Joson vs Baltazar - Notarization of a private document converts such
document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without
further proof of its authenticity Sales vs CA - Testimony of the notary public enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness. - A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the document concerned. - It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof. Such kind of proof has not been presented by the petitioners.
YTURRALDE v. AZURIN, 28 SCRA 407 (1969)
FACTS: This is a suit to annul a notarial deed of donation inter vivos, covering ten (10) parcels of land in Sibalom, Antique, executed by plaintiff's sister, Carmen Yturralde, in favor of defendant Consuelo G. Azurin, which deed plaintiff himself, a minister of the Philippine Independent Church, signed as a witness and which his nephew Apolonio Yturralde also signed as a witness at plaintiff's instance. Plaintiff's claim is that the execution thereof is tainted with fraudulent misrepresentation that the document is merely one for the administration of properties, not a donation. The lower court, in its decision of July 8, 1963 penned by His Honor, Judge Conrado O. Honrado, dismissed the complaint, declared the deed of donation legal and valid and Consuelo G. Azurin owner of the donated ten (10) parcels of land, with costs. Hence, this appeal direct to this Court. ISSUE: Is the document signed was one for administration, not a donation? RULING: No. 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. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict all these, as plaintiff now seeks to do, there must be evidence that is "clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant." Our task now is to weigh the evidence with a view of ascertaining whether plaintiff has made out a case conformably to the foregoing standard. It is undisputed that
plaintiff has been a priest of the Philippine Independent Church for a
long time. He talks and writes Spanish very well. He knows how to read English. The judge below, who signed the decision and who had the opportunity to observe plaintiff on the witness chair, gave the opinion that although plaintiff was already old and a little bit deaf, he was "fairly intelligent to say the least, and definitely ... not feebleminded." This is the man who claims to have been misled by defendant Dr. Raymundo Azurin. MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. SSANGYONG CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 170633; October 17, 2007 Facts: Petitioner is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling stainless steel products. One of its suppliers is the responded, an international trading company with head office in Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City, Philippines. The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls and facsimile or telecopy transmissions. Respondent would send the pro forma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to petitioner; if the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes his signature on the faxed copy and sends it back to the respondent, again by fax. Respondent filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In its complaint, respondent alleged that defendants breached their contract when they refused to open the letter of credit in the amount of US$170,000.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under Pro Forma Invoice Nos. ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2. After respondent rested its case, petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence alleging that respondent failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices on which the civil action was based. Petitioner contends that the photocopies of the pro forma invoices presented by respondent Ssangyong to prove the perfection of their supposed contract of sale are inadmissible in evidence and do not fall within the ambit of R.A. No. 8792, because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original fax transmittal. On the other hand, respondent posits that, from a reading of the law and the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the original facsimile transmittal of the pro
forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronic
document and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and the Rules. Respondent further claims that the photocopies of these fax transmittals (specifically ST2-POSTS0401-1 and ST2-POSTS0401-2) are admissible under the Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficiently explained the non-production of the original fax transmittals. Issue: Whether the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are electronic evidence and admissible as such? Held: Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, showing to reflect the data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must foremost be an electronic data message or an electronic document. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8792 defines the Electronic Data Message refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy. The phrase but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy in the IRRs definition of electronic data message is copied from the Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), from which majority of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792 were taken. While Congress deleted this phrase in the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, the drafters of the IRR reinstated it. The deletion by Congress of the said phrase is significant and pivotal. Moreover, when Congress formulated the term electronic data message, it intended the same meaning as the term electronic record in the Canada law. This construction of the term electronic data message, which excludes telexes or faxes, except computergenerated faxes, is in harmony with the Electronic Commerce Laws focus on paperless communications and the functional equivalent
approach that it espouses. Facsimile transmissions are not, in this
sense, paperless, but verily are paper-based. [I]n an ordinary facsimile transmission, there exists an original paperbased information or data that is scanned, sent through a phone line, and re-printed at the receiving end. [I]n a virtual or paperless environment, technically, there is no original copy to speak of, as all direct printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all respects, and are considered as originals. Ineluctably, the laws definition of electronic data message, which, as aforesaid, is interchangeable with electronic document, could not have included facsimile transmissions, which have an original paper-based copy as sent and a paper-based facsimile copy as received. These two copies are distinct from each other, and have different legal effects. While Congress anticipated future developments in communications and computer technology when it drafted the law, it excluded the early forms of technology, like telegraph, telex and telecopy (except computergenerated faxes, which is a newer development as compared to the ordinary fax machine to fax machine transmission), when it defined the term electronic data message. [T]he terms electronic data message and electronic document, as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.