This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, Reyes and Evangelista strongly deny having signed the PDAF documents and insist that they did not participate in the preparation or execution thereof. Mere denial is insufficient, however, to disprove the authenticity of their signatures appearing in the PDAF documents.[183] This holds true especially in Evangelista’s case. The MOAs bearing his questioned signatures are notarized documents that enjoy the presumption of regularity and can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[184] | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The aforesaid medical reports/evaluations/certifications of different doctors in favor of petitioner cannot be given probative value and their contents cannot be deemed to constitute proof of the facts stated therein. It must be stressed that a document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein.[95] In the same vein, the medical certificate which was identified and interpreted in court by another doctor was not accorded probative value because the doctor who prepared it was not presented for its identification. Similarly, in this case, since the doctors who examined petitioner were not presented to testify on their findings, the medical certificates issued on their behalf and identified by another doctor cannot be admitted as evidence. Since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it cannot be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications.[96] Thus, an unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the right and opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as a witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to question its contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and of no probative value.[97] | |||||
|
2011-04-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing, as aptly argued by petitioners, the following circumstances would show that the alleged deed of sale was spurious: First, Cruz never took action to possess the property from 1959 to 1980; Second, even after the supposed sale, Tamani was continuously declaring the land in his name for taxation purposes and paid the taxes due thereon; any reasonable person who had sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to pay real property taxes on the same; Last, the land was allegedly sold to Cruz for P2,500.00 in 1959 and yet twenty-one years (21) after, Cruz sold the land to respondents for the same amount of P2,500.00. One who alleges forgery has the burden of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[38] Based on the preceding discussion, this Court finds that petitioners have satisfactorily discharged such burden. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court has consistently ruled that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[55] The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.[56] The reason being, that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.[57] Thus, considering that Lucia continuously possessed the subject lot, her right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over her title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court has consistently ruled that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[55] The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.[56] The reason being, that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.[57] Thus, considering that Lucia continuously possessed the subject lot, her right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over her title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations. | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar[22] in the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook. [23] The certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of public documents.[24] The certifications are conclusions unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no probative value. [25] Certainly, the certifications cannot be considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Generally, it has been held that handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting.[48] Yet without Varona's testimony, the Court is hard-pressed to find any other basis on the record to establish the forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[49] Aside from the opinion of the handwriting expert which this Court finds inconsequential, the bare assertions on the part of respondent Cecilia Bagano that the signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale is not that of her husband is not enough. No additional witnesses were presented. | |||||