RULE 132 SECTION 19 – CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents

required by law to the entered therein.

Documentary Evidence in General (Review)
All other writings are private.
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist of writing
or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. (n) Why is it Necessary to differentiate the classes of documents?

First, for purposes of Admissibility: For the reason that there are various
What is a documentary evidence? differences in the manner of proving the authenticity and the due
Documents as evidence not only refer to writing but also any other material like execution of either class of document
objects as long as it contains letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other  notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
modes of written expression and offered as proof of their contents. public document making that document admissible in evidence
 RA 8792 gave recognition of the admissibility of electronic documents without further proof of the authenticity thereof.
and electronic data messages as evidence. It shall function equivalent  What is notarization: To certify or attest to (the validity of a
signature on a document, for example) as a notary public.
to a written paper-based document under existing laws.
 Requirement of proving authenticity does not apply to a public
 Offered as proof of their contents document.
 Public documents enjoy a prima facie presumption of authenticity and
Requisites of admissibility of document as documentary evidence: regular execution.
1. the document must be relevant
2. the evidence must be authenticated Second, it may affect probative value: Probative value of the documents
3. it must be authenticated by a competent witness may also be affected: for example, generally, a TCT will prevail over a Deed of
Sale, assuming that the TCT was valid and regularly issued
4. the document must be formally offered in evidence
5. it is competent as such document is not excluded by the rules of court
or by law (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay, and parol evidence rule) What is Authentication
 Preliminary step in showing the admissibility of evidence
 Unless a document is authenticated, it will not be admitted without a
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS prior authentication

Section 19.Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their General Rule: Presumption is that objects and documents presented in
presentation evidence, documents are either public or private. evidence are as a rule, counterfeit and it is incumbent upon the proponent
of the document to show and prove its authenticity
Public documents are: Unless: the document is self-authenticating

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the Public document Private document
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, Any instrument authorized by a Deed or instrument executed by a
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; competent official with the solemnities private person, without intervention of
required by law a public notary a or other person
(b) Documents acknowledge before a notary public except last wills legally authorized, by which document
and testaments; and some disposition or agreement is

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 1

 proved, evidenced, or set forth whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty, may be given in evidence
(b) Documents acknowledged All other writings (aside from (b) and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and
before a notary public except last and (c) are private. circumstances of each case may appear to require.
wills and testaments;

(c) Public records, kept in the

Philippines, of private documents Note: But not last will and testaments although notarized
required by law to the entered
therein. Why?
1. Official receipts issued by the 1. theater ticket The Rules specifically Section 1 Rule 75, states that:
Board of public health 2. deed acknowledged before a
2. Burial permits issued by the justice of the peace who was NO WILL SHALL PASS EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL ESTATE INLESS IT
Government to be issued not authorized to take IS PROVED AND ALLOWED IN THE PROPER COURT. SUBJECT TO THE
upon receipt of money for acknowledgment of the RIGHT OF APPEAL, SUCH ALLOWANCE OF THE WILL SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS
public purposes documents TO ITS DUE EXECUTION.
3. Official cashbook kept by the 3. official printed blank form if
disbursing officer of the not signed, authorized, or
Coastguard and approved by the proper
Transportation Department official 1. Joson vs. Baltazar – 194 S 114
4. An official receipt printed in
accordancw tiht eh standard Summary: lawyer who notarized a deed of sale although her notarial commission
forms required by the has already expired. She is guilty of malpractice and falsification of public
Government documents
5. Legislative acts
6. Parish records of birth proor FACTS:
to the promulgation Act. No 1. This is a disbarment case instituted by Marciano Joson against Atty.
190 Gloria M. Baltazar-Aguirre. The charge is for the violation of the Revised
7. Certified copies of birth, Penal Code and grave malpractice as a lawyer.
marriages, and deaths, 2. In his complaint, Marciano Joson alleged that on 10 July 1957,
including those made by the respondent Atty. Gloria Baltazar-Aguirre notarized a deed of sale
parish priests who continue to executed by complainant in favor of one Herminia Feliciano, but:
be official custodian of the  at the time respondent Baltazar notarized the deed of
said records sale, she was no longer authorized to do so since her
8. The record of private notarial commission had expired on 31 December
document kept by the justice 1956 and was renewed by her only on 17 September
of the peace courts during the 1957.
Spanish regime 3. respondent Baltazar did not deny that her commission as notary public had
9. Residence certificates expired by the time she notarized the deed of sale but relaying as an excuse
good faith as she had already applied for the renewal of her notary commission,
Why the difference? but it is just that the government employee in charge of such was not able to do
The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes that so.
they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity, and therefore,
ISSUE/S: WON the herein respondent is guilty of malpractice.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 2

