Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

EVIDENCE: III. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS - Coggle Diagram

- - - - d. SEAL
        
        e. UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE:
        DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE
        
        f. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
        
        ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AUTH BY EVID THAT: (DAJ)
        
        DIGITALLY SIGNED BY
        a. PERSON PURPORTED TO SIGN;
        OR
        
        AUTHORIZED PROCEDURES BY SC/LAW FOR AUTHENTICATION;
        OR
        
        JUDGE IS SATISFIED WITH
        Section 2. Manner of authentication. - 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.
        
        LIST OF NOT PROVEN AUTHENTICITY
        
        HANDOUT PRINTOUT, WITH NO:
        a. PROOF ISSUANCE BY ISSUER
        b. SPECIFIC ADDRESS
        c. PROOF HOW INFO WAS GENERATED AND TO BE RELIED UPON AS TRUE
        With respect to Sec.2c, Aznar’s testimony that the person from Ingatan Agency merely handed him the computer print-out is not enough to show the integrity and liability of the printout.
        
        i. Exh. G does not show on its face that it was issued by Ingtan Agency.
        ii. Aznar also failed to show the specific business address of the source of the computer print-out because while the name of Ingtan Agency was mentioned by Aznar, its business address was not reflected in the print-out.
        iii. Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out was generated and how the information could be relied upon as true.
        
        FAX (FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION)
        In this case, facsimile transmissions are not “paperless” but are paper-based. viii. A facsimile machine is a device that can send or receive pictures and text over a telephone line
        Garvida vs Sales, Jr.: A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. w/o the original, there is no way of determining on its face W/N the facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading
        
        MANUALLY SIGNED PHOTOCOPIES
        Court ruled that the Rules defined an electronic document as information received electronically and in this case, since the photocopies are photocopies of documents manually signed by different persons, the information such as the manual signature cannot be considered as information electronically received. Thus, the photocopies are not electronic documents and thus, are not functional equivalents of their originals. The originals must be presented according to the best evidence rule and NPC failed to present them.
        
        LIST OF PROVEN AUTHENTICITY:
        
        SENDER'S TEXT PROVEN BY:
        a. ADMISSION; OR
        b. SIGNED & ATTESTED TO VERACITY; OR
        c. TESTIMONY OF:
        -i. PARTY TO COMMS
        -ii. PARTY WITH PK
        Admissibility of Text Messages – Text messages are considered as ephemeral electronic communication" 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
        
        o Any objections to admissibility are moot and academic, as Salud admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s phone. o A similar ruling was issued in Zaldy Nuez v. Elvira Cruzo-Apao, which also involved the admissibility of text messages wherein the respondent signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and the complainant.
        
        DIGITAL PRINTOUTS ARE ALL ORIGINAL
        in a virtual or paperless environment, there is no original copy to speak of as all direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same and are considered as originals.
        
        EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ARE:
        
        TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
        
        TEXT MESSAGES
        
        CHATROOM SESSIONS
        
        STREAMING AUDIO
        
        STREAMING VIDEO
        
        OTHER ELECTRONIC FORMS OF COMMUNICATION
        a. EVIDENCE OF WHICH IS NOT RECORDED OR RETAINED
        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.
        (Bartolome v. Maranan)
        
        2 more items...
        
        PAPER-BASED DOCS REQUIRE MORE THAN PRINTOUTS
        Thus, if there exists an original copy of it that is physically existing; a fax copy is merely a photocopy of such document
        
        1 more item...
        
        EDE
        
        UNOFFICIAL LANGUAGE THEN:
        
        TRANSLATION REQUIRED
        a. OFFICIAL INTERPRETER OF COURT; or
        b. AGREED UPON BY PARTIES
        (People v. Tomaquin)
        Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. –
        Documents written in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino. To avoid interruption of proceedings, parties or their attorneys are directed to have such translation prepared before trial. (33)
        
        INADMISSIBLE IF NO TRANSLATION
        
        SEAL OR UNSEALED MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN ADMISSIBILITY
        Section 32. Seal. – There shall be no difference between sealed and unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is concerned. (32)
      - ALTERATION MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR IF:
        
        ALTERED
        
        AFTER EXECUTION
        
        MATERIAL TO DISPUTE
        Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. – The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration.
        
