This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.[36] Further, under Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular.[37] This behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs and delivers it.[38] The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.[39] In this case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also, respondent's possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly buttresses her claim that the same has not been extinguished.[40] Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be greater or more convincing than the opposing evidence.[41] All things considered, the evidence in this case clearly preponderates in respondent's favor. | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The agreement or contract between the parties is the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations.[7] It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties.[8] Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[9] Furthermore, it is a cardinal rule that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall control.[10] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner is an experienced businesswoman. She doubtlessly dealt with numerous documents, and is therefore presumed to know the import thereof. It cannot be further emphasized that it behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of an instrument before signing and agreeing to it.[28] | |||||