This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Certainly telling are the Pagpapatunay and the Sinumpaang Salaysay which were voluntarily executed and never impugned by the spouses Andal. Both contain express declarations that at the time Irene and her husband bought the property, the tenancy then existing between the heirs of Teresita as former owners and the spouses Andal as tenants had already ceased, and that no tenancy relations would continue between the latter and the new owner, Irene. Notably, the Sinumpaang Salaysay, being a public document, is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[40] The spouses Andal are bound by their admissions against their own interest. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The information in Criminal Case No. 00-1879 specifically alleged that AAA was a minor at the time she was raped and that the offender, Dionisio, is her guardian. During the trial, the prosecution proved the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship through documentary and testimonial evidence.[43] As shown in her Certificate of Live Birth, AAA was born on September 3, 1989. Therefore, at the time the rape was committed on October 9, 2000, she was 11 years old. Her relationship to Dionisio was likewise proved by the testimonies of AAA, BBB and all three accused. Dionisio's defense that he and BBB merely simulated AAA's Certificate of Live Birth should not be given credence since a Certificate of Live Birth is a public document[44] which has in its favor the presumption of regularity. Thus, he who alleges forgery must prove the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2007-06-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that respondents cannot use the Affidavit of Acknowledgment signed by Anita and her mother as Anita was misled in signing it. A question involving the due execution of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment would require an inquiry into the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, a matter which this Court cannot do in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[11] The truth or falsehood of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment is a question of fact, of which this Court cannot take cognizance.[12] Moreover, the Affidavit of Acknowledgment, being a notarized document, enjoys the presumption of regularity.[13] Petitioners' mere allegation that Anita was misled by her mother into signing the affidavit could not overcome this presumption. | |||||