Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ENRICO S. EULOGIO v. SPS. CLEMENTE APELES AND LUZ APELES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188395 2013-11-20	HEIRS OF LATE FELIX M. BUCTON v. SPS. GONZALO AND TRINIDAD GO PEREZ, 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.[22] It may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[23] The testimony of Constantino and Nicanora, had it been properly appreciated, is sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to public documents and to meet the stringent requirements to prove forgery.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
The nature of an option contract was thoroughly explained in Eulogio v. Apeles,[58] to wit: An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale. An option is not of itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy. It is not a sale of property but a sale of the right to purchase. It is simply a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does sell something, i.e., the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party. Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer.[59]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Petitioners argue that the Comelec's act of exercising its OTP the PCOS machines from Smartmatic-TIM after the period had already lapsed is illegal and unlawful.[16] They explain that the period within which the Comelec may exercise the OTP could last only until December 31, 2010 without extension as provided in the Comelec's bid bulletin.[17] They further assert that the Comelec's acceptance of Smartmatic-TIM's unilateral extension of the option period constitutes substantial amendment to the AES contract giving undue benefit to the winning bidder not available to the other bidders.[18] Petitioners also contend that the Comelec's decision to purchase and use the PCOS machines is unconstitutional, as it allows the Comelec to abrogate its constitutional duty to safeguard the election process by subcontracting the same to an independent provider (Smartmatic-TIM), who controls the software that safeguards the entire election process. The purchase of the PCOS machines for use in the May 2013 elections would be tantamount to a complete surrender and abdication of the Comelec's constitutional mandate in favor of Smartmatic-TIM. The control of the software and process verification systems places the Comelec at the end of the process as it merely receives the report of Smartmatic-TIM. This, according to petitioners, amounts to a direct transgression of the exclusive mandate of the Comelec completely to take charge of the enforcement and administration of the conduct of elections. [19] Lastly, petitioners aver that the Comelec's act of deliberately ignoring the palpable infirmities and defects of the PCOS machines, as duly confirmed by forensic experts, is in violation of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution, as it fails to safeguard the integrity of the votes. They went on by saying that the subject PCOS machines lack security features which can guaranty the secrecy and sanctity of our votes in direct contravention of RA 9369 which requires that the automated election system must at least possess an adequate security feature against unauthorized access. In deciding to purchase the PCOS machines despite the above-enumerated defects, the Comelec's decision are claimed to be unconstitutional.[20]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
6.6. COMELEC shall notify the PROVIDER on or before 31 December 2010 of its option to purchase the Goods as listed in Annex "L."[33]
	GR No. 182650 2012-02-27	TOMAS K. CHUA v. WESTMONT BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Finally, in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[29]
	GR No. 179323 2011-11-28	VICENTE MANZANO v. MARCELINO GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Irregularities in the notarization of the document may be established by oral evidence of persons present in said proceeding. Thus, in Eulogio v. Apeles,[28] where the party insisting on the presumption of regularity of a notarized deed of sale admitted that the same was notarized without his presence, this Court held that "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."[29] In the case at bar, even more convincing evidence of the irregularity was presented as it was the notary public himself who testified that the person who appeared before him was not respondent Garcia. Since the very official who attested to the crucial facts in the notarization i.e., that the persons who personally appeared before him are the same persons who executed the deed of conveyance admitted in open court the falsity of said manifestation, the reliability of the Acknowledgment that clothes the document with a presumption of regularity is completely shattered. We, therefore, agree with the Court of Appeals that the presumption of regularity of the notarized deed of pacto de retro sale was sufficiently overcome by the testimony of Atty. Mediante.
	GR No. 183612 2010-03-15	POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An option is a contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price within a certain time. It is a condition offered or contract by which the owner stipulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a certain time, or under, or in compliance with certain terms and conditions; or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale. [26] It binds the party, who has given the option, not to enter into the principal contract with any other person during the period designated, and, within that period, to enter into such contract with the one to whom the option was granted, if the latter should decide to use the option. [27]