Lawyerly

GR No. 154390

2014-03-17

METROPOLITAN FABRICS v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC.

BERSAMIN, J.

The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged before notary public Atty. Noemi Ferrer.[20] As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[21] and had in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Hence, it was admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[23] To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be upheld.[24]

GR No. 169055

2012-02-22

SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Article 1345[19] of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be absolute or relative. In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties.[20] As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract. However, if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real agreement, the contract is only relatively simulated and the parties are still bound by their real agreement. Hence, where the essential requisites of a contract are present and the simulation refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is absolutely binding and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest.[21]

GR NO. 160132

2009-04-17

NARANJA v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Petitioners adduced no proof that Roque had lost control of his mental faculties at the time of the sale. Undue influence is not to be inferred from age, sickness, or debility of body, if sufficient intelligence remains.[27] The evidence presented pertained more to Roque's physical condition rather than his mental condition. On the contrary, Atty. Sanicas, the notary public, attested that Roque was very healthy and mentally sound and sharp at the time of the execution of the deed of sale. Atty. Sanicas said that Roque also told him that he was a Law graduate.[28]

AC. NO. 7214

2006-11-30

AILEEN A. FERANCULLO v. ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO

The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of its contents.[36] The marriage certificate plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between respondent and complainant on 4 August 2004, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. The marriage certificate should prevail over respondent's claim that the marriage certificate or his signature therein was falsified. The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[37]

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. 160843

2006-07-11

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MARIA G. LAGON

QUISUMBING, J.

We have held in prior cases that generally, a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents,[9] and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[10] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[11]

GR NO. 152658

2005-08-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

In contrast, a contract with inadequate consideration may nevertheless embody a true agreement between the parties. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of minds of the parties on the price and the object of the sale.[30] The concept of a simulated sale is thus incompatible with inadequacy of price. When the parties agree on a price as the actual consideration, the sale is not simulated despite the inadequacy of the price.[31]

GR No. 152658

2005-07-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

In contrast, a contract with inadequate consideration may nevertheless embody a true agreement between the parties. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of minds of the parties on the price and the object of the sale.[30] The concept of a simulated sale is thus incompatible with inadequacy of price. When the parties agree on a price as the actual consideration, the sale is not simulated despite the inadequacy of the price.[31]

AC. No. 5858

2003-12-11

ROGELIO R. SANTOS v. ATTY. RODOLFO C. BELTRAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[16] In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert the said presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the quantum of evidence shows that complainant's siblings appeared before the respondent as notary public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and Benito Santos in their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita is admissible only against them.[17] Likewise, we find the allegation of the complainant that it was physically impossible for his siblings to sign the document untenable. The certifications issued by the BID that the complainant's siblings were absent at the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation is not absolute. There are many ports of entry which complainant's siblings may have used in coming into the country. The possibility that complainant's siblings executed and signed the Deed is not remote. The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and the date when complainant's siblings obtained their CTCs had been substantially explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law office, Mely Lachica.

GR No. 127540

2001-10-17

EUGENIO DOMINGO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

In the present case, at the time of the execution of the alleged contract, Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. She died an octogenarian on March 20, 1966, barely over a year when the deed was allegedly executed on January 28, 1965, but before copies of the deed were entered in the registry allegedly on May 16 and June 10, 1966. The general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities.[27] However, when such age or infirmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently, and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably incapacitated. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima Domingo shows that at the time of the alleged execution of the deed, Paulina was already incapacitated physically and mentally. She narrated that Paulina played with her waste and urinated in bed. Given these circumstances, there is in our view sufficient reason to seriously doubt that she consented to the sale of and the price for her parcels of land. Moreover, there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received by her. Thus, we are in agreement with the trial court's finding and conclusion on the matter: The whole evidence on record does not show clearly that the fictitious P850.00 consideration was ever delivered to the vendor. Undisputably, the P850.00 consideration for the nine (9) parcels of land including the house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate, and the sale is null and void ab initio.[28]

GR No. 125935

2000-11-29

CARMELITA P. BASILIO v. CA

PARDO, J.

