Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen