This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-04-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Finally, the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in the present case is a notarized document. Being a public document, it is prima facie evidence of the facts therein expressed.[24] It has the presumption of regularity in its favor and to contradict all these, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.[25] Petitioner has failed to show that such contradictory evidence exists in this case. | |||||
|
2003-09-22 |
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. | |||||