Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

IV. Authentication of Document & Parol Evidence - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Proof of Private Documents (132.20) - Its due execution and authenticity must be proven. This may be done by either:
        
        ANYONE - Anyone who saw the document executed or written
        
        GENUINENESS - By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker
        
        OTHER EVIDENCE - By other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity
        
        How Authenticated (Malayan Insurance v. Phil Nails and Wires) - Must be authenticated by:
        
        EXECUTOR - The person who executed it,
        
        ACKNOWLEDGED - The person before whom its execution was acknowledged
        
        WITH EXECUTOR - Any person who was present and saw it executed, or
        
        WITNESS - A person, who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or
        
        HEARD - The person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof
        
        Incorporation into Public Record (RP V. Sandiganbayan) - If a private writing itself is inserted officially into a public record, its record, its recordation, or its incorporation into the public record becomes a public document, but that does not make the private writing itself a public document so as to make it admissible without authentication
        
        How genuineness of handwriting proved (Sec. 22) - May be proven by any of the following:
        
        WITNESS - By any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because
        1a. He/she has seen the person write; or
        1b. He/she has seen writing purporting to be his/hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person
        
        COMPARISON - by the witness or the court of the questioned handwriting, and admitted genuine specimens thereof or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge
        
        EXPERT - Evidence
        
        Exceptions to Requirement of Proof of Authenticity of Private Writing -
        
        Ancient Document
        
        NO SPECIFIC DENIAL - when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party;
        
        ADMISSION - when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted;
        
        OTHER PURPOSE - when the document is not being offered as genuine.
        
        Ancient Document Rule (21) - Any document that complies with the following requisites:
        
        More than 30 years old;
        
        Produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and
        
        Unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion
        3a. When Suspicious (Bartolome v. IAC) - If deed was incomplete, unsigned or, person who signed was illiterate (Cequena v. Bolante)
        
        Objection to Improperly Authenticated Document (Patula) - Say no basis or, that the document being testified on was not properly authenticated. Just manifest continuing objection, take note of it in memorandum and on appeal.
        
        Expert Witnesses (Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission) - The opinions of handwriting experts, even those from the NBI and the PC, are not binding upon courts. This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
      - c. Alteration in Documents (Rule 132, Section 31) - The party producing the altered document, which appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material tot he question in dispute, presenting it as genuine must account for the alteration. Otherwise, Inadmissible.
        
        d. Seal (Rule 132, Sec. 32) - No diﬀerence between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned.
        
        e. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language (Rule 132, Section 33) -
        
        GR - Not admissible
        
        XCPN - accompanied by a translation into English or Filipino.
        
        f. Electronic Evidence
        
        Proof of Authenticity (Aznar v. Citibank, EE.2) - Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
        
        (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
        
        (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
        
        (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge
        
        Authenticaiton of Text Messages (Viallion-Magtolis v. .Salud) - Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. Under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. These are proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof,
        
        Status of Electronic Documents (MCC Industrial Sales Corp. vs Ssangyong Corp.) - An electronic doc is also the equivalent of an original doc under the Best Evidence Rule (BER), if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect data accurately.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Form of Translation (People v. Tomaquin) - When an exhibit written in any language other than the official language (Filipino or English) is presented as evidence,the exhibit should be:
        
        Translated by the official interpreter of the court, or
        
        a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court.
        
        Presumption of Understanding (Heirs of Doronio v. Doronio) - Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino, is offered in evidence and not objected to, either by the parties or the court, it must be presumed that the language in which the document is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence.
        
        Official Language - Either Filipino or English
        
        Failure to Object (People v. Tomaquin) - However, in this case, since appellant did not interpose any objection thereto, and the parties and the judicial authorities or personnel concerned appeared to be familiar with or knowledgeable of Cebuano in which the document was written, such extrajudicial confession was deemed appropriately considered by the trial court as evidence for the prosecution.
        
