Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIO J. MENDEZONA v. JULIO H. OZAMIZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169472 2009-01-20	FRANCISCO LANDICHO v. FELIX SIA PUNO, C.J.
The petitioners also failed to support their claim that the Aragons took advantage of Francisco's old age and illiteracy and employed fraudulent schemes in order to deceive him into signing the Kasulatan. It has been held that "[a] person is not incapacitated to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities. It is only when such age or infirmities impair the mental faculties to such extent as to prevent one from properly, intelligently, and fairly protecting her property rights, is she considered incapacitated."[76]
	GR NO. 155208 2007-03-27	NENA LAZALITA TATING v. FELICIDAD MARCELLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, even if Daniela's affidavit of June 9, 1983 is disregarded, the fact remains that private respondents failed to prove by clear, strong and convincing evidence beyond mere preponderance of evidence[37] that the contract of sale between Daniela and petitioner was simulated. The legal presumption is in favor of the validity of contracts and the party who impugns its regularity has the burden of proving its simulation.[38] Since private respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving their allegation that the contract of sale between petitioner and Daniela was simulated, the presumption of regularity and validity of the October 14, 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale stands.
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.[32] As Judge Limpkin of Georgia once said, "I would sooner trust the smallest slip of paper for truth than the strongest and most retentive memory ever bestowed on mortal man."[33] Indeed, spoken words could be notoriously unreliable as against a written document that speaks a uniform language.[34]
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 16, 1957, executed by Modesta and Concordia, the rule is settled that the notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity[35] and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[36] A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[37] and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[38] It must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law.[39] In this case, respondents failed to present such required proof.
	GR NO. 145017 2005-01-28	DR. JOSE v. FAUSTINO ARCIAGA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears emphasis that a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its execution.[19]
	GR No. 146222 2004-01-15	ERLINDA DELA CRUZ v. FORTUNATO DELA CRUZ QUISUMBING, J.
The Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 25, 1980 was duly acknowledged before a notary public. As a notarized document, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[22]
	GR Nos. 150820-21 2003-04-30	SPS. ANTONIO AND GENOVEVA BALANON-ANICETE AND SPS. ANDRES AND FILOMENA BALANON-MANANQUIL v. PEDRO BALANON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the issue of whether petitioner's occupancy of the premises was by mere tolerance of respondent, suffice it to state that this has been settled by the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the issue boils down to a question of fact, which is beyond the province of this Court. Factual findings of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court which is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[12]