Lawyerly

GR No. 180284

2013-09-11

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As to the Baptismal Certificate[29] (Exhibit "B") of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child's paternity.[30]

GR No. 170023

2009-11-27

KINGS PROPERTIES CORPORATION v. CANUTO A. GALIDO

CARPIO, J.

Petitioner alleges that the deed of sale is a forgery. The Eniceo heirs also claimed in their answer that the deed of sale is fake and spurious.[42] However, as correctly held by the CA, forgery can never be presumed. The party alleging forgery is mandated to prove it with clear and convincing evidence.[43] Whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving it. In this case, petitioner and the Eniceo heirs failed to discharge this burden.

GR No. 168263

2008-07-21

SPS. EDGARDO AND NATIVIDAD FIDEL v. ESPINELI

QUISUMBING, J.

While respondents' principal action was for the annulment of the sale and not an action to impugn one's legitimacy and that one's legitimacy can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, it is necessary to pass upon the relationship of respondents to the deceased Vicente for the purpose of determining what legal rights respondents have in the property. In fact, the issue of whether or not respondents are heirs of Vicente was squarely raised by petitioners in their Pre-Trial Brief[11] filed on April 26, 1995, before the trial court, hence they are now estopped from assailing the trial court's ruling on respondents' status. In the similar case of Fernandez v. Fernandez,[12] the Supreme Court held:It must be noted that the respondents' principal action was for the declaration of absolute nullity of two documents, namely: deed of extra-judicial partition and deed of absolute sale, and not an action to impugn one's legitimacy. The respondent court ruled on the filiation of petitioner Rodolfo Fernandez in order to determine Rodolfo's right to the deed of extra-judicial partition as the alleged legitimate heir of the spouses Fernandez. While we are aware that one's legitimacy can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, this doctrine has no application in the instant case considering that respondents' claim was that petitioner Rodolfo was not born to the deceased spouses Jose and Generosa Fernandez; we do not have a situation wherein they (respondents) deny that Rodolfo was a child of their uncle's wife. . . .

GR NO. 160729

2007-07-27

JOSEFINA COGTONG v. KYORITSU INTERNATIONAL

QUISUMBING, J.

Furthermore, the Court has held in a number of cases that forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence,[21] and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same,[22] a burden which petitioner failed to discharge convincingly. Here, petitioner failed to override the evidentiary value of the duly notarized deed of REM and promissory note. As a notarized document, the deed of REM and promissory note enjoy the presumption of due execution. However, no evidence was presented by petitioner to overcome this presumption. Other than her own declaration that her signatures on the questioned documents were forged and the prayer booklets which she presented during trial, petitioner presented no other proof to corroborate her claim. Such an allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized document's presumption of due execution. Hence, this Court cannot accept the claim of forgery in the absence of other witnesses, save for petitioner herself, who would testify that petitioner's signatures on the prayer booklets are in fact her customary way of signing.

GR NO. 165644

2006-02-28

MANUEL B. ALORIA v. ESTRELLITA B. CLEMENTE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As noted earlier, respondent denied in her Answer having participated in the preparation of Exh. "D" basis of the cancellation of petitioner's title and the issuance in its stead of her title. Forgery, however, "cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same." [57]

GR NO. 159467

2005-12-09

SPS. NORA SAGUID AND ROLANDO P. SAGUID v. SECURITY FINANCE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that consideration[28] exists and is lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary.[29] Moreover, under Section 3(r) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed that there is a sufficient consideration for a contract. The presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no consideration.[30] To overcome the presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence.[31]

GR NO. 151333

2005-09-20

SPS. NATALIO AND FELICIDAD SALONGA v. SPS. MANUEL AND NENITA CONCEPCION AND FLORENCIA REALTY CORPORATION

The respondents likewise failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that respondent Manuel Concepcion's signature on the undertaking is a forgery. The bare claim that the signature on the note purporting to be that of the respondent is a forgery is not sufficient. It bears stressing that forgery is not presumed. Forgery must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.[53] The fact that respondent Manuel Concepcion signed the note on March 10, 1993, before the petitioners executed the said deeds of absolute sale in August and October 1993, does not militate against the probative weight thereof. The petitioners had only 60 days from January 1993 within which to repay the respondents from the proceeds of the sale; however, the petitioners failed to sell their property and repay the respondents. When the respondents pressed the petitioners for the payment of their account, the latter agreed to execute deeds of absolute sale by the petitioners over the property, with the agreement not to present the said deed to the Office of the Register of Deeds for registration. However, despite their written undertaking to the contrary, the respondents filed the August 31 and October 18, 1993 Deeds of Sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds and registered the same.

