This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it"[63] since basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.[64] "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence."[65] | |||||
|
2014-09-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded by the ruling of the CA which expresses doubt on the due execution of the Contract to Sell. The fact remains that the said Contract to Sell was notarized. It is settled that absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.[20] Neither does the Court agree that the presumption of regularity accorded to the notarized Contract to Sell was overcome by evidence to the contrary. Respondent's allegation that she signed the said Contract to Sell with several blank spaces, and which allegedly did not indicate the location of the condominium, was not supported by proof. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[21] In addition, the fact that respondent made several payments prior to the execution of the subject Contract to Sell is not the kind of evidence needed to overcome such presumption of regularity. | |||||
|
2012-01-31 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It must be noted that the burden of proving bad faith rests on the one alleging it. As the Court ruled in Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications, Inc.,[5] "According to jurisprudence, `basic is the principle that good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.' " Moreover, in Spouses Palada v. Solidbank Corporation,[6] the Court stated, "Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence." | |||||