Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAN PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SALES CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187490 2012-02-08	ANTONIA R. DELA PEÑA v. GEMMA REMILYN C. AVILA PEREZ, J.
With the material contradictions in the Dela Peña's evidence, the CA cannot be faulted for upholding the validity of the impugned 4 November 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale. Having been duly notarized, said deed is a public document which carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[52] Regarded as evidence of the facts therein expressed in a clear, unequivocal manner,[53] public documents enjoy a presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.[54] The burden of proof to overcome said presumptions lies with the party contesting the notarial document[55] like the Dela Peñas who, unfortunately, failed to discharge said onus. Absent clear and convincing evidence to contradict the same, we find that the CA correctly pronounced the Deed of Absolute Sale was valid and binding between Antonia and Gemma.
	GR No. 172196 2011-10-19	ADELAIDA MENESES v. ROSARIO G. VENTUROZO PERALTA, J.
The necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code,[25] is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability.[26] As notarized documents, Deeds of Absolute Sale carry
	GR No. 170166 2011-04-06	JOE A. ROS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK - LAOAG BRANCH CARPIO, J.
The documents disavowed by Aguete are acknowledged before a notary public, hence they are public documents. Every instrument duly acknowledged and certified as provided by law may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.[18] The execution of a document that has been ratified before a notary public cannot be disproved by the mere denial of the alleged signer.[19] PNB was correct when it stated that petitioners' omission to present other positive evidence to substantiate their claim of forgery was fatal to petitioners' cause.[20] Petitioners did not present any corroborating witness, such as a handwriting expert, who could authoritatively declare that Aguete's signatures were really forged.
	GR No. 188637 2010-12-15	ARNALDO G. GABUNAS v. SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES INC. SERENO, J.
In Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[28] we held that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies in the one contesting the same.
	GR No. 162333 2008-12-22	BIENVENIDO C. TEOCO v. METROPOLITAN BANK REYES, R.T., J.
True it is that the Civil Code requires certain transactions to appear in public documents. However, the necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code, is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability.[19] Thus, in Cenido v. Apacionado,[20] this Court ruled that the only effect of noncompliance with the provisions of Article 1358 of the Civil Code is that a party to such a contract embodied in a private document may be compelled to execute a public document:Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy, so that after the existence of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the proper document. This is clear from Article 1357, viz.:
	GR No. 176448 2008-07-28	JOSE S. DAILISAN v. CA TINGA, J,
The notarized deed of absolute sale is a public document, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.[29] The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarized document lies on the party contesting such execution.
	GR No. 172167 2008-07-09	SOLEDAD E. DIZON v. RODRIGO G. TUAZON TINGA, J,
As notarized documents, the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and the Agreement of Subdivision carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarized document lies on the one contesting the same.[33]