Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PASTOR DE JESUS v. DE JESUS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 152364 2010-04-15	ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO v. MODESTA AGUSTIN PERALTA, J.
Settled is the rule that 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.[18] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[19]
	GR No. 127327 2009-02-13	LIBERATA AMBITO v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[43]
	GR No. 167884 2009-01-20	ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. SPS. CLEMENTE APELES AND LUZ APELES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While it is true that a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity, this presumption, however, is not absolute. It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[20] Enrico himself admitted that Luz took the document and had it notarized without his presence. Such fact alone overcomes the presumption of regularity since a notary public is enjoined not to notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
	GR No. 169712 2008-03-14	MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[41]
	AM No. 06-6-340-RTC 2007-10-17	RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC PER CURIAM
In De Jesus v. Court of Appeals,[61] the Court held that resort to handwriting experts is dispensable in cases involving comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery does not entirely depend on the testimony of a handwriting expert because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in arriving at a conclusion on its authenticity. Resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory especially when, as in this case, the dissimilarity is so obvious.