GR NO. 162371

2005-08-25

MARY HELEN ESTRADA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Nevertheless, in this case, records reveal that the trial court sent out notices to petitioner and her counsel. In a Resolution dated September 30, 2002, the CA required the Office of the Solicitor General to submit proof of service on petitioner and her counsel of the RTC's Order dated March 31, 1997 setting the date for reception of evidence on May 14, 1997; the Order dated May 14, 1997 considering petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence in her defense in view of the fact that she has jumped bail; and the RTC Decision dated July 2, 1997. On December 20, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted such proof of service. Thus, in its Decision promulgated on October 28, 2003, the CA made the factual finding that petitioner and her counsel were indeed duly served with copies of the assailed RTC orders and decision at the addresses they submitted to the trial court. Factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.[11] As held in Morandarte vs. Court of Appeals,[12] "inquiry upon the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusion is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts."

GR NO. 150736

2005-04-29

VIRGILIO MACASPAC v. RUPERTO PUYAT

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Moreover, defendant-appellant herein is already a holder of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award. The logical conclusion would be in favor of the continuous possession of appellant Virgilio Macaspac, who, having been found to be in actual possession and cultivation of the landholding, was accordingly issued a CLOA covering the same.[18] We agree with the DARAB. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns,[19] private transactions are presumed fair and regular and that ordinary course of business has been followed.[20] Moreover, in Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals,[21] the Court held that forgery cannot be presumed. A public document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Thus, he who alleges forgery must prove the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence.[23]

GR No. 158015

2004-08-11

LAURA v. CA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Besides, a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[19] The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld.