        How Alteration is Accounted For - Party producing document may show that the alteration was either:
        
        WITH CONSENT - Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it;
        
        INNOCENT - Was otherwise properly or innocently made; or
        
        NO CONCURRENCE - Was made by another, without his/her concurrence
        
        SAME MEANING - Did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
        
        Non-Material Alterations (Sps Cirelo v. Hernandez) - If alteration as regards a non-material part or, alteration was already existing when document received.
    - - Public Documents as Evidence (Section 23) - Can be subdivided into two categories.
        
        Proof of Official Record; Attestation (Section 24; 25) - Proof must be:
        
        By an official publication thereof; or
        
        By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or his/her deputy
        2a. If record is not kept in the Philippines: accompany with a certificate that such officer has the custody
        2ai.If the foreign country is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or it is considered a public document under the treaty or convention: certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed therein, subject to reciprocity
        2aii. If not a contracting party: certificate made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the country where the record is kept
        
        Must be authenticated by the seal of his/her office
        
        Irremovability of Public Record (Section 26) - Any public record, an oﬃcial copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the oﬃce in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.
        
        Proof of Lack of Record (Section 28) - Must comply with two requisites:
        
        WRITTEN STATEMENT
        1a. Signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his/her deputy
        1b. Must state that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his/her office
        
        CERTIFICATE - accompanying the written statement, stating that the officer has the custody
        
        Kho v. Republic -
        
        In sustaining the finding of the lower court that a marriage license was lacking, this Court relied on the Certification issued by the local civil registrar, which stated that the alleged marriage license could not be located as the same did not appear in their records.
        
        Contrary to petitioner's asseveration, nowhere in the Certification was it categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent search.
        
        In this respect, this Court held that Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court does not require a categorical statement to this effect.
        
        Abbas XCPN - If proof of other marriage license with the same number, no categorical statement may be sufficient.
        
        Considered a hearsay exception. (People v. Lazaro)
        
        What Attestation must State (25) -
        
        Must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof, as the case may be
        
        Must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he/she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court
        
        Exception to Certificate Requirement - The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement or has exempted the document itself.
        
        Coverage (Spouses Fabre v. CA) - Certification requirement applies only to 19a i.e., entries in public records found abroad. For other classes of public documents, no need to attestation.
        
        Entries in Public Records - made in the performance of a duty by a public oﬃcer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. (E.g., Civil Registrar, book registries, ship captain logbook)
        
        All other Public Documents - Evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter
        
        How Judicial Record Impeached (Section 29) - Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of any of the following:
        
        LACK OF JURISDICTION - want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer[;]
        
        COLLUSION - collusion between the parties[;] or
        
        FRAUD - in the party oﬀering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
        
        Public Records of a Private Document (Section 27) - An authorized public record of a private document may be proved:
        
        By the original record;
        
        By a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody
        
        Proof of Notarial Documents (Section 30) - Every notarized instrument may be presented in evidence without further proof.
        
        Proof of Execution - the certiﬁcate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
        
        Proof of Facts/Date which gave rise to execution - Such notarized documents are evidence, even against 3rd persons, of the facts which gave rise to their execution and of the date of execution
        
        Rationale for Distinction (Republic v. Sps. Gimenez) -
        
        The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties attending the execution of the different kinds of public instruments
        
        Official duties are disputably presumed to have been regularly performed
        
        As regards affidavits, including Answers to Interrogatories which are required to be sworn to by the person making them, the only portion executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the jurat
        
        Thus, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed applies only to the jurat, wherein the notary public merely attests that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the date mentioned
        
        Certifications (Republic v. Galeno) - Not considered as entries in public records. They are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a government office. They are not even records of public documents. At most, other class of public document.
        
        Admission as Part of Testimony (Delfin v. Billones) - A document or writing which is admitted not as independent evidence but merely as part of the testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts related therein.
        
