This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find that the respondents' evidence and arguments fail to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the petitioner's notarized deed of absolute sale.[40] The settled rule is that a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.[41] | |||||
|
2015-09-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the subject Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale are notarized. It is well settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity.[19] It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution.[20] However, the CA correctly held that the existence and due execution of these documents are not in issue. Moreover, the presumption of truth of the facts stated in notarized documents is merely prima facie, which means that this presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.[21] Hence, the truth of the facts stated in the disputed Deed of Assignment and Transfer of Rights as well as the Deed of Absolute Sale may be rebutted by evidence. | |||||
|
2013-06-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another's name with intent to defraud."[27] It can be established by comparing the alleged false signature with the authentic or genuine one. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts whose opinions do not mandatorily bind the courts. A trial judge is not precluded but is even authorized by law[28] to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| x x x The law furnishes no protection to the inferior simply because he is inferior any more than it protects the strong because he is strong. The law furnishes protection to both alike to one no more or less than the other. It makes no distinction between the wise and the foolish, the great and the small, the strong and the weak. The foolish may lose all they have to the wise; but that does not mean that the law will give it back to them again. Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. x x x[21] | |||||
|
2011-06-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As to the RTC's finding that "the x x x bank acted in bad faith when it made it appear that the mortgage was executed by the [petitioners] on June 16, 1997, when the document was acknowledged before Atty. German, x x x when in truth and in fact, the [petitioners] executed said mortgage sometime in March, 1997 x x x," we find the same without basis. A careful perusal of the real estate mortgage contract would show that the bank did not make it appear that the real estate mortgage was executed on June 16, 1997, the same day that it was notarized, as the date of execution of the real estate mortgage contract was left blank. [41] And the mere fact that the date of execution was left blank does not prove bad faith. Besides, any irregularity in the notarization or even the lack of notarization does not affect the validity of the document. Absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents. [42] | |||||