their due execution and authenticity before they can be received in evidence, i.e., presentation and examination of witnesses to testify on this fact; in the present case, there is no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to the loan documents because of respondent's implied admission thereof.[30]
	GR No. 142974 2003-09-22	SPS. SHEM G. ALFARERO AND AURELIA TAGALOG v. SPS. PETRA AND SANCHO SEVILLA QUISUMBING, J.
Second, recall that the date May 25, 1986, which the court a quo accepted as the date of the sale was contained in a notarized instrument. In so doing, the appellate court merely applied the rule of long standing that a public document executed and attested through the intervention of a notary public is evidence of the facts in a clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed.[11] Otherwise stated, public or notarial documents, or those instruments duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.[12] In order to contradict the presumption of regularity of a public document, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.[13] Such evidence is wanting in this case.