Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS v. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182650 2012-02-27	TOMAS K. CHUA v. WESTMONT BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The court has held that one who denies the due execution of a deed where one's signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act.[21] We have also held that a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22]
	GR No. 164402 2010-07-05	ASUNCION URIETA VDA. DE AGUILAR v. SPS. EDERLINA B. ALFARO AND RAUL ALFARO DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review on certiorari.[15] It is settled that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[16] This rule, however, is subject to a number of exceptions,[17] one of which is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court, like in the present case.
	GR No. 176917 2009-08-04	CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. v. FILIPINAS NACHURA, J.
The resolution of these cases calls for a re-examination of facts. While generally, the Court is not a trier of facts, a recognized exception thereto is a situation where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are conflicting.[23]
	GR No. 164968 2009-07-03	GLORIA OCAMPO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
It is well settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. In addition, one who denies the due execution of a deed where one's signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act.[43] We have also held that a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[44]
	GR No. 161027 2009-06-22	FRANCISCO G. CALMA v. ARSENIO SANTOS NACHURA, J.
However, the other conveyances covered by the deeds of absolute sale and the receipts of payment in favor of petitioner involving the shares of the Santos siblings in their own right cannot be voided. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides that "(e)ach co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved...." Thus, the co-owners, being owners of their respective aliquots or undivided shares in the subject property, can validly and legally dispose of their shares even without the consent of all the other co-heirs.[33] Accordingly, the vendors, co-heirs of respondents, should return whatever amount they received from petitioner corresponding to the 1/2 share of Celestino, which they were supposed to have inherited and sold to petitioner, had Celestino not disposed of this 1/2 share to respondent Arsenio. Moreover, Dominador and Leticia, who both have not yet executed the appropriate deeds of absolute sale despite receipt of the purchase price for their respective shares, must now execute the proper deeds of absolute sale, but only with respect to the shares they own in their own right.
	AM No. RTJ-06-1973 2008-03-14	ASUNCION REYES v. JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is basic that the active participation of a party in a case pending against him before a court is tantamount to recognition of that court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case which will bar said party from later on impugning the court's jurisdiction. While it is true that failure to comply with a condition precedent can be a basis for dismissing an action, the defendant must raise such matter in a motion to dismiss and not file an answer and actively participate in the trial of the case; otherwise, he shall be deemed to have waived said defense.[39]