 a. He then mortgaged the said property to a certain Agpoon to
HELD: YES. The herein respondent is guilty of malpractice. secure a loan.
b. The loan was not paid by Sales hence, Agpoon tried to enforce
RATIO: the mortgage.
2. Sales, with the consent of his wife, Margarita Ferrer, donated nine
Under the foregoing case, respondent Baltazar's conduct must be similarly hundred (900) square meters of the same property in favor of their
characterized as malpractice and falsification of a public document. daughter, petitioner Esperanza Sales Bermudez. The duly notarized
deed of donation was presented to the Assessor’s Office on the day of
In a previous case, the Supreme Court has rendered a decision finding a lawyer its execution. But this was not registered with the Registry of Deeds.
whose notarial commission has expired to be guilty of malpractice and 3. Agpoon tried to enforce on the mortgage because the loan was unpaid.
To prevent this, Gonzales and Sales entered into an agreement whereby
Gonzales will be paying the loan and in turn, they will execute a deed of
WHY? sale over the said piece of land.
4. A document entitled “Deed of Sale” between Severo Sales and Leonilo
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a Gonzales was registered with the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan.
public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of 5. During the Proceedings for the intestate estate Leonilo Gonzales, the
its authenticity. land was excluded from the estate.
 Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be 6. Sales then filed a complaint to nullify the deed of sale.
able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary 7. The CFI rendered a decision in favour of Gonzales ruling that the deed
public and appended to a private instrument. of sale was valid. The CA upheld this decision.
 Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages 8. Hence, the present action by the petition.
public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that
interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or
authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the Main thrust of the issue: We take note of the fact that while the Deed of
public and the courts and administrative offices generally. Donation was not registered, the Deed of Sale was registered as evidenced by
the notation made by Cipriano Abenojar, Register of Deeds of Lingayen,
At the time that she notarized the subject deed of sale, she has knowledge that Pangasinan and the official receipt issued by the Registry of Deeds.
her notarial commission had already expired.
Issue: could the deed of donation that is unregistered be considered as binding
against Gonzales and over the registered deed of sale?
2. Sales vs. CA – 211 S 858
Ruling: The Deed of Donation could not bind Gonzales considering that the
Summary: Severo Sales donated a parcel of land to his daughter, Esperanza registered Deed of Sale shows his title. (unregistered deed of donation cannot
evidenced by an unregistered deed of donation. Gonzales, on the other hand, prevail over the registered deed of sale)
was claiming that he same parcel of land was sold to him by Severo
subsequently evidenced by a registered deed of sale. The registered deed of sale 1. While the deed of donation is valid between the donor and the donee
“won” over the deed of donation although the latter happened first. thereby effectively transmitting the rights to said property from Sales to
his daughter, such deed, however, did not bind Leonilo Gonzales, a
third party to the donation. This is because nonregistration of a deed of
Facts: donation under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3344 does not bind other parties
1. Severo Sales owned an unregistered parcel of land in Bugallon, ignorant of a previous transaction, notwithstanding the provision therein
Pangasinan. which petitioners invoke that “any registration made under this section

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 3

 shall be understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a a) a Deed of Quitclaim executed by some people surnamed Tan in favour of
better right.” two Yareds, involving a Lot in Salvacion, Ormoc City; and
2. Bermudez may not be a considered a third party being the daughter of
b) a Deed of Absolute Sale involving the same parties 
the vendor himself and the “better right” possessed by a third party
refers to other titles which a party might have acquired independently 3. On January 30, 1990, respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. issued certified
of the unregistered deed such as title by prescription. true copies of the said instruments. 
- On the basis of the certified true copies of the subject deeds,
Issue no 2: is the deed of sale valid considering that the property is the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City issued on February 2, 1990 TCT
located in Pangasinan and the document was executed in Tarlac? No. 23889 in favor of Asuncion T. Yared.
4. it appears that the respondent of the administrative case Atty. Cleto
Ruling: Yes. Evangelista, Jr. issued the certified certified true copes of the subject deeds
which became the basus of the Registration. However, he was not the lawyer ho
1. The extrinsic validity of the deed of sale is not affected by the fact that notarized the said deeds, and it was rather, the father who did the same.
while the property subject thereof is located in Bugallon, Pangasinan
where the vendors also resided, the document was executed in San
Miguel, Tarlac. What is important under the Notarial Law is that the ISSUE/S: WON respondent Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. is guilty of gross
notary public concerned has authority to acknowledge the document misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral turpitude for
executed within his territorial jurisdiction. falsification of public documents.
2. A notarial acknowledgment attaches full faith and credit to the
document concerned. HELD: Yes.
3. It also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it
RATIO: Records disclose that Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Jr. admitted having
is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof. Such kind of
certified true copies of the Deed of Quitclaim executed on May 7, 1977 and the
proof has not been presented by the petitioners.
Deed of Absolute Sale executed on January 7, 1972. His late father, Atty. Cleto
P. Evangelista, notarized the subject deeds.
3. Lucente vs. Evangelista, Jr. – 396 S 627 Section 245 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads:
Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a register to be known
Summary: Certified true copies must be issued by the lawyer who
as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official
acknowledged and who has official custody of the same. Hence, atty.
acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or
Cleto Jr. cannot do such for the documents notarized by his father,
any parts thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal
although he is a partner of the same.
fees therefor. x x x.
Sections 246 and 247 of the same Code also require the notary public to forward
FACTS:
his notarial register to the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance (now
1. Winnie C. Lucente and Alicia G. Domingo charged Atty. Cleto L. Evangelista, Regional Trial Court) of the province or city wherein he exercises his office for
Jr. with gross misconduct, deceit, malpractice and crimes involving moral safekeeping.
turpitude for falsification of public documents.
By certifying true copies of the subject deeds, Atty. Cleto L.
2. Complainants alleged that respondent is the son of the late Atty. Cleto Evangelista, Jr. engaged in an unlawful and deceitful conduct. He was
Evangelista, who during his lifetime notarized the ff: not the notary public before whom said documents were acknowledged
and he was neither the custodian of the original copies thereof. The
Records Management and Archives Office, Manila, certified that there was no

