This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In a Decision[10] dated February 28, 2001, the RTC granted petitioner's application for the registration of the subject lots. It found that petitioner was able to substantiate its bona fide claim of ownership over the subject lots as it was shown, inter alia, that: (a) petitioner purchased Lot No. 1298 from its previous owner, Pio Benito Aguado, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 23, 1995, while Lot No. 1315 was purchased from its previous owner, Glenn Manipis, as per Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 2, 1995; (b) petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest have been in open, peaceful, continuous, public, and uninterrupted possession of the subject lots even before 1945; and (c) the subject lots had already been declared for taxation purposes under the name of petitioner and the corresponding realty taxes have been equally paid by it.[11] Finding petitioner's application to be well-founded and fully substantiated by evidence sufficient under the law, the RTC directed the registration of the subject lots in favor of petitioner and the issuance of the corresponding decree by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) upon finality of its decision.[12] | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There is, however, a known exception to the above-mentioned rules, that is, when a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at that time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him.[27] Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration.[28] Thus, if it can be proven that respondent, at the time of the institution of the proceedings before the RTC, had knowledge of the sale between petitioners and Benito, the same would be considered equivalent to registration as to him. As far as petitioners are concerned, however, other than their bare allegation that respondent was aware of the sale of the subject property to them by Benito, the records of the case show no evidentiary proof that respondent had knowledge of such transaction prior to the institution of the proceedings before the RTC. | |||||
|
2008-09-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court has invariably ruled that in case of conflict between a vendee and an attaching creditor, an attaching creditor who registers the order of attachment and the sale of the property to him as the highest bidder acquires a valid title to the property as against a vendee who had previously bought the same property from the same owner but who failed to register his deed of sale. This is because registration is the operative act that binds or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned. It is upon registration that there is notice to the whole world. But where a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest, as here, which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him.[12] Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration.[13] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| We have, time and again, held that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint (Salcedo v. Caguioa[5]). Here, complainant Ricardo claimed that respondent Baldazo falsified the Deed of Donation in question on the basis of the presumption that Teofista was too weak and incapable of executing said deed on the same day that she died. The CA, however, noted that the deed was a public document having been duly notarized by Notary Public Santiago Lindayan. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, citing earlier cases:[6] | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be noted that the sale by Placida to Angel is evidenced by a duly notarized deed of sale. Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents and public documents are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[15] Petitioners failed to present any clear and convincing evidence to prove that the deed of sale is "void, fictitious, unenforceable and has no legal effect." | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Hence, we apply the rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution. They have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[21] The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies on the one contesting the same. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. | |||||
|
2003-06-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. To assail the authenticity and due execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[24] Otherwise the authenticity and due execution of the document should be upheld.[25] The trial court itself held that "(n)o countervailing proof was adduced by plaintiffs to overcome or impugn the document's legality or its validity."[26] | |||||