This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The instant case shows no evidence on record of specific acts which the Altamiranos made before the sale of the subject property to the petitioner, indicating that they fully knew of the representation of Alejandro. All that the petitioner relied upon were acts that happened after the sale to him. Absent the consent of Alejandro's co-owners, the Court holds that the sale between the other Altamiranos and the petitioner is null and void. But as held by the appellate court, the sale between the petitioner and Alejandro is valid insofar as the aliquot share of respondent Alejandro is concerned. Being a co-owner, Alejandro can validly and legally dispose of his share even without the consent of all the other co-heirs.[33] Since the balance of the full price has not yet been paid, the amount paid shall represent as payment to his aliquot share. [34] This then leaves the sale of the lot of the Altamiranos to the Spouses Lajarca valid only insofar as their shares are concerned, exclusive of the aliquot part of Alejandro, as ruled by the CA. The Court finds no reversible error with the decision of the CA in all respects. | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| First. Both the RTC and the CA held that the presumption of regularity of a public document[5] did not attach to the subject deed of sale, given that the notary public, Atty. Saulog, Jr. failed to establish the authenticity of the signatures on it. He could not remember if the Arguelleses, present in court as he testified, were the same persons who appeared and acknowledged the document before him. | |||||
|
2012-03-20 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Further, to overcome the presumption of regularity, clear and convincing evidence must be presented.[18] Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarized document lies on the party contesting the execution.[19] Thus, petitioner's contention that she "had reliable information that [Codilla] was in Ormoc City on the date indicated in the Verification" cannot be considered as clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the document was duly executed and notarized. | |||||