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 4

copy on file of the Deed of Quitclaim notarized by respondents father. Rule 1.01 A notarial document (a public document, therefore) is evidence of the
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of facts in clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor
the Rules of Court is broad enough to cover any form of misconduct of a lawyer the presumption of regularity.
in his professional and personal capacity.
Court’s task now is to weigh the evidence with a view of ascertaining whether
plaintiff has made out a case conformably to the foregoing standard.
In this connection, we have consistently held that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such Plaintiff has not discharged his heavy burden of showing irregularity or
that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The defect in the said document to overcome the presumption of regularity .
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or
authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, Therefore, the lower court correctly declared that the deed of donation was
and the administrative offices in general. properly executed.
 It is undisputed that plaintiff has been a priest of the Philippine
Independent Church for a long time. He talks and writes Spanish very
It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public well. He knows how to read English. The judge below, who signed the
converts a private document into a public document making that decision and who had the opportunity to observe plaintiff on the witness
document admissible in evidence without further proof of the chair, gave the opinion that although plaintiff was already old and
authenticity thereof. For this reason, notaries public must observe with a little bit deaf, he was "fairly intelligent to say the least, and
utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. definitely x x x not feebleminded." This is the man who claims to
have been misled by defendant Azurin.
 Moreover, if the intention of the Azurins were to palm off
donation for mere administration, they would not have chosen
4. Yturralde vs. Azurin – 28 S 407 such a time when not only plaintiff but the latter’s nephew, a
person also of mature age, were present. The ways of fraud are
FACTS: such that it is unlikely that the Azurins would risk the success of their
1. This involves a suit to annul a deed of donation inter vivos, covering 10 alleged nefarious scheme in the presence of those who, by the nature
parcels of land in Antique, executed by Carmen Yturralde (plaintiff Cipriano of things, are bound to protect the interests of a close relation.
Yturralde’s sister), in favor of defendant Consuelo Azurin, which deed  Defendant’s evidence is that said document was handed over to
plaintiff himself (a minister of Phil. Independent Church), signed as a plaintiff. Even if the Court conceded that he knows no English,
witness and which his nephew Apolonio also signed as witness at plaintiffs the very title of the document must have arrested his attention.
instance. The English word "DONATION" was there. That is the equivalent of the
2. Plaintiff’s claim is that the execution thereof is tainted with fraudulent Spanish word "DONACIÓN", which, of course, he understands.
misrepresentation – that the document is merely one for the
administration of properties, not a donation. Since the donation was made in a public document specifying the
3. Lower Court: dismissed the complaint; declared that the deed of donation is immovables donated, and the conditions for the donation, and that
legal and valid; declared Consuelo Azurin as the owner of the donated 10 acceptance thereof was made in the same deed of donation, that
parcels of land. donation should be given effect.

ISSUE: WON the LC is correct in declaring that the deed of donation is legal and
valid ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE (as functional equivalent of documentary evidence)