        Presumption;How Overturned (Gutierrez v. Mendoza) - By clear and convincing evidence.
      - Enumeration -
        
        (a)WRITTEN - The written oﬃcial acts, or records of the sovereign authority, oﬃcial bodies and tribunals, and public oﬃcers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
        
        (b)NOTARY- Documents acknowledged before a notary public EXCEPT LAST WILLS AND TESTAMENTS
        
        (c)TREATIES - Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and
        
        (d)PUBLIC RECORDS - kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
        
        Audited Statements (Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp)
        
        GR: Financial statements prepared by external auditors who are certified public accountants (like those presented by petitioner) are audited financial statements. Financial statements, whether audited or not, are, as general rule, private documents.
        
        EXPN: Once financial statements are filed with a government office pursuant to a provision of law, they become public documents.
        
        Use of Jurat (Pan pacific v. CA) - Use of jurat instead of an acknowledgment means that the document remians private document, NOT public document.
- - - - General Rule - whatever is found in writing is controlling. If not in writing, then it is understood as waived and abandoned.
        
        Exception - when it can be alleged and proved that the intention of the parties is otherwise.
        
        Contract is what law defines it as, not what the parties call it.
      - Steps to Interpretation (SEASCORP v. Seagull) -
        
        GR - If clear, don't interpret.
        
        XCPN - But NCC 1370 also provides that if the words appear contrary to the evident intention of the parties, it is the intention that must prevail.
    - - Interpretation by the Parties - However, if the parties themselves put forward an interpretation, then that interpretation shall be controlling.
    - - General/Particular Terms 1372 – In cases where general terms and particular terms are present, particular terms shall be controlling.
        
        However, even with particular terms contracts cannot be construed to include matters which are distinct from that which the parties intended to contract. i.e. a sale of a piece of land cannot be construed to include something not the subject-matter of the sale.
      - Multiple Interpretations (1373) - If an instrument is susceptible to interpretations which can make it either legal or illegal, that which would render it legal and effective is the proper interpretation.
      - Usage/Custom (1376) - Usage or customs of a place shall be a factor in interpreting an ambiguous
      - Adhesion Contracts (1377) - Interpretations of obscure words or stipulations cannot be made to favor the party which was responsible for such obscurity.
        
        Cause of Doubt (Capital Insurance v. Sadang) - Ambiguity is to be resolved against the party who caused the ambiguity/prepared the document.
    - - Multiple Stipulations (1374) - In cases where there are various stipulations which raise a doubtful interpretation, all of the parts of the contract shall be construed together if possible. With such construction being determined by the intent of the parties as gathered from the words they used as well as their prior, contemporaneous and subsequent acts.
      - Impossibility of Interpretation (1378) - In case doubts cannot be settled, then interpretation depends if the contract is gratuitous or onerous.
        
        Gratuitous - Requires that the doubts refer to incidental circumstances, the interpretation that allows the least transmission of rights and interests shall prevail.
        
        Onerous - The interpretation that favors the greatest reciprocity of interests shall be controlling.
        
        Reciprocity of interests – maximize mutual benefit.
    - - According to Circumstances (130.14) - The circumstances under which the instrument was made, including the situation of the subject and the parties may be shown so that judge may be placed in the position of those whose language they are to interpret.
      - According to Usage (130.20) - An instrument
        may be construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character
      - Legal Meaning (130.11) -
        
        GR - Language of writing to be interpreted according to the legal meaning it bears in the place of its execution.
        
        XCPN - Parties intended otherwise.
    - - Intention; General and Particular Provisions (130.13) - Where there is a general provision and a particular provision, the latter controls if there is inconsistency.
        
        Intent - The intention of the parties is to be pursued when there is need to construe.
      - Peculiar Signification of Terms (130.15) -
        
        General Rule - Terms of a writing presumed to be used in their primary and general acceptation.
        
