"x x x.
The RTC, after considering the evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses, found that the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was executed to secure the unpaid loan obligation of T.C. Builders Suppliers Inc., a company owned by petitioner. The CA found no error on the part of the trial court’s appreciation of evidence before it, even noting that the documentary exhibits were the subject of cross-examinations and were subsequently admitted by the trial court without any objection from petitioner. Moreover, the CA observed that petitioner failed to rebut the authenticity and due execution of the documentary exhibits of Westmont Bank. All petitioner could offer by way of evidence was his unsupported claim that he signed a blank Deed of Real Estate Mortgage. Such claim is insufficient to overcome the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage which is a notarized document.
The court has held that one who denies the due execution of a deed where one’s signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act.[21] We have also held that anotarized instrument is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents, and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22]
In this case, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage involving TCT Nos. 87878 and 87876 was notarized and acknowledged before notary public Fina Dela Cuesta-Tantuico.[23] Being a public document, it enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence. Absent such evidence, as in this case, the presumption must be upheld.
Petitioner likewise asserts that it was physically impossible for him to execute and acknowledge the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage before notary public Fina Dela Cuesta-Tantuico because on the supposed date of execution and notarization, he was in Malaysia with his wife. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, it can be gathered from the testimony of petitioner that he left the Philippines in the afternoon of July 10, 1998 and arrived in Malaysia an hour later. The CA noted that petitioner was in the Philippines from morning until early afternoon on said date, which means that he still had time to attend to his business transactions before his flight to Malaysia. Thus, we find no error on the part of the CA in concluding that petitioner could have signed the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage before he left for Malaysia on said date.
x x x."