RULING: YES!
Read: MC Industrial Corp v Ssangyong GR 170633, October 17, 2007

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 5

 because the law merely admits as the best evidence the original
Facsimile are not considered as part of the Electronic Evidence as they fax transmittal.
are paper- based.
Ssangyong: Relies on the Rules on Electronic Evidence. That the original
FACTS: facsimile transmittal of the pro forma invoice is admissible in evidence since it is
1. Petitioner MCC is engaged in the business of importing and wholesaling an electronic document and, therefore, the best evidence under the law and
stainless steel products. One of its suppliers is the Ssangyong the Rules; that the photocopies of these fax transmittals admissible under the
Corporation (Ssangyong), an international trading company with head Rules on Evidence because the respondent sufficiently explained the non-
office in Seoul, South Korea and regional headquarters in Makati City. production of the original fax transmittals.
2. The two corporations conducted business through telephone calls and
facsimile or telecopy transmissions. Ssangyong would send the pro ISSUE: WON the print-out and/or photocopies of facsimile transmissions are
forma invoices containing the details of the steel product order to MCC; electronic evidence and admissible as such.
if the latter conforms thereto, its representative affixes his signature on
the faxed copy and sends it back to Ssangyong, again by fax. RULING: NO. The terms "electronic data message" and "electronic document,"
3. Ssangyong sent by fax a letter addressed to Chan (MCC Manager) to as defined under the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, do not include a
confirm MCC’s order of 220metric tons of hot rolled stainless steel (rate facsimile transmission. Facsimile transmissions are not "paperless," but verily
of $1860 per MT). Chan affixed his signature on the conforme portion. are paper-based.
4. Ssangyong forwarded to MCC a pro forma invoice containing the terms
and conditions of the transaction, MCC sent back by fax the invoice Accordingly, a facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic
bearing Chan’s conformity signature. The invoice states that payment evidence. It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
would be made through an irrevocable letter of credit (L/C) at sight in Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
favor of Ssangyang.
5. Ssangyong placed an order with its supplier to accommodate MCC’s Since a facsimile transmission is not an "electronic data message" or an
order. "electronic document," and cannot be considered as electronic evidence by the
6. MCC only managed to open a partial letter of credit, hence the order Court, with greater reason is a photocopy of such a fax transmission not
was split into two (110MT each). After a series of communications, and electronic evidence. In the present case, therefore, Pro Forma Invoices, which
for difficulty of MCC to open an L/C, the rate was decreased to $1700 are mere photocopies of the original fax transmittals, are not electronic
per MT and the order to only 100MT per order. evidence.
7. MCC managed to open a L/C for 100MT and Ssangyong delivered.
However, due to the prevailing price of the said steel at the decreased However, since these documents are mere photocopies, they are simply
to $1500, MCC asked for a reduction for the remaining order. secondary evidence, admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5.
Ssangyong refused thru another letter. MCC no longer replied. Given these norms, we find that respondent failed to prove the existence of the
8. Ssangyong filed a civil action for damages due to breach of contract original fax transmissions, and likewise did not sufficiently prove the loss or
against petitioner. In its complaint, respondent alleged that defendants destruction of the originals. Thus, cannot be admitted in evidence and accorded
breached their contract when they refused to open the letter of credit in probative weight.
the amount of US$170,000.00 for the remaining 100MT of steel under
their Pro Forma Invoices. The Court faulted the administrative body that created the IRR for the Electronic
9. After Ssangyong rested its case, MCC filed a Demurrer to Evidence. Commerce Act for including therein “electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic
mail, telegram, telex or telecopy," although the same was intentionally omitted
MCC: Ssangyong failed to present the original copies of the pro forma invoices during the drafting of the Electronic Commerce Act.
on which the civil action was based. Photocopies of the pro forma invoices
presented 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,

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 6

RULE 132 SECTION 20 – PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
3. by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the
Section 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private maker
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due  here, the witness testifies or shows evidence that the signature of
execution and authenticity must be proved either: handwriting of the maker is genuine

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or MUST BE PROVEN TO BE AUTHENTIC:
handwriting of the maker.
1. When the document is an ancient one within Rule 132 Section 21
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is 2. When the genuineness and the authenticity of an actionable document
claimed to be. have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party
(admitted or not denied)
3. When the genuineness and the authenticity had been admitted
A. if private document is offered as authentic 4. Document is not offered as authentic
5. Private document notarized (already public, except wills)
 there is a need to prove its execution and authenticity
 when is it claimed as such? When the document is offered to prove
that the document was truly executed by the person purported to 1. Raz vs. IAC – 184 S 720
have made the same
o example, that the deed was actually executed by him or
by his brother, or whoever 1. On August 7, 1972, Reva Raz and the original private respondent
herein, Encarnacion Villanueva entered into a Conditional Assignment of
Rights and Interests over a Foreclosure Judgment.
B. if private document is not offered as authentic 2. By virtue of the Conditional Assignment, Villanueva transferred all her
rights and interests in the said judgment to Raz in consideration of the
 needs only to be identified in court sum of P75,000.00 to be paid by the petitioner 3. The petitioner paid
 when is it claimed as such? When the purpose is for the offeror to the first two installments, but refused to pay the third which
show that a certain document exists (e.g., I found this document at wassupposed to be due on August 7, 1974, on the ground that
the table) Villanueva had not complied with her obligation under their agreement.
3. Petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages
against the private respondent.
General Rule: Private documents must be authenticated through probing its 4. In her answer, Villanueva alleged that it was the petitioner who had
due execution and genuineness through any of the following means: defaulted in her payments to which she gave her a letter of demand to
remind her of the obligation, as well as another letter informing her of
1. by anyone who sat the writing executed; the rescission of the contract for she has thus given her just cause for
2. by a subscribing witness; or the rescission of the agreement.
 To support her claim, Villanueva presented two letters she said she
 in these two modes, the witness relies on her personal knowledge had sent Raz, the first to remind her of the third installment that
and attests to the genuineness of the document because it was had not yet been paid and the second to tender her the refund of
executed or signed in his presence her earlier payments in view of the rescission of their contract.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 7

  During the trial of the case the authenticity of the Deed of We have made such comparison and find that the signature of Encarnacion G.
Conditional Sale/ Assignment was admitted. The Deed bore the Villanueva on the Conditional Assignment (which is not disputed) is similar to the
signatures of the parties in this case. signatures affixed to the two letters sent to the petitioner.

