Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARMELITA P. BASILIO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 160843 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MARIA G. LAGON 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]
	GR NO. 125283 2006-02-10	PAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SALES CO. v. CA TINGA, J.
A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and it has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies on the one contesting the same. Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[34]
	GR No. 151035 2004-06-03	ANDREA MAYOR v. LOURDES MASANGKAY Y BELEN YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Concededly, both the Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan and the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan are public documents and there is no dispute that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. In addition, documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity. However, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[11] The presumption cannot be made to apply in this case because the regularity in the execution of the documents were challenged in the proceedings below where their prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances pointed out by both trial and appellate courts. Furthermore, notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document. Indeed, as stated by the Supreme Court in Nazareno v. CA:[12]