        XCPN - Evidence is admissible to show that they have a peculiar, technical or local signification and were so used and understood in that particular instance.
      - Written & Printed Words (130.16) - If instrument partly written and partly printed, the written part controls the printed part if they are inconsistent.
      - Instrument as a Whole (130.12) - Where there are several provisions or particulars, if possible, construction that gives effect to all is adopted.
      - Steps to Interpretation (PSALM) – (1) If not ambiguous, don’t interpret  (2) If intent cant be determined, first determine via preliminary inquiry if the contract is ambiguous.
        
        Ambiguous if susceptible of two reasonable alternative interpretations. In such case, its interpretation is left to the court, or another tribunal with jurisdiction over it.85
        
        "interpretation" is defined as the act of making intelligible what was before not understood, ambiguous, or not obvious; it is a method by which the meaning of language is ascertained.
        
        The "interpretation" of a contract is the determination of the meaning attached to the words written or spoken which make the contract.
    - - Negotiable Instruments Law; Sections 11, 17 & 24
        
        Sec. 11. Date, presumption as to. - Where the instrument or an acceptance or any indorsement thereon is dated, such date is deemed prima facie to be the true date of the making, drawing, acceptance, or indorsement, as the case may be.
        
        Sec. 17. Construction where instrument is ambiguous. - Where the language of the instrument is ambiguous or there are omissions therein, the following rules of construction apply:
        (a) Where the sum payable is expressed in words and also in figures and there is a discrepancy between the two, the sum denoted by the words is the sum payable; but if the words are ambiguous or uncertain, reference may be had to the figures to fix the amount; (b) Where the instrument provides for the payment of interest, without specifying the date from which interest is to run, the interest runs from the date of the instrument, and if the instrument is undated, from the issue thereof; (c) Where the instrument is not dated, it will be considered to be dated as of the time it was issued; (d) Where there is a conflict between the written and printed provisions of the instrument, the written provisions prevail; (e) Where the instrument is so ambiguous that there is doubt whether it is a bill or note, the holder may treat it as either at his election; (f) Where a signature is so placed upon the instrument that it is not clear in what capacity the person making the same intended to sign, he is to be deemed an indorser; (g) Where an instrument containing the word "I promise to pay" is signed by two or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable thereon.
        
        Sec. 24. Presumption of consideration. - Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration; and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value.
        
        SECTION 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. Public documents are:
        
        The written official acts, or records of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
        Philippines, or of a foreign country;
        
        Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
        
        Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and
        
        Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
        
        Foreign Country (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S) - First mode, written official acts, so long as official bodies and tribunals and public officers can cover even foreign government agencies. This renders the the document a public document.
        
        Public Documents - Exclusive enumeration in 132.19, dispenses with need for authentication. Public documents are self-authenticating.
        
        2 more items...
        
        Apostille Convention -
        
        Recognition of Apostillized Documents - Only if all the following conditions are met:
        
        The state in which the document was issued is a party to the Convention;
        
        The state in which the document is to be used is also party to the Convention;
        
        The law of the state in which the document was issued considers the document as a public instrument; and
        
        The state in which the document is to be used requires an apostille in order to recognize the document as a foreign public document.
    - - Natural Rights (130.19) - When an instrument is equally susceptible of two [(2)] interpretations, one [(1)] in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted.
      - Multiple Constructions (130.18) -
        
        The interpretation most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision was made shall be adopted.
        
        Interpretation which one party intends the other party to understand the provision
  - - - Waiver (Sps. Paras v. Kimwa Corp) - The Parol evidence rule may be waived by failure to object to the introduction of evidence aliunde.
        
        VERIFICATION (PNR v. CFI of Albay) - Answer raising parol evidence must be in a verified pleading. Requirement of verification arose only post 2019 amendments.
        
        Express Pleading (Ortañes v. CA) - No implied allegation of the exceptions. There exceptions must be expressly put in issue or squarely presented in the pleadings. No implied.
      - Ambiguity - Must refer to an intrinsic ambiguity i.e., where the writing can have multiple valid constructions but the document itself is valid on its face.
        