5. According to the petitioner, the two letters allegedly sent to her by the There is no doubt that the agreement and the two letters were signed
private respondents should not have been admitted in evidence not only by private respondent Encarnacion G. Villanueva. Consequently, their
because there was no proof that she had received them. No less authenticity and execution having been established, we hold that the
importantly, their genuineness had not been established by the private letters were admissible as evidence of the private respondent.
respondent invoking Rule 132 Section 19 (failing to prove the genuiness
of the handwriting of the maker or by a witness)

ISSUE/S: WON the two (2) letters are admissible as evidence. Question: Was the Court the one who “proved” the authenticity of the
documents by comparing it on its own? Yes. it seems so. Is that
HELD: YES. The two (2) letters are admissible as evidence considering that the allowed? Yes.
genuineness of the handwriting of the private respondent was done through the
other mode of authentication--- comparing the handwriting of the maker to other
writing already admitted as evidence, and in this case, the Conditiona Deed of
Assignment. 2. Ong vs. People – 342 S 372

RATIO: Sec. 21. Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved . — (photocopies of the approved sale, receipt and invoices-- the
Before any private writing may be received in evidence, its due execution and prosecution made no effort to prove authenticity)
authenticity must be proved either:
1. Zeny Alfonso purchased a paper bagmaking machine for P362,000.00
a) By anyone who saw the writing executed; from the Solid Cement Corporation. When she went to the corporation’s
Antipolo plant, however, no machine could be given to her, it appearing
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or that the machine sold had been earlier mortgaged to a creditor, who,
unfortunately, refused to release the mortgage. Hence, Alofonso filed a
c) By a subscribing witness. criminal complaint for estafa against herein petitioner.
2. After pretrial, the prosecution presented as its sole witness complainant
The petitioner was actually arguing against herself in invoking Rule 132, Section Zeny Alfonso. The prosecution then formally offered its documentary
21, for one of the modes prescribed therein for proving the execution and evidence and rested its case.
authenticity of any private writing is "by evidence of the genuineness of the a. the documentary evidence presented were mere
handwriting of the maker." This mode must be read with Section 23 of photocopies of the approval of the sale, of the receipt,
the same Rule, which says that — and other documents.
3. The petitioners filed a motion of demurrer to evidence stressing
. . . Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a that all the documents were uncertified photocopies bearing
comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings unidentified or unauthenticated signatures are inadmissible in evidence.
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the 4. The MeTC then denied the demurrer to evidence and ruled that there is
evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction a prima facie case against the petitioner.
of the judge.
Issue: Should the demurrer to evidence be granted? Yes.
Controlling issue: was there competent evidence to support a verdict of guilt
against the petitioner? No.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 8

 RULE 132 SECTION 21— ANCIENT PRIVATE DOCUMENTS
Ruling: there is no competent evidence to support the verdict of guilt of the
petitioner because the due execution and the authenticity of the documents were Section 21. When evidence of authenticity of private document not
not proven. necessary. — Where a private document is more than thirty years old,
is produced from the custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuine, and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
In the instant case, there is no competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the suspicion, no other evidence of its authenticity need be given.
indictment or to support a verdict of guilt against petitioners. As pointed out by
petitioners, all documentary evidence submitted by the private complainant were REQUISITES:
uncertified photocopies of certain documents, the signatures on which were 1. it is more than 30 years old;
either unidentified or unauthenticated. 2. it is found and produced in the proper custody as its nature requires
(e.g., deed of sale with the vendee);
Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that “before any 3. it is unblemished by any alterations or by any circumstance of suspicion
private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution (What is considered as a blemish? Hahaha idk)
and authenticity must be proved either:

(a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or Effect:

(b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of  Genuineness and due execution need not be proven as required in
the maker. Section 20.
 Although authentication is not necessary, identification through a
Being private instruments, their due and valid execution and their genuineness witness is still necessary
and authenticity must first be established, either by the testimony of any one
who saw the writing executed or by evidence of the genuineness of the Reason for the Rule:
handwriting of the maker hereof.  After such a long lapse of time, ordinary testimonial evidence from
those who saw the document, or knows of the handwriting, or hear the
In the present case, A painstaking perusal of the testimony of the party admit its due execution, is practically unavailing
prosecution’s sole witness reveals, however, that the due execution and  The circumstances of age, or long existence of the document, together
authenticity of these documents were never proved. In fact, the prosecution took with its proper custody, its unsuspicious appearance, suffice as
no effort to prove the due execution and authenticity of these documents during evidence.
the presentation of their sole witness. Absent such proof, these documents are
incompetent as evidence. It is elementary that this Court cannot rightly
appreciate firsthand the genuineness of an unverified and unidentified document;
much less, accord it evidentiary value.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 9

RULE 132 SECTION 22 – HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING Treasurer, Lianga, Surigao del Sur at the rate of FOUR
PROVED THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY TWO PESOS ONLY per
annum (P4,632.00), effective March 16, 1980. I HEREBY
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The CERTIFY THAT:
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it
"1. He is not related to me to (sic) any person exercising
to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
immediate supervision over him within the third degree of
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
either consanguinity or affinity.
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may 4. On 28 September 1988, petitioner was charged before the
also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with Sandiganbayan with the crime of falsification of public document
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the defined in Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the 5. He was then found guilty o fthe crime of falsification of public
judge. document.

