Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Emilio V Rapal

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    Flordeliza Emilio owned land that she received from the National Housing Authority. Bilma Rapal leased part of the land and house. A document was notarized where Emilio sold 27 sqm of the land and house to Rapal for 90,000 pesos. Emilio later claimed she did not understand the document and it did not reflect her true intentions. The trial court ruled in Emilio's favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating Emilio failed to prove her reason for not understanding or that she was illiterate. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, saying notarized documents have a presumption of regularity that requires clear evidence to overturn, which Emilio failed to provide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Emilio V Rapal

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    100 views1 page
    Flordeliza Emilio owned land that she received from the National Housing Authority. Bilma Rapal leased part of the land and house. A document was notarized where Emilio sold 27 sqm of the land and house to Rapal for 90,000 pesos. Emilio later claimed she did not understand the document and it did not reflect her true intentions. The trial court ruled in Emilio's favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating Emilio failed to prove her reason for not understanding or that she was illiterate. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, saying notarized documents have a presumption of regularity that requires clear evidence to overturn, which Emilio failed to provide.

    Original Title

    14. Emilio v Rapal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Flordeliza Emilio owned land that she received from the National Housing Authority. Bilma Rapal leased part of the land and house. A document was notarized where Emilio sold 27 sqm of the land and house to Rapal for 90,000 pesos. Emilio later claimed she did not understand the document and it did not reflect her true intentions. The trial court ruled in Emilio's favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating Emilio failed to prove her reason for not understanding or that she was illiterate. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, saying notarized documents have a presumption of regularity that requires clear evidence to overturn, which Emilio failed to provide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views1 page

    Emilio V Rapal

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    Flordeliza Emilio owned land that she received from the National Housing Authority. Bilma Rapal leased part of the land and house. A document was notarized where Emilio sold 27 sqm of the land and house to Rapal for 90,000 pesos. Emilio later claimed she did not understand the document and it did not reflect her true intentions. The trial court ruled in Emilio's favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating Emilio failed to prove her reason for not understanding or that she was illiterate. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, saying notarized documents have a presumption of regularity that requires clear evidence to overturn, which Emilio failed to provide.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    FLORDELIZA EMILIO - versus - BILMA RAPAL,

    March 30, 2010

    Facts:
    Petitioner, by virtue of a grant from the National Housing Authority
    (NHA), became the registered owner of a parcel of land situated
    in Caloocan City. Respondent, on the otherhand, had been leasing a
    portion of the house. Atty. Balao-Ga of the Public Attorneys Office
    notarized a document entitled Sale and Transfer of Rights over a
    Portion of a Parcel of Land executed by petitioner whereby she sold to
    respondent 27 sq. m. of her lot, together with the house constructed
    thereon, for a consideration of P90,000.00. Afterwards, the petitioner
    filed a case in the RTC claiming the reformation of the said document
    for the reason that she did not understand its text and her true
    intention was not reflected.
    RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, the CA reversed the
    decision of the trial court stating that the she failed to prove her reason
    and the absence of proof of illiteracy.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the reformation of the deed of sale and transfer of
    rights between the parties at bar can be reformed.
    Held:
    No. Petitioner having admitted the existence and execution of the
    instrument, what remains to be resolved is whether the contract
    expressed the true intention of the parties; if not, whether it was
    due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. However,
    the petitioner failed to establish the burden of proving the same.
    It is to be noted that Notarized documents, like the deed in
    question, enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be
    overturned only by clear, convincing and more than merely
    preponderant evidence.

    You might also like