        HOW SHOWN: (MIU)
        
        MADE BY ANOTHER,
        a. WITHOUT HIS CONCURRENCE;
        OR
        
        MADE:
        a. WITH CONSENT OF AFFECTED PARTIES;
        OR
        
        INNOCENTLY/PROPERLY MADE;
        OR
        
        UNCHANGED MEANING
        He or she may show that the alteration was made by another, without his or her concurrence, or was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise properly or innocently made, or that the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the instrument.
        
        INADMISSIBLE IF NOT PROVEN
        If he or she fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence. (31a)
        
        LIST OF UNEXPLAINED ALTERATION:
        
        NO AUTHENTICATION BY AFFECTED PARTIES
        It ruled that the alteration was not made with the consent of the petitioners because there was no authentication from them. There was also the absence of authentication by the notary public and his clerk. Moreover, the Court found the absence of consideration for the added lot as suspicious. Lastly, the Court did not appreciate the version of the Spouses Rivera on how the alteration came about.
        
        DISCREPANCY OF CERTIFICATIONS & PUBLIC RECORDS
        It ruled thus since there was a discrepancy as to the two certifications, reference must be made to the zonal values posted by the BIR on their website, which are accessible to the general public. The zonal values of the BIR for Barangay Tuyo, Bataan do not reflect the same typewritten annotations as that of the Republic’s photocopy.
        
        LIST OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION:
        
        ALREADY EXISTING WHEN IT WAS GIVEN
        SC found that Hernandez (who produced the SPA) were able to comply w/ Rule 132, Sec. 31 since they were able to show that the insertions were already existing when it was given to them by Cirelos. There was already an annotation on the title anent the SPA (Entry No. 115) dated January 27, 1990 (before the Deed of Sale dated July 30 1991) executed by Aniceto in favor of Cirelos, with power to sell as well as mortgage.
    - - 30 YEARS-OLD
        30-YEARS OLD MORE DOC ADMISSIBLE IF:
        
        PRODUCED FROM CUSTODY
        a. NATURALLY WHERE IT'S FOUND GENUINE
        
        GENUINE ON ITS FACE
        (Aldemita v. Heirs of Silva)
        
        UNBLEMISHED BY ANY:
        a. ALTERATIONS
        b. SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
        Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not necessary. – Where a private document is more than thirty (30) years old, is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
        
        HANDWRITING
        HW MAY BE PROVED BY ANY PERSON WHO :
        
        BELIEVES IT TO BE HW OF SUCH PERSON BECAUSE THEY'VE SEEN:
        a. PERSON WRITE; OR
        b. WRITING PURPORTING TO BE THEIRS
        -i. UPON WHICH THE WITNESS HAS ACTED OR BEEN HARGED
        -ii. THUS KNOWING HW OF PERSON
        
        Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. – The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he or she has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
        
        EVID OF HW MAY BE GIVEN BY: (CMG)
        
        COMPARISON
        
        MADE BY:
        a. WITNESS
        b. COURT
        
        GENUINE WRITINGS
        a. ADMITTED/TREATED AS GENUINE BY PARTY, AGAINST WHOM EVID IS OFFERED
        b. PROVEN TO BE GENUINE TO JUDGE
        Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (22)
        
        ANY ORDINARY WITNESS MAY TESTIFY IF THEY HAVE HANDLED
        ANY CORRESPONDENCE INFORMING THEM OF THE HANDWRITING
        An ordinary witness may testify on a signature he is familiar with. Anyone who is familiar with a person’s writing from having seen him write, from carrying on a correspondence with him, or from having become familiar with his writing through handling documents and papers known to have been signed by him may give his opinion as to the genuineness of that person’s purported signature when it becomes material in the case
        
