Lawyerly

GR No. 177616

2014-08-27

HEIRS OF SPS. JOAQUIN MANGUARDIA and SUSANA MANALO v. HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO VALLES and MARTA VALLES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Time and again, this Court has reiterated that it is not a trier of facts. Well entrenched is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.[56] The Court's "role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court."[57] This rule, however, is not without well defined exceptions. "Findings of fact of the trial court and the CA may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts."[58] Considering the contention of petitioners that misinterpretation of facts was committed, this Court embarked on the task of reviewing the facts of this case.

GR Nos. 173090-91

2011-09-07

UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. RODOLFO T. TIU AND VICTORIA N. TIU

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

As pointed out by the trial court, the Restructuring Agreement, being notarized, is a public document enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption.[76] The spouses Tiu, who attested before the notary public that the Restructuring Agreement "is their own free and voluntary act and deed,"[77] failed to present sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. It is difficult to believe that the spouses Tiu, veteran businessmen who operate a multi-million peso company, would sign a very important document without fully understanding its contents and consequences.

GR No. 171497

2011-04-04

MARIA LOURDES TAMANI v. ROMAN SALVADOR

PERALTA, J.

The deed of sale may have been notarized and it is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein.[39] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution,[40] and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.[41] Nonetheless, given the highly questionable circumstances present in the case at bar such prima facie presumption was properly put in dispute.

GR No. 169548

2010-03-15

TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MANUEL A. DAVID

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein.[38] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution[39] and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.[40] However, such clear and convincing evidence is present here. While it is true that the SPA was notarized, it is no less true that there were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. Curiously, the details of Manuel's Community Tax Certificate are conspicuously absent, yet Martha's are complete. The absence of Manuel's data supports his claim that he did not execute the same and that his signature thereon is a forgery. Moreover, we have Manuel's positive testimony that he never signed the SPA, in addition to the expert testimony that the signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuel's true signature.

GR No. 185477

2009-12-04

HERMINIO M. GUTIERREZ v. FLORA MENDOZA-PLAZA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioners seem to have overlooked the fact that the deed of donation inter vivos is a notarized document. According to Section 30, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, "every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being a prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved." A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein.[20] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption.[21]

GR No. 173312

2008-08-26

ESTATE OF LINO OLAGUER v. EMILIANO M. ONGJOCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On its face, the written power of attorney contained the signature of Virgilio Olaguer and was duly notarized. As such, the same is considered a public document and it has in its favor the presumption of authenticity and due execution, which can only be contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.[41]

GR NO. 146224

2007-01-26

VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner's bare allegation is far from sufficient proof for the Court to rule in her favor. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[32] In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[33]

GR NO. 149542

2006-07-20

ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Mere denial by Concordia that she signed the deed[40] cannot prevail over the positive presumption enjoyed by a notarial document. Negative and self-serving, denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. No other witness or evidence was presented to corroborate Concordia's testimony. Settled is the rule that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence.[41]

GR NO. 162368

2006-07-17

MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case.[9] Such factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[10] It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court,[11] save for the most compelling and cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; or when there is a misappreciation of facts,[12] which are unavailing in the instant case.

GR NO. 134728

2006-02-23

REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. RICARDO O. MONTINOLA

GARCIA, J.

At the outset, it is noteworthy that RPB raises factual issues which had been resolved unanimously by the trial court and the CA, when both courts concluded that "appellant Bank had maliciously and in bad faith unilaterally suspended the credit line of plaintiffs-appellees [Montinola, Jr. and Monfort] thereby justifying the order of the trial court for payment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees of actual, moral and compensatory damages."[4] The sufficiency of the evidence on record to support the same is crystal clear. The Court, therefor, needs only to reechoe its ruling in Domingo vs. Robles,[5] to wit:It is a well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. Petitioner has given this Court no cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the contrary, the findings of the courts a quo are amply supported by the evidence on record.

