This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Also, the fact that the deed of absolute sale executed by Emigdio in favor of Mervir Realty was a notarized instrument did not sufficiently justify the exclusion from the inventory of the properties involved. A notarized deed of sale only enjoyed the presumption of regularity in favor of its execution, but its notarization did not per se guarantee the legal efficacy of the transaction under the deed, and what the contents purported to be. The presumption of regularity could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[32] As the Court has observed in Suntay v. Court of Appeals:[33] | |||||
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity accorded by law to notarized documents. While indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.[27] As earlier discussed, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[28] The presumption cannot be made to apply to the present case because the regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings below where its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of witnesses who testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned document was supposedly executed. The trial and appellate courts were unanimous in giving credence to the testimonies of these witnesses. The Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[29] The reason for this is that the trial court was in a better position to do so, because it heard the witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[30] | |||||