        ALTERATION SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE:
        
        INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT (SIGNED PAGE)
        In this case, on its face, the deed of sale appears unmarred by alteration - BUT, the missing page has nonetheless affected its authenticity - This missing page is important because it allegedly bears the signature of the vendor of the portion of Lot No. 11165 in question, and thus contains vital proof of the voluntary transmission of rights over the subject of the sale - Without that signature, the document is incomplete - an incomplete document is akin to if not worse than a document with altered contents
        (Bartolome v. IAC)
        
        ILLITERATE'S "SIGNATURE"
        cannot be considered an ancient document because pets failed to explain how the purported signature of Eduarda Apiado could have been affixed to the subject affidavit if, according to the witness, she was an illiterate woman who never had any formal schooling.
        
        FORGERY
        After the commissioner submitted his report finding them to be forgeries, the parties manifested to
        submit the case for decision without need of a trial (basically confirmed the findings of forgery)
        
        DISSIMILARITIES NOT SOLELY DETERMINATIVE OF FORGERY
        [T]he authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, etc., that may be found between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the former's authenticity.||| (Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, G.R. No. 140472, [June 10, 2002], 432 PHIL 895-912)
      - EXCEPTIONS TO AUTHENTICATION
        ■ Requirement of authentication of a private doc is excused only in 4 instances:
        
        30 YO-ABOVE ANCIENT DOC
        ● Doc is an ancient one w/in the context of Sec 21 Rule 132 ROC (“private doc is more than 30 yrs old”)
        
        NO SPECIFIC DENIAL + UNDER OATH OF GENUINESS AND AUTHENTICITY
        ● Genuineness and authenticity of an actionable doc have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party
        
        *ADMISSION
        ● Genuineness and authenticity of the doc have been admitted
        
        NOT OFFERED AS GENUINE
        ● Doc is not being offered as genuine
      - WHOSE TESTIMONY MAY PROVE DUE EXECUTION? (EASRC)
        Due execution of the document should be proved through the testimony of either:
        
        EXECUTING PERSON
        the person or persons who executed it;
        
        ACKNOWLEDGING PERSON OF EXECUTION
        the person before whom its execution was acknowledged; or
        
        SAW -
        UPON EXECUTION & DELIVERY,
        ANY PERSON WHO
        a. WAS PRESENT
        b. SAW IT EXECUTED & DELIVERED
        
        RECOGNIZE -
        AFTER EXECUTION & DELIVERY,
        ANY PERSON WHO
        a. SAW IT
        b. RECOGNIZED THE SIGNATURES
        
        CONFESSED - PERSON TO WHOM PARTIES PREVIOUSLY CONFESSED THE EXECUTION
        any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered, or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and recognized the signatures, or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed the execution thereof
        (Sec. 20, Rule 132)
        [Director of Lands v. C.A., G.R. No. L-29575 (1971))
  - - - PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FACTS THEREIN IF:
        
        DOC CONSISTS OF:
        a. PUBLIC RECORDS THRU
        b. DUTY OF PUBLIC OFFICER'S
        Section 23. Public documents as evidence. – Documents consisting of entries in public records made IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
        
        ALL OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE EVIDENCE OF:
        
        EXECUTION/FACT THAT GAVE RISE TO IT
        
        DATE OF EXECUTION
        All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (23)
        
        3RD PERSONS:
        ASSERTED EVEN AGAINST 3RD PERSONS
        
        EFFECT OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT:
        
        ADMISSIBLE
        a. WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF
        
        GENUINENESS
        As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Not only are said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
        (Iwasawa v. Gangan)
        
        NOT EVIDENCE OF FACTS STATED THEREIN:
        
