This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Public instruments are evidence of the facts that gave rise to their execution and are to be considered as containing all the terms of the agreement.[49] While a notarized document enjoys this presumption, "the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents."[50] The presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[51] | |||||
|
2004-09-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Fourth, in its Answer,[85] petitioner failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the Receipt/Agreement, which is thus deemed admitted.[86] Indeed, before a private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved. However, after it has been offered, failure to deny it under oath[87] amounts to its admissibility.[88] The "party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority;[89] that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, x x x which it lacks, are waived by him."[90] The Receipt/Agreement is thus an instrument that is admittedly not "spurious, counterfeit or of different import on its face from the one executed."[91] | |||||
|
2001-02-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention has no merit. The admission of the due execution and genuineness of a document simply means that "the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him."[29] In another case, we held that "When the law makes use of the phrase `genuineness and due execution of the instrument' it means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face from the one executed."[30] It is equally true, however, that | |||||