Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182908 2014-08-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements.[45] While implied trusts may be proven by oral evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with extreme caution, and should not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations. Trustworthy evidence is required because oral evidence can easily be fabricated.[46]
	GR No. 149193 2011-04-04	RICARDO B. BANGAYAN v. RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION SERENO, J.
Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one, renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity, and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. [107] However, the irregular notarization or, for that matter, the lack of notarization does not necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the document. [108]
	GR NO. 160132 2009-04-17	NARANJA v. CA NACHURA, J.
A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity. It must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law.[23]
	GR No. 151153 2007-12-10	SPS. CHARLITO COJA AND ANNIE MESA COJA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Upon the death of Lorenza, the conjugal partnership was terminated. As a result, one half of the property was automatically reserved in favor of the surviving spouse, Feliciano Sr. as his share in the conjugal partnership. The other half, which is the share of Lorenza, was transmitted to Lorenza's heirs, Feliciano Jr., Luz, and her husband Feliciano Sr., who is entitled to the same share as that of a legitimate child.[37]
	GR NO. 162864 2007-03-28	SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO v. CA TINGA, J.
We reassert that forgery is not presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it.[50] Respondents failed to substantiate with sufficient evidence their claim that their signatures appearing on the deed of sale were forged.