        NOTARIZED ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES
        
        NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT
        
        CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
        
        CERTIFICATIONS OF REGIONAL TECHNICAL DEIRECTOR, DENR
        In Republic v. Medida, the Court held that certifications of the Regional Technical Director, DENR cannot be considered prima facie evidence of facts stated therein. The certifications are not certified copies or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal custody of a gov't office. They are not even records of public documents.
        (Republic v. Galeno)
        
        IF NOT DUTY-BOUND TO BE RECORDED, TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL REQUIRED
        The Court cannot accord probative weight upon them because the public officers who issued the same did not testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.
        (Republic v. Galeno)
        
        PUBLIC DOCS EVID OF FACTS THEREIN:
        
        DULY REGISTERED DEATH CERTIFICATE
        Death Certificate - A duly-registered death certificate is considered a public document and the entries found therein are presumed correct, unless the party who contests its accuracy can produce positive evidence establishing otherwise.
        (Delfin v. Billones)
        
        NOTARIAL DOCUMENT IS EVIDENCE OF FACTS EXPRESSED THEREIN
        (Donation inter vivos here)
        A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption
        (Gutierrez v. Mendoza)
        
        Republic v. Sps. Gimenez says notarial documents are not prima facie evidence of facts expressed therein
        Gutierrez v. Mendoza says they are
        "A rule of long standing which through the years has been adhered to is that a notarial document is evidence of the facts in clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed.''
        (Yturralde vs. Azurin, et al., L-22158, May 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 407, 417)||| (Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31705, [July 27, 1981], 193 PHIL 326-338)
        
        NOT ALL NOTARIZED DOCS ARE EXEMPTED FROM AUTHENTICATION, LIKE AFFIDAVITS
        RULE: Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication.
        o Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it
        contains a notarial jurat.
        o APPLICATION: The subject affidavit, while notarized, does not automatically become a public
        document.
        • RULE: By itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
        o APPLICATION: The affidavit in question does not state how the ownership of the
        subject land was transferred from Sinforoso Mendoza to Margarito Mendoza.
        
        DN
      - IRREVOCABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD
        
        OFFICIAL COPY OF PUBLIC RECORD IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
        
        PUBLIC RECORD MUST NOT BE
        REMOVED FROM OFFICE
        Section 26. Irremovability of public record. – 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. (26)
        
        EXCEPT UPON: (OIJP)
        
        ORDER OF COURT FOR
        a. INSPECTION OF RECORD ESSENTIAL TO
        b. JUST DETERMINATION
        c. PENDING CASE
        
        PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD
        
        PROOF OF NO RECORD ADMISSIBLE IF:
        
        WRITTEN STATEMENT
        
        SIGNED BY:
        a. OFFICER WITH CUSTODY
        b. HIS/HER DEPUTY
        
        NO RECORD/ENTRY FOUND IN HIS OFFICE
        a. DILIGENT SEARCH
        -i. CATEGORICALLY STATED
        (Sevilla v. Cardenas)
        
        CERTIFICATE OF SUCH FACT
        Section 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his or her deputy that[,] after diligent search[,] no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his or her office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his or her office contain no such record or entry. (28a)
        
        CATEGORICAL STATEMENT OF BEING UNFOUND AFTER DILIGENT SEARCH REQUIRED
        The certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search.
        (Sevilla v. Cardenas)
        
        "DUE TO LOADED WORK" NOT DILIGENT SEARCH
        It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the existence of Marriage License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work." ii. Both certifications failed to state with absolute certainty w/n such license was issued. 6. This implication is confirmed by the testimony of the local civil registrar of San Juan rep, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had already retired.
        (Sevilla v. Cardenas)
        
        CERTIFICATION OF CIVIL REGISTRAR OF NO MARRIAGE LICENSE IN RECORD OVERTURNS PRESUMED VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE LICENSE
        In Cariño v. Cariño, which followed the case of Republic, it was held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of the said license.
        ○ The certification overturned the presumed validity of the marriage, and the burden of proving its validity shifted to the person alleging a valid marriage.
        