How to prove genuineness of the handwriting of a person? PETITIONER’S CLAIM: the prosecution was not able to prove the genuineness
(1) Any one who has seen it being made; of his signature in the certification.
(2) Any one who is familiar with the handwriting of said person either
because he has seen his writings purporting to be his and recognized  He claims that the lone witness for the prosecution, Amando R. Pandi,
and admitted to be his own; Jr., who identified his signature on the said certification is incompetent
(3) By comparison, or collation to be made by the court, with writings to testify on the matter because Pandi, as admitted, never saw the
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence petitioner actually signing (affixing) his signature on the questioned
was offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court certification.

Issue: Was the prosecution able to prove the genuineness of the handwriting/
1. Layno vs. People – 213 S 686 signature of the herein accused?

FACTS:
1. The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao Ruling: Yes. According to the rules, aside from the method of proving the
del Sur. genuineness of the handwriting through the testimony of a witness who
2. On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his personally saw the person write/execute the document, there are still other 2
legitimate son, meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of modes which were utilized by the Sandiganbayan:
Lianga. He signed the appointment document — Civil Service Form No.
35 — twice, first as the appointing authority and second, as the
personnel officer, certifying" (t)hat all the required supporting papers 1. testimony of Pandi who has gained familiarity with the handwriting of
pursuant to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended. have been complied with, the mayor; and
reviewed and found to be in order." 2. by comparison with another document which was proven to be genuine
3. Among the supporting papers required for the appointment is the or admitted during the trial
Certification signed by the petitioner, reading as follows:

"In connection with the appointment of MR. FERNANDO Y.

LAYNO, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, in the Office of Municipal

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 10

RATIO: Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, the 2. Jacob vs. CA – 224 S 189
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who "has seen writing
purporting to be his upon which the witness acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person." Otherwise stated, any FACTS:
witness any be called who has, by sufficient means, acquired knowledge of the 1. Private respondents sued petitioners for recovery of possession and
general character of the handwriting of the party whose signature is in question. ownership of a parcel of land located in Albay.
2. Spouses Agaton Boragay and Manuela Bobiles originally owned the subject
Prosecution witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify on land. They had only one child named Gregoria Boragay.
the signature of Petitioner on the Certification, because in the course 3. When the spouses died, the property passed on to Gregoria who stayed on
of his employment as municipal secretary and designated personnel the land together with her husband Alejandro Alcera and their 3 children.
officer in the municipal government of Lianga. Surigao del Sur, he had When their children got married, they left the property and lived with their
seen records under his charge bearing the long and short signatures of respective husbands.
the petitioner, and, as such, he had acquired knowledge of the general 4. 1974 – Venancio Bonto and Felicidad Boragay constructed a shanty on the
character of the handwriting of the petitioner.  subject land
5. 1977 – Bonifacio Bobiles and Rosalina Base also built their house on the said
Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the signature on the certification
lot
in question is the signature of the petitioner was not only based on the testimony
a. Same year, the OCT was cancelled and TCT in the name of
of Amando R. Pandi, Jr. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
private respondents was issued. (Private respondents are the
further provides that" (e)vidence respecting the handwriting may also be given
grandchildren of sps Boragay and Bobiles)
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
6. 1981 – 2 more houses were erected on the land by Buenaventura Jacob,
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved
Ledita Burce, Edilberto Bonto and Elena Borebor (petitioners in this case)
to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." Pursuant thereto, the
7. 1984 – Trinidad Alcera Cruz demanded verbally that the petitioners vacate
Sandiganbayan compared the signature on the certification with the
the premises but the latter refused.
signatures of the petitioner on documents filed with the court, and
8. Hence, the filing of the complaint.
which were proved to be genuine. Thus, the Sandiganbayan held:
9. Petitioners claimed that in 1933, the spouses Boragay and Bobiles sold the
"The record of this case contains documents bearing signatures of the accused subject lot to Leon Cabida in an Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro
which have been proved to be genuine or treated by him to be so. We refer, (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase). In 1948 – Cabida sold the land to
among many others, to two full signatures undisputably affixed by the accused Emilio Bonto, husband of Rosario Burce. In 1956, Emilio Bonto executed a
on the appointment paper, Exhibit A, on March 16, 1980, the day when the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ricardo Burce and Consolacion Burce Elaco
questioned signature was made. There is no doubt that these two signatures covering 595 sqm of the said lot. Emilio Bonto retained the 199 sqm.
strikingly resemble that on Exhibit B not only in general appearance but also in In1980, Consolacion Burce Elaco, with the conformity of the heirs of her
the manner the illegible letters were formed. Even the accused himself brother Ricardo, verbally ceded to her niece Ledita Burce Jacob the 595 sqm
reluctantly admitted that the challenged signature ‘really looks like my signature portion of the subject property (confirmed and ratified by Consolacion in a
and is almost the same’." document executed in 1985)
a. They also averred that they had been in actual and physical
After making the comparison, the Sandiganbayan was satisfied and convinced possession of the property under claim of ownership for more than
that the signature on the certification Exhibit B is truly the signature of the 51 years. Taxes on the property had been paid since 1948 by their
petitioner. The Court finds no ground or reason for disturbing such finding or predecessors-in-interest. It was only in 1976 that the private
conclusion. respondents came to know the subject lot.
10. Trial Court: dismissed the complaint. Ownership of the land - petitioners
11. Court of Appeals: reversed. Ownership of the land – private respondents as
they were the registered owners of the land/ this is binding to the wholw
world.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 11

