This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity accorded by law to notarized documents. While indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.[27] As earlier discussed, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[28] The presumption cannot be made to apply to the present case because the regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings below where its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of witnesses who testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned document was supposedly executed. The trial and appellate courts were unanimous in giving credence to the testimonies of these witnesses. The Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[29] The reason for this is that the trial court was in a better position to do so, because it heard the witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[30] | |||||
|
2009-07-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the first issue is factual in nature and calls for a review of the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. As a general rule, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[35] Only errors of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court on petitions for review.[36] However, this rule admits of several exceptions, wherein We disregarded the aforesaid tenet and proceeded to review the findings of facts of the lower courts.[37] Two exceptions are present in this case, namely: (1) when the findings of facts are conflicting; and (2) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. | |||||