This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-27 |
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] | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
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] | |||||