The deed of sale dated March 19, 1987, was executed by Dionisio Z. Basilio in favor of spouses Zablan, and notarized by Atty. Ruben Silvestre. Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[12] However, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[13] Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[14]

	GR No. 154390 2014-03-17	METROPOLITAN FABRICS v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC. BERSAMIN, J.
The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged before notary public Atty. Noemi Ferrer.[20] As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[21] and had in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Hence, it was admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[23] To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be upheld.[24]
	GR No. 169055 2012-02-22	SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Article 1345[19] of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be absolute or relative. In absolute simulation, there is a colorable contract but it has no substance as the parties have no intention to be bound by it. The main characteristic of an absolute simulation is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effect or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties.[20] As a result, an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract. However, if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real agreement, the contract is only relatively simulated and the parties are still bound by their real agreement. Hence, where the essential requisites of a contract are present and the simulation refers only to the content or terms of the contract, the agreement is absolutely binding and enforceable between the parties and their successors in interest.[21]
	GR NO. 160132 2009-04-17	NARANJA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Petitioners adduced no proof that Roque had lost control of his mental faculties at the time of the sale. Undue influence is not to be inferred from age, sickness, or debility of body, if sufficient intelligence remains.[27] The evidence presented pertained more to Roque's physical condition rather than his mental condition. On the contrary, Atty. Sanicas, the notary public, attested that Roque was very healthy and mentally sound and sharp at the time of the execution of the deed of sale. Atty. Sanicas said that Roque also told him that he was a Law graduate.[28]
	AC. NO. 7214 2006-11-30	AILEEN A. FERANCULLO v. ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO
The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of its contents.[36] The marriage certificate plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between respondent and complainant on 4 August 2004, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. The marriage certificate should prevail over respondent's claim that the marriage certificate or his signature therein was falsified. The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[37]
	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. 160843 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MARIA G. LAGON QUISUMBING, J.
We have held in prior cases that generally, a notarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents,[9] and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[10] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.[11]
	GR NO. 152658 2005-08-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
In contrast, a contract with inadequate consideration may nevertheless embody a true agreement between the parties. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of minds of the parties on the price and the object of the sale.[30] The concept of a simulated sale is thus incompatible with inadequacy of price. When the parties agree on a price as the actual consideration, the sale is not simulated despite the inadequacy of the price.[31]
	GR No. 152658 2005-07-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
In contrast, a contract with inadequate consideration may nevertheless embody a true agreement between the parties. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of minds of the parties on the price and the object of the sale.[30] The concept of a simulated sale is thus incompatible with inadequacy of price. When the parties agree on a price as the actual consideration, the sale is not simulated despite the inadequacy of the price.[31]
	AC. No. 5858 2003-12-11	ROGELIO R. SANTOS v. ATTY. RODOLFO C. BELTRAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The rule is that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[16] In the instant case, complainant failed to controvert the said presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, the quantum of evidence shows that complainant's siblings appeared before the respondent as notary public and in fact, signed the deed. The claim of Renato and Benito Santos in their affidavit that they did not sign the document in the law office of the respondent but in their houses at Villa Benita is admissible only against them.[17] Likewise, we find the allegation of the complainant that it was physically impossible for his siblings to sign the document untenable. The certifications issued by the BID that the complainant's siblings were absent at the time of the execution of the Deed of Donation is not absolute. There are many ports of entry which complainant's siblings may have used in coming into the country. The possibility that complainant's siblings executed and signed the Deed is not remote. The discrepancy in the date stamped in the Deed and the date when complainant's siblings obtained their CTCs had been substantially explained in the affidavit executed by the secretary of the law office, Mely Lachica.
	GR No. 127540 2001-10-17	EUGENIO DOMINGO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In the present case, at the time of the execution of the alleged contract, Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. She died an octogenarian on March 20, 1966, barely over a year when the deed was allegedly executed on January 28, 1965, but before copies of the deed were entered in the registry allegedly on May 16 and June 10, 1966. The general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities.[27] However, when such age or infirmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently, and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably incapacitated. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima Domingo shows that at the time of the alleged execution of the deed, Paulina was already incapacitated physically and mentally. She narrated that Paulina played with her waste and urinated in bed. Given these circumstances, there is in our view sufficient reason to seriously doubt that she consented to the sale of and the price for her parcels of land. Moreover, there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received by her. Thus, we are in agreement with the trial court's finding and conclusion on the matter: The whole evidence on record does not show clearly that the fictitious P850.00 consideration was ever delivered to the vendor. Undisputably, the P850.00 consideration for the nine (9) parcels of land including the house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate, and the sale is null and void ab initio.[28]
	GR No. 125935 2000-11-29	CARMELITA P. BASILIO v. CA PARDO, J.
The deed of sale dated March 19, 1987, was executed by Dionisio Z. Basilio in favor of spouses Zablan, and notarized by Atty. Ruben Silvestre. Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[12] However, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[13] Furthermore, an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.[14]

RUBEN LOYOLA v. ZARRAGA