	GR No. 177616 2014-08-27	HEIRS OF SPS. JOAQUIN MANGUARDIA and SUSANA MANALO v. HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO VALLES and MARTA VALLES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated that it is not a trier of facts. Well entrenched is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court.[56] The Court's "role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court."[57] This rule, however, is not without well defined exceptions. "Findings of fact of the trial court and the CA may be set aside when such findings are not supported by the evidence or where the lower courts' conclusions are based on a misapprehension of facts."[58] Considering the contention of petitioners that misinterpretation of facts was committed, this Court embarked on the task of reviewing the facts of this case.
	GR Nos. 173090-91 2011-09-07	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. RODOLFO T. TIU AND VICTORIA N. TIU LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As pointed out by the trial court, the Restructuring Agreement, being notarized, is a public document enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption.[76] The spouses Tiu, who attested before the notary public that the Restructuring Agreement "is their own free and voluntary act and deed,"[77] failed to present sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. It is difficult to believe that the spouses Tiu, veteran businessmen who operate a multi-million peso company, would sign a very important document without fully understanding its contents and consequences.
	GR No. 171497 2011-04-04	MARIA LOURDES TAMANI v. ROMAN SALVADOR PERALTA, J.
The deed of sale may have been notarized and it is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein.[39] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution,[40] and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.[41] Nonetheless, given the highly questionable circumstances present in the case at bar such prima facie presumption was properly put in dispute.
	GR No. 169548 2010-03-15	TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MANUEL A. DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein.[38] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution[39] and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.[40] However, such clear and convincing evidence is present here. While it is true that the SPA was notarized, it is no less true that there were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. Curiously, the details of Manuel's Community Tax Certificate are conspicuously absent, yet Martha's are complete. The absence of Manuel's data supports his claim that he did not execute the same and that his signature thereon is a forgery. Moreover, we have Manuel's positive testimony that he never signed the SPA, in addition to the expert testimony that the signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuel's true signature.
	GR No. 185477 2009-12-04	HERMINIO M. GUTIERREZ v. FLORA MENDOZA-PLAZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners seem to have overlooked the fact that the deed of donation inter vivos is a notarized document. According to Section 30, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, "every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being a prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved." A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein.[20] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption.[21]
	GR No. 173312 2008-08-26	ESTATE OF LINO OLAGUER v. EMILIANO M. ONGJOCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On its face, the written power of attorney contained the signature of Virgilio Olaguer and was duly notarized. As such, the same is considered a public document and it has in its favor the presumption of authenticity and due execution, which can only be contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.[41]
	GR NO. 146224 2007-01-26	VIRGINIA REAL v. SISENANDO H. BELO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner's bare allegation is far from sufficient proof for the Court to rule in her favor. It is basic in the rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[32] In short, mere allegations are not evidence.[33]
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Mere denial by Concordia that she signed the deed[40] cannot prevail over the positive presumption enjoyed by a notarial document. Negative and self-serving, denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. No other witness or evidence was presented to corroborate Concordia's testimony. Settled is the rule that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence.[41]
	GR NO. 162368 2006-07-17	MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case.[9] Such factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[10] It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court,[11] save for the most compelling and cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; or when there is a misappreciation of facts,[12] which are unavailing in the instant case.
	GR NO. 134728 2006-02-23	REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. RICARDO O. MONTINOLA GARCIA, J.
At the outset, it is noteworthy that RPB raises factual issues which had been resolved unanimously by the trial court and the CA, when both courts concluded that "appellant Bank had maliciously and in bad faith unilaterally suspended the credit line of plaintiffs-appellees [Montinola, Jr. and Monfort] thereby justifying the order of the trial court for payment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees of actual, moral and compensatory damages."[4] The sufficiency of the evidence on record to support the same is crystal clear. The Court, therefor, needs only to reechoe its ruling in Domingo vs. Robles,[5] to wit:It is a well-settled principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. Petitioner has given this Court no cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the contrary, the findings of the courts a quo are amply supported by the evidence on record.

NORMA B. DOMINGO v. YOLANDA ROBLES