This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity[17] but is also considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[18] A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[19] In view of the Spouses Realubit's failure to discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above-discussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies elicited from Eden[20] and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.[21] As for the Spouses' Realubit's bare assertion that Biondo's signature on the same document appears to be forged, suffice it to say that, like fraud,[22] forgery is never presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.[23] Aside from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo's signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement[24] and the Deed of Assignment,[25] said forgery is, moreover debunked by Biondo's duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden.[26] | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As between the parties' conflicting claims, we find that the CA correctly upheld the Spouses Arciaga's acquisition of the subject parcel from the BOL over Loreto's nebulous claim on the same. For one, the bare assertion of Loreto and his witnesses that he had been in the open, adverse and continuous possession of the property for over thirty years (30) is hardly the well-nigh incontrovertible evidence required for acquisition of disposable lands of the public domain. [60] Because forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence by the party alleging the same, [61] Loreto's bare denial of his signature on the 16 May 1966 document prepared by Honorio cannot, for another, expediently impugn the probative value thereof. Quite significantly, said document lends credence to the Spouses Arciaga's claim that Loreto's occupancy of the land in litigation was upon their tolerance and that of their predecessor-in-interest. Since possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another and it is not necessary for the owner or holder of the thing to personally exercise his possessory rights [62] Loreto's tolerated occupancy of the land cannot be said to have ousted the possession claimed by the Spouses Arciaga. | |||||