        This may be due to matters outside the agreement that create the ambiguity (e.g., donate to X but there are multiple Xs)
        
        Extrinsic Ambiguity - An amibiguity that arises from the very face of the instrument due to defective/obscure//insensible language.
        
        Here, parol evidence not admissible as this would amount to the creation of a contract. (Void due to vitiated consent? or reformation idk)
        
        Nature of the Mistake (BPI v. Fidelity and Surety) - must be a mistake of fact, mutual to the parties.The pleading need not specifically state the words mistake and failure. So long as the other party makes a proper denial, the matters are put in issue.
        
        Imperfection (Regalado) - covers inaccurate statements, incompleteness in the writing, or inconsistent provisions.
      - FAILURE - Mistake or imperfection of the writing may be a reason for the failure of the instrument or writing to embody the intention of the parties. This can cover fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.
        
        Reformation - In such cases, these are grounds for a reformation of instrument under NCC 1359. But, if there is no meeting of the minds, the proper action is an action for annulment on the basis of vitiation of consent under NCC 1390.
        
        Validity of Written Agreement - Parol evidence may be admitted to show:
        
        True consideration of a contract
        
        Want/Illegality of consideration
        
        Incapacity of parties
        
        Fictitious/absolutely simulated contract
        
        Fraud in inducement [2 Regalado 733, 2008 Ed.]
        
        Subsequent Agreements - Parol evidence is inadmissible only for prior or contemporaneous stipulations.
        
        The existence of another agreement after the execution of the original written agreement may be introduced without first complying with the requirement of putting the subsequent agreement in issue.
        
        Contemporaneous Agremeent (LASEDECO v. Garcia) - There, oral agreement established condition precedent . Parol evidence introduced to prove failure to reflect true intent of parties.
        
        Rationale for Subsequent Agreements (Baluyut v. Poblete) - Where a document, for example, is executed on July 1, it may be held to embody the final and exclusive result of negotiations before and up to the time of execution; but a transaction on August 1 must be a separate one and therefore can never be excluded, so far as the effect of the document of July 1, is concerned. It may be that some rule or form may make that transaction of August 1 invalid but the present rule can interpose no obstacle.
        
        So obscure that the intent of the parties cannot be determined
        
        Failure to Express (Heirs of Policronio) - If simulated sale, then no failure to express true intent and agreement of the parties. But instead, validity of written agreement.
      - Sps. Amoncio v. Benedicto - Here, parol evidence as regards prior/contemporaneous oral agreement was accepted because of failure to object to presentation. In addition, estoppel applied as Sps. Amoncio signed the building permit.
      - Rationale (Cruz v. CA) - the presumption that when the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, the parties have made such writing the only repository and memorial of the truth. Thus, whatever it is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived or abandoned by the parties.
        
        This gives primacy to the literal terms of the written agreements between the parties. However, it applies only to the written agreement itself, and not as regards any contemporaneous, or subsequent oral agreements between the same parties.
    - - Parol Evidence/Original Document Rules
        
        As to the Existence of the Original
        
        What is Prohibited
        
        As to Applicability
        
        Party that Invokes
        
        Original Document - Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless if they participated in the writing involved.
        
        Parol Evidence (Lechugas v. CA) - Can be invoked only when the controversy is between the parties to the written agreement, their privies or any party directly affected thereby
        
        1 more item...
        
        Original Document - Applies to all kinds of writings, recordings, photographs, or any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents
        
        Parol Evidence - Applies only to documents contractual in nature and to wills
        
        Receipts (Cruz v. CA) - Does not fall within the scope of the rule. A receipt is is merely a written admission of a transaction independently existing, and, like other admissions, is not conclusive.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Original Document - Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document regardless if it varies the contents of the original
        
        Parol Evidence - Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written agreement
        
        Statement of Fact (Cruz v. CA) - A statement of fact expressed in the instrument may be varied by parol evidence.
        
        Parol Evidence - Presupposes that the original document is available in court.
        
        Original Document - Original writing is not available/there is a dispute as to whether the writing is original.