This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have held in prior cases that generally, a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents,[9] and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[10] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[11] | |||||
|
2006-03-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| A contract or conduct apparently honest and lawful must be treated as such until it is shown to be otherwise by either positive or circumstantial evidence.[31] A duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its regularity has the burden of proving its simulation.[32] A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[33] | |||||
|
2003-06-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the due execution and authenticity of a document must be reasonably established before it may be admitted in evidence.[18] Notarial documents, however, may be presented in evidence without further proof of their authenticity, since the certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.[19] To contradict facts in a notarial document and the presumption of regularity in its favor, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[20] | |||||