doctrines for evidence

8/17/2019 Doctrines for Evidence

1/4

Joson vs Baltazar - Notarization of a private document converts suchdocument into a public one, and renders it admissible in court withoutfurther proof of its authenticity

Sales vs CA - Testimony of the notary public enjoys reater credence

than that of an ordinary witness!

- A notarial ac"nowledment attaches full faith and credit to thedocument concerned!

- #t also vests upon the document the presumption of reularityunless it is impuned by stron, complete and conclusive proof! Such"ind 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,coverin ten $%&' parcels of land in Sibalom, Anti(ue, e)ecuted byplainti*+s sister, Carmen turralde, in favor of defendant Consuelo ! Azurin, which deed plainti* himself, a minister of the .hilippine#ndependent Church, sined as a witness and which his nephew Apolonio turralde also sined as a witness at plainti*+s instance!.lainti*+s claim is that the e)ecution thereof is tainted with fraudulentmisrepresentation / that the document is merely one for the

administration of properties, not a donation! The lower court, in itsdecision of 0uly 1, %234 penned by 5is 5onor, 0ude Conrado 6!5onrado, dismissed the complaint, declared the deed of donationleal and valid and Consuelo ! Azurin owner of the donated ten $%&'parcels of land, with costs! 5ence, this appeal direct to this Court!

ISSUE:

#s the document sined was one for administration, not adonation7

RULING:

No! A rule of lon standin which, throuh the years, has beenadhered to is that a notarial document is evidence of the facts in clear,une(uivocal manner therein e)pressed! #t has in its favor thepresumption of reularity! To contradict all these, as plainti* nowsee"s to do, there must be evidence that is 8clear, convincin andmore than merely preponderant!8 6ur tas" now is to weih theevidence with a view of ascertainin whether plainti* has made out acase conformably to the foreoin standard! #t is undisputed that


2/4

plainti* has been a priest of the .hilippine #ndependent Church for alon time! 5e tal"s and writes Spanish very well! 5e "nows how toread 9nlish! The jude below, who sined the decision and who hadthe opportunity to observe plainti* on the witness chair, ave theopinion that althouh plainti* was already old and a little bit deaf, he

was 8fairly intellient to say the least, and de:nitely !!! not feeble-minded!8 This is the man who claims to have been misled bydefendant ;r! STaain by fa)!


3/4

forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is an electronicdocument and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and thenited Nations Commission on#nternational Trade ?aw $>NC#T


4/4

approachL that it espouses! acsimile transmissions are not, in thissense, Kpaperless,L but verily are paper-based!

#On an ordinary facsimile transmission, there e)ists an oriinal paper-based information or data that is scanned, sent throuh a phone line,

and re-printed at the receivin end! P #On a virtual or paperlessenvironment, technically, there is no oriinal copy to spea" of, as alldirect printouts of the virtual reality are the same, in all respects, andare considered as oriinals! #neluctably, the lawMs de:nition ofKelectronic data messae,L which, as aforesaid, is interchaneablewith Kelectronic document,L could not have included facsimiletransmissions, which have an oriinal paper-based copy as sent and apaper-based facsimile copy as received! These two copies are distinctfrom each other, and have di*erent leal e*ects! Hhile Conressanticipated future developments in communications and computertechnoloy when it drafted the law, it e)cluded the early forms of

technoloy, li"e teleraph, tele) and telecopy $e)cept computer-enerated fa)es, which is a newer development as compared to theordinary fa) machine to fa) machine transmission', when it de:nedthe term Kelectronic data messae!L

TOhe terms Kelectronic data messaeL and Kelectronic document,L asde:ned under the 9lectronic Commerce Act of &&&, do not include afacsimile transmission! Accordinly, a facsimile transmission cannotbe considered as electronic evidence! #t is not the functionale(uivalent of an oriinal under the Best 9vidence

doctrines for evidence

Documents