        ADMISSION OF MARRIAGE CONTRACT WITH PROOF OF AUTHENTICITY + DUE EXECUTION IS PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
        The admission of a marriage contract with proof of its authenticity and due execution suffices to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prior marriage exists.
        THEN, SHIFTED BURDEN TO DEFENSE REQUIRES MORE THAN CERTIFICATE OF LACK OF PROOF
        The burden of evidence will, thus, pass on to the defense. Mere presentation of a certification from the civil registrar that the marriage license cannot be found is not enough to discharge the burden of proving that no such marriage license was issued.
        (Vitangcol v. People)
        
        MARRIAGE VOID IF NO LICENSE SHOWN BY:
        
        MARRIAGE CONTRACT
        
        CERTIFICATE OF LACK OF PROOF
        For a marriage to be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that its absence must be apparent on the marriage contract, at least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage was issued to the parties.
        (Kho v. Republic)
        
        RATIONALE: AUTHORITY GRANTED BY STATE AFTER PUBLIC OFFICIAL INQUIRED INTO CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE
        The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to contract marriage.
        
        1 more item...
        
        JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHMENT
        
        JUDICIAL RECORD MAY BE IMPEACHED BY:
        Section 29. How judicial record impeached. – Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of:
        
        WANT OF JURISDICTION OF
        a. COURT
        b. JUDICIAL OFFICER
        
        COLLUSION
        
        FRAUD
        a. OFFEROR
        b. IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS
        (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial officer[;]
        (b) collusion between the parties[;] or
        (c) fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. (29)
        
        W
        C
        F
        O
        I
        
        ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE ONLY,
        NOT EVEN RAISING A PRESUMPTION
    - - OFFICIAL ACTS OR RECORDS OF SOVEREIGN, PH OR FOREIGN, WRITTEN
        Public documents are:
        Sec. 19 (a) 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;
        
        NOTARIZED/ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE NP
        a. EXCEPT LAST WILLS & TESTAMENTS
        (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments;
        
        NOTARIZATION EFFECT:
        
        ADMISSIBLE wo FURTHER PROOF
        Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof,
        
        DOC IS PUBLIC DOC AS PER TREATY
        (c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and
        
        IF (1) OFFICE OF RECORD IS IN FOREIGN COUNTRY (2) PARTY TO TREATY, TCPD IS PROVEN BY:
        
        CERTIFICATE or EQUIVALENT
        a. FORM PRESCRIBED BY TREATY
        If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the Philippines.
        
        DOC + CERT = IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF:
        
        DUE EXECUTION
        
        GENUINENESS OF DOC
        
        ADMISSIBLE wo PROOF
        A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the document involved.
        
        CERTIFICATE NOT REQUIRED IF:
        
        TREATY BETWEEN PH & FOREIGN
        a. ABOLISHED REQUIREMENT; or
        b. EXEMPTS DOCUMENT FROM IT
        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 from this formality. (24a)
        
        b. SUBJECT TO RECIPROCITY GRANTED TO PUBLIC DOCS FROM PH
        
        IF FOREIGN COUNTRY IS NOT A PARTY, TCPD MAY BE PROVEN BY:
        
        CERTIFICATE:
        a. SECRETARY of EMBASSY/LEGATION
        b. CONSUL GENERAL
        c. CONSUL
        d. VICE-CONSUL
        e. CONSULAR AGENT
        f. ANY OFFICER IN:
        -i. FOREIGN SERVICE OF PH
        -ii. STATIONED IN FOREIGN COUNTRY OF RECORD
        
        SEAL OF CHOICE
        For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his [or her] office.
        
        PRIVATE DOCS IN:
        a. PUBLIC RECORD
        b. AS REQUIRED BY LAW
        (d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
        
        PRIVATE IF NOT FROM ABOVE
        All other writings are private. (19a)
        
        PRIVATE DOC DEFINED:
        
        ANY OTHER WRITING
        
        EXECUTED BY A PRIVATE PERSON
        
        WITH NO INTERVENTION OF NOTARY OR PERSON LEGALLY AUTHORIZED BY WHICH
        a. SOME DISPOSITION/AGREEMENT IS PROVED/SET FORTH
        private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth
        (Republic v. Sps. Gimenez)
        
        LIST OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
        
        FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
        a. WHETHER AUDITED OR NOT
        b. BUT ONCE FILED WITH GOV'T OFFICE PURSUANT TO LAW, PUBLIC DOC
        once financial statements are filed with a government office pursuant to a provision of law, they become public documents
        
        MARITAL CONSENT
        a. The use of a jurat, instead of an acknowledgement does not elevate the Marital Consent to the level of a public document but instead consigns it to the status of a private writing.
        b. The presumption of regularity does not apply to the Marital Consent which is a private writing. It is subject to the requirement of proof under Sec. 20, Rule 132.
        
        INVALIDLY NOTARIZED B/C
        a. UNAUTHORIZED NOTARIAL OFFICER; or
        b. INCOMPLETE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
        The validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer. o If the notary public does not have the capacity to notarize, but does so anyway, then the document should be treated as unnotarized
        (Tigno v. Spouses Aquino)
        In this case, the photocopy of the REM shows an incomplete acknowledgment portion (Dycoco v. Orina)
        
        PRIVATE DOCS OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC MUST BE PROVED EITHER BY:
        Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
        
        ONE WHO SAW THE DOC EXECUTED/WRITTEN
        OR
        a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
        
        EVIDENCE OF GENUINESS OF SIGN/HW OF MAKER
        b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
        Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
        
        2 more items...
        
        AUTHORIZE PUBLIC RECORD OF PRIVATE DOC MAY BE PROVED BY:
        
        ORIGINAL RECORD;
        OR
        
        COPY OF OR
        a. ATTESTED BY LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
        b. CERTIFICATE OF CUSTODIAN'S CUSTODY
        Section 27. Public record of a private document. – An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. (27)
        
        DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
        this requirement of authentication only pertains to private documents and "does not apply to public documents, these being admissible without further proof of their due execution or genuineness
        (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corp)
        
        RATIO: JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF OFFICIAL SIGNATURE & SEALS BORNE BY PUBLIC DOCS
        Because public documents are authenticated by the official signature and seals which they bear and of which seals, courts may take judicial notice
        (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corp.)
        
        COA EFFECT:
        PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF EXECUTION
        the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (30)
        
        ONLY THAT IT WAS SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO IS PRESUMED
        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
        
        ONLY PORTION EXECUTED IS PRESUMED
        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
        (Jurat - a statement on an affidavit of when, where, and before whom it was sworn)
        
        NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS ONLY PROOF OF:
        
        FACT WHICH GAVE RISE TO EXECUTION
        
        DATE
        
        ONLY COA PROVES EXECUTION
        
        under Section 23, notarized documents are merely proof of the fact which gave rise to their execution (ex. the notarized Answer to Interrogatories is proof that Philtrust had been served with Written Interrogatories), and of the date (ex. the notarized Answer to Interrogatories is proof that the same was executed on October 12, 1992, the date stated thereon),
        
        NOTARIAL DOCUMENT IS EVIDENCE OF FACTS EXPRESSED THEREIN
        (Donation inter vivos here)
        A notarial document is evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption
        (Gutierrez v. Mendoza)
        
        OFFICIAL ACTS ARE PROVEN BY:
        
        OFFICIAL PUBLICATION; OR
        
        ATTESTED COPY BY:
        a. CUSTODIAN or HIS DEPUTY
        b. IF NOT IN PH, CERTIFICATE OF CUSTODY
        Section 24. Proof of official record. –
        The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
        
        ATTESTATION MUST STATE: (CO)
        
        COPY IS CORRECT COPY OF ORIG/PART
        
        OFFICIAL SEAL OF:
        a. ATTESTING OFFICER
        b. COURT, IF CLERK OF COURT
        Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. – Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or she be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (25a)
        
        EXAMPLES OF SUCH OFFICIAL ACTS:
        
        LAWS OF FOREIGN COUNTRY
        In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law.
        (Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam v. Glow Laks Enterprises Ltd.)
        
