This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-06-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Cuizon v. Remoto,[34] we held: Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents and public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. | |||||
|
2007-08-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court declared that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[29] The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the rationale for the rule being that his undisturbed possession provides him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by the one who is in possession.[30] | |||||
|
2006-11-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner invoked Cuizon v. Remoto,[13] which stated that this Court does not review findings of facts on petition for certiorari unless there are exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances are: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) where the information made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on a misapplication of facts, and the findings of the trial court and the appellate court are contradicted by the evidence on record; and (5) when certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case. However, petitioner mistakes the present petition for certiorari (also known as a special civil action for certiorari) under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for Cuizon's remedy of petition for review on certiorari (also known as appeal by certiorari) under Rule 45 of the same Rules. | |||||