	GR No. 180284 2013-09-11	NARCISO SALAS v. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the Baptismal Certificate[29] (Exhibit "B") of Christian Paulo Salas also indicating petitioner as the father, we have ruled that while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child's paternity.[30]
	GR No. 170023 2009-11-27	KINGS PROPERTIES CORPORATION v. CANUTO A. GALIDO CARPIO, J.
Petitioner alleges that the deed of sale is a forgery. The Eniceo heirs also claimed in their answer that the deed of sale is fake and spurious.[42] However, as correctly held by the CA, forgery can never be presumed. The party alleging forgery is mandated to prove it with clear and convincing evidence.[43] Whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving it. In this case, petitioner and the Eniceo heirs failed to discharge this burden.
	GR No. 168263 2008-07-21	SPS. EDGARDO AND NATIVIDAD FIDEL v. ESPINELI QUISUMBING, J.
While respondents' principal action was for the annulment of the sale and not an action to impugn one's legitimacy and that one's legitimacy can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, it is necessary to pass upon the relationship of respondents to the deceased Vicente for the purpose of determining what legal rights respondents have in the property. In fact, the issue of whether or not respondents are heirs of Vicente was squarely raised by petitioners in their Pre-Trial Brief[11] filed on April 26, 1995, before the trial court, hence they are now estopped from assailing the trial court's ruling on respondents' status. In the similar case of Fernandez v. Fernandez,[12] the Supreme Court held:It must be noted that the respondents' principal action was for the declaration of absolute nullity of two documents, namely: deed of extra-judicial partition and deed of absolute sale, and not an action to impugn one's legitimacy. The respondent court ruled on the filiation of petitioner Rodolfo Fernandez in order to determine Rodolfo's right to the deed of extra-judicial partition as the alleged legitimate heir of the spouses Fernandez. While we are aware that one's legitimacy can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, this doctrine has no application in the instant case considering that respondents' claim was that petitioner Rodolfo was not born to the deceased spouses Jose and Generosa Fernandez; we do not have a situation wherein they (respondents) deny that Rodolfo was a child of their uncle's wife. . . .
	GR NO. 160729 2007-07-27	JOSEFINA COGTONG v. KYORITSU INTERNATIONAL QUISUMBING, J.
Furthermore, the Court has held in a number of cases that forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence,[21] and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same,[22] a burden which petitioner failed to discharge convincingly. Here, petitioner failed to override the evidentiary value of the duly notarized deed of REM and promissory note. As a notarized document, the deed of REM and promissory note enjoy the presumption of due execution. However, no evidence was presented by petitioner to overcome this presumption. Other than her own declaration that her signatures on the questioned documents were forged and the prayer booklets which she presented during trial, petitioner presented no other proof to corroborate her claim. Such an allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized document's presumption of due execution. Hence, this Court cannot accept the claim of forgery in the absence of other witnesses, save for petitioner herself, who would testify that petitioner's signatures on the prayer booklets are in fact her customary way of signing.
	GR NO. 165644 2006-02-28	MANUEL B. ALORIA v. ESTRELLITA B. CLEMENTE CARPIO MORALES, J.
As noted earlier, respondent denied in her Answer having participated in the preparation of Exh. "D" basis of the cancellation of petitioner's title and the issuance in its stead of her title. Forgery, however, "cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same." [57]
	GR NO. 159467 2005-12-09	SPS. NORA SAGUID AND ROLANDO P. SAGUID v. SECURITY FINANCE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under Article 1354 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that consideration[28] exists and is lawful unless the debtor proves the contrary.[29] Moreover, under Section 3(r) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed that there is a sufficient consideration for a contract. The presumption that a contract has sufficient consideration cannot be overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no consideration.[30] To overcome the presumption of consideration, the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence.[31]
	GR NO. 151333 2005-09-20	SPS. NATALIO AND FELICIDAD SALONGA v. SPS. MANUEL AND NENITA CONCEPCION AND FLORENCIA REALTY CORPORATION
The respondents likewise failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence that respondent Manuel Concepcion's signature on the undertaking is a forgery. The bare claim that the signature on the note purporting to be that of the respondent is a forgery is not sufficient. It bears stressing that forgery is not presumed. Forgery must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.[53] The fact that respondent Manuel Concepcion signed the note on March 10, 1993, before the petitioners executed the said deeds of absolute sale in August and October 1993, does not militate against the probative weight thereof. The petitioners had only 60 days from January 1993 within which to repay the respondents from the proceeds of the sale; however, the petitioners failed to sell their property and repay the respondents. When the respondents pressed the petitioners for the payment of their account, the latter agreed to execute deeds of absolute sale by the petitioners over the property, with the agreement not to present the said deed to the Office of the Register of Deeds for registration. However, despite their written undertaking to the contrary, the respondents filed the August 31 and October 18, 1993 Deeds of Sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds and registered the same.
	GR NO. 162371 2005-08-25	MARY HELEN ESTRADA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nevertheless, in this case, records reveal that the trial court sent out notices to petitioner and her counsel. In a Resolution dated September 30, 2002, the CA required the Office of the Solicitor General to submit proof of service on petitioner and her counsel of the RTC's Order dated March 31, 1997 setting the date for reception of evidence on May 14, 1997; the Order dated May 14, 1997 considering petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence in her defense in view of the fact that she has jumped bail; and the RTC Decision dated July 2, 1997. On December 20, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted such proof of service. Thus, in its Decision promulgated on October 28, 2003, the CA made the factual finding that petitioner and her counsel were indeed duly served with copies of the assailed RTC orders and decision at the addresses they submitted to the trial court. Factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.[11] As held in Morandarte vs. Court of Appeals,[12] "inquiry upon the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusion is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts."
	GR NO. 150736 2005-04-29	VIRGILIO MACASPAC v. RUPERTO PUYAT CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, defendant-appellant herein is already a holder of a Certificate of Land Ownership Award. The logical conclusion would be in favor of the continuous possession of appellant Virgilio Macaspac, who, having been found to be in actual possession and cultivation of the landholding, was accordingly issued a CLOA covering the same.[18] We agree with the DARAB. A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns,[19] private transactions are presumed fair and regular and that ordinary course of business has been followed.[20] Moreover, in Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals,[21] the Court held that forgery cannot be presumed. A public document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Thus, he who alleges forgery must prove the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence.[23]
	GR No. 158015 2004-08-11	LAURA v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Besides, a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[19] The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld.

RODOLFO FERNANDEZ v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