        JUDICIAL DECISION OF FOREIGN
        The Dubai decision purports to be the written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country, and therefore a public writing under Section 20 (a) of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Sections 25 and 26 of Rules 132 prescribe the manner of proving a public official record of a foreign country.
        
        DOES NOT INCLUDE:
        
        NOTARIZED ABROAD DOCS
        Sec.24 does not include docs acknowledged before a notary public abroad (Sps. Fabre v. CA)
      - REBUTTABLY PRESUMED ONLY
        Said documents have been executed in the proper registry and are presumed to be valid and genuine until the contrary is shown by clear and convincing proof;
        (Heirs of Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corp.)
        
        NOT ALL TYPES OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FACTS THEREIN
        Philippine Trust Company v. CA: not all types of public documents are deemed prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein
        (Republic v. Spouses Gimenez)
        
        "PUBLIC RECORDS MADE IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY" INCLUDE OFFICIAL ACTS & PUBLIC RECORDS - 19(a) and 19(d)
        “Public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer" under Rule 132, Sec. 23 include those specified as public documents under Rule 132, Section 19(a) and the acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or jurat portion of public documents under Section 19(c).
  - - - ART. 1358 ONLY FOR CONVENIENCE, NOT NECESSARY FOR VALIDITY
        While the Civil Code requires certain transactions to appear in public docs, the necessity of a public document for contracts w/c transmit/extinguish real rights over immovable property is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity/enforceability.
        
        Cenido v. Apacionado: SC ruled that the only effect of noncompliance with the provisions of Art. 1358 of the Civil Code is that a party to such a contract embodied in a private document may be compelled to execute a public document.
      - ASSIGNMENT NOT IN PUBLIC INSTRUMENT ONLY PRODUCES NO EFFECT AGAINST THIRD PERSONS
        On the other hand, Art. 1625 of the Civil Code provides that “an assignment of a credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against third person, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in case the assignment involves real property."
- - - - FOREIGN IS PARTY TO TREATY
        IF (1) OFFICE OF RECORD IS IN FOREIGN COUNTRY (2) PARTY TO TREATY, TCPD IS PROVEN BY:
        
        CERTIFICATE or EQUIVALENT
        a. FORM PRESCRIBED BY TREATY
        
        DOC + CERT = IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF:
        
        DUE EXECUTION
        
        GENUINENESS OF DOC
        
        ADMISSIBLE wo PROOF
        
        CERTIFICATE NOT REQUIRED IF:
        
        TREATY BETWEEN PH & FOREIGN
        a. ABOLISHED REQUIREMENT; or
        b. EXEMPTS DOCUMENT FROM IT
      - IF FOREIGN COUNTRY IS NOT A PARTY, TCPD MAY BE PROVEN BY:
        
        CERTIFICATE:
        a. SECRETARY of EMBASSY/LEGATION
        b. CONSUL GENERAL
        c. CONSUL
        d. VICE-CONSUL
        e. CONSULAR AGENT
        f. ANY OFFICER IN:
        -i. FOREIGN SERVICE OF PH
        -ii. STATIONED IN FOREIGN COUNTRY OF RECORD
        
        SEAL OF CHOICE
      - PRIVATE DOCS IN:
        a. PUBLIC RECORD
        b. AS REQUIRED BY LAW
        
        AUTHORIZE PUBLIC RECORD OF PRIVATE DOC MAY BE PROVED BY:
        
        ORIGINAL RECORD;
        OR
        
        COPY OF ORIGINAL RECORD
        a. ATTESTED BY:
        -i. LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
        b. CERTIFICATE OF CUSTODY