 a. THE CA further held that the Escritura de Venta, which was the 1. The respondent TRIUMPH LUMBER filed an action against the petitioner
basis of the petitioners’ claim cannot be given any weight because Bank so reimburse it the value of the alleged forged checks drawn
the same was not authenticated during the trial. against Triumph’s account in the petitioner Bank.
a. During the trial, it was established that the 3 checks which
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in disregarding the Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de
were drawn against the account of the accused were all forged
Retro (Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase)
per findings of the PC Crime Laboratories. That the signatures
RULING: YES. The Court of Appeals erred when it disregarded the of its authorized signatories were all forged.
Escritura de Venta con Pacto de Retro as a mere scrap of paper. In fact, b. However, the 3 original checks alleged to be forged were not
it was an important piece of evidence that it should not have dismissed out of submitted in court. instead, mere photocopies of the checks
hand. were presented as evidence.
2. Decision of the trial court: the trial court found no preponderance of
Rule 132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 22. Evidence of execution not necessary .—Where a private writing evidence to support the complaint of the petitioner. It ruled that the
is more than thirty years old, is produced from a custody in which it private respondent failed to show that the signatures on the subject
would naturally be found if genuine, and is unblemished by any checks were forged. It did not even present in court the originals of the
alterations or circumstances of suspicion, no other evidence of its checks. Neither did it bother to explain its failure to do so. Thus, it could
execution and authenticity need be given. be presumed that the original checks were wilfully suppressed and
would be adverse to private respondents case if produced.
The Escritura complied with all the requisites laid down in the above provision.
3. on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and
 It was more than 51 years old when it was presented in court;
 it was produced by the proper custodians thereof who were the heirs of ordered the petitioner to reimburse the private respondent. It
the person who would validly keep it; held that it was not necessary for the respondent to prove that the
 and there is no question it was unblemished by any suspicious alteration checks were forged because of the admissions made by the petitioner
or erasure. Bank and the unrebutted testimony of the expert witness.
It was therefore unnecessary to prove its execution and authenticity as evidence 4. Hence the present action by the petitioner Bank arguing that:
of the transfer of the disputed property to Leon Cabida, the petitioners’  that the best evidence of the forgery were the original checks
predecessor-ininterest.
bearing the alleged forged signatures of private respondents
Nevertheless, the said document, although authentic, may not be held officers. In spite of the timely objection made by the petitioner, the
to defeat the rights of the private respondent whose title had been private respondent introduced in evidence mere photocopies of the
registered and is binding to the whole world. questioned checks. The failure to produce the originals of the
BUT, even so, that document cannot prevail against the transfer certificate of checks was a fatal omission inasmuch as there would be no
title in the name of the private respondents, who remain and are recognized as evidentiary basis for the court to declare that the instruments were
the registered owners of the disputed land. That title is good as against the forgeries.
whole world.
 the expert witness, contrary to the trial courts finding, was able to
examine the signatures on the original checks and compared them
3. Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and with the standard signatures of the signatories. The photographic
Construction Corp. – 301 S 537 (supra) enlargements of the questioned checks, which she identified in
court, were in fact taken from the original checks. With the banks
admission in its answer, as well as the unrebutted testimony of the

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 12

 expert witness and of Chun Yun Kit, there could be no doubt that Moreover, the socalled specimen signatures on the bond paper were not directly
the signatures on the questioned checks were forged. turned over to Tabo by those who purportedly wrote them. They, together with
the questioned checks, were first submitted to the Administration Branch of the
Issue: was the complainant able to sufficiently prove the forgery of the PC Crime Laboratory, then endorsed to the Questioned Document Branch.
signatures in the subject checks in order for there to be a valid ruling
that the subject checks should be reimbursed?

