This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Here, the former spouses both agree that they acquired the subject property during the subsistence of their marriage. Thus, it shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be jointly owned by them in equal shares. Barrido, however, claims that the ownership over the property in question is already vested on their children, by virtue of a Deed of Sale. But aside from the title to the property still being registered in the names of the former spouses, said document of sale does not bear a notarization of a notary public. It must be noted that without the notarial seal, a document remains to be private and cannot be converted into a public document,[21] making it inadmissible in evidence unless properly authenticated.[22] Unfortunately, Barrido failed to prove its due execution and authenticity. In fact, she merely annexed said Deed of Sale to her position paper. Therefore, the subject property remains to be owned in common by Nonato and Barrido, which should be divided in accordance with the rules on co-ownership. | |||||
|
2014-04-21 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| It would have been so simple for the defense to reiterate its former objection, this time seasonably, when the formal offer of exhibits was made. It is curious that it did not, especially so since the objections to the formal offer of exhibits was made in writing. In fact, the defense filed no objection at all not only to the photocopies but to all the other exhibits of the prosecution.[18] (Emphases supplied) | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness.[15] Thus, the RTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary. | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The statements of account which Tan adduced in evidence before the MTCC indubitably are private documents. Considering that these documents do not fall among the aforementioned exceptions, the MTCC could not admit the same as evidence against Otero without the required authentication thereof pursuant to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed, or that the document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress.[25] | |||||