Ruling: No. the specimen signatures analyzed by the expert must also be 4. Sy vs. CA – 330 S 550
authenticated. This the plaintiff, failed to do.
FACTS:
The initial step in such investigation is the introduction of the genuine 1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted
handwriting of the party sought to be charged with the disputed writing, which is marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes
to serve as a standard of comparison. in Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed
with two children
The standard or the exemplar must therefore be proved to be genuine. For the 2. The spouses first established their residence in Singalong, Manila, then
purpose of proving the genuineness of a handwriting Section 22, Rule 132 of the in Apalit, Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga.
Rules of Court provides: They operated a lumber and hardware business in Sto. Tomas,
Pampanga.
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a 3. On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since
person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the then, the spouses lived separately, and their two children were in the
handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or custody of their mother. However, their son Frederick transferred to his
has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted father's residence at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on May 15, 1988, and
or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting from then on, lived with his father.
of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given 4. On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation before
by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga which was later amended to a
admitted or treated as genuine by the party. petition for separation of property.
5. In 1988, she filed a case of attempted parricide against Fernando.
The genuineness of a standard writing may be established by any of However, the case was lowered to slight physical injuries.
the following: 6. Petitioner filed for a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the
(1) by the admission of the person sought to be charged with the ground of psychological incapacity. It was denied.
disputed writing made at or for the purposes of the trial, or by his 7. On appeal, she raised the issue of their marriage being void ab initio for
testimony; (2) by witnesses who saw the standards written or to whom the lack of marriage license.
or in whose hearing the person sought to be charged acknowledged the 8. Their marriage license was obtained on September 17, 1972 while their
writing thereof; (3) by evidence showing that the reputed writer of the marriage was celebrated on November 15, 1973. Hence, the marriage
standard has acquiesced in or recognized the same, or that it has been license was expired already.
adopted and acted upon by him in his business transactions or other
concerns. ISSUE/S:
1. WON the marriage is valid.
We find in the records only photocopies, not the originals, of the long bond 2. WON the mere photocopies of the marriage certificate and license are
papers containing the alleged specimen signatures. Nobody was presented to properly admitted as evidence.
prove that the specimen signatures were in fact signatures affixed by Yu Chun HELD:
Kit and Co Yok Teng. 1. NO. the marriage is NOT valid.
2. YES. They were properly admitted.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 13

RATIO: B. Documents consisting of entries in public records
1. Evidence shows that there was no marriage license. A marriage license  prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated
is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio.
In addition, the marriage contract shows that the marriage license, was C. All other public documents
issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private respondent  of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the
ever resided in Carmona. Marriage is void ab initio for lack of marriage latter
license. Issue on psychological incapacity is hereby mooted.

2. We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only 1. Realubit v Jaso 658 S 146
photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and
daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were marked
as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows that these Facts:
have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no objections 1. Petitioner Realubit entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with a
having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, French national named Biondo for the operation of an ice
no objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court manufacturing business with Realubit as industrial partner and Biondo
when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their as capitalist partner
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, 2. However, in consideration for a certain amount, Biondo then executed
that having been admitted in evidence, with the adverse party failing to a Deed of Assignment transferring all his rights to herein respondents
timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of Jaso. This Deed of Assignment was notarized and acknoweledged
the facts contained therein. before the notary public Rolando Diaz.
RULE 132 SECTION 23 – PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE 3. The respondent tried demanding from the petitioners accounting and
remittance of the income of the JVA as assignee of Biondo.
Section 23. Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of 4. However, the petitioners refused to do the same.
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public 5. Hence, the respondent then filed a complaint for specific performance
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other against the petitioners and submitting as evidence the notarized Deed
public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact of Assignment executed by Biondo, as well as the notary public Rolando
which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. Diaz.
a. the petitioner was arguing that the Deed of Assignment was a
forgery.
Coverage of the Presumption 6. Both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeals, although
resolving several issues differently, held that the Deed of Assignment,
A. Notary/ Acknowledged which was notarized, upheld the document’s validity.
 Public documents are perfect evidence of the fact which gave rise to 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioners Realubit calling attention to
their execution and of the date of the same; if the act which the officer the failure of the respondents to present the assignor, or at the least,
witnessed is not shown to be false the witnesses during the execution of the contract.
 However, it is not conclusive evidence with respect to the a. that the testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public before
truthfulness of the statements made therein by the interested whom the same was acknowledged, did not suffice to establish
parties its authenticity and/or validity. They insist that notarization did
not automatically and conclusively confer validity on said deed,
Example: Baptismal certificate is proof of the administration of the sacrament since it is still entirely possible that Biondo did not execute said
and the date; but not the details or statement as to the kinsfolk of the person deed or, for that matter, appear before said notary public.
baptized

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 14

Issue: Were the lower courts correct in ruling that the said Notarized 1. A property was the subject of a deed of pacto de retro sale dated May
Deed of Assignment as valid and authentic? 26, 1992 allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio Manzano,
the predecessor-in-interest and brother of petitioner Vicente Manzano,
Ruling: Yes. There being a presumption of regularity and authenticity Jr. (Vicente) for the amount of P80,500.00. Under said contract, Garcia
accorded to public documents, the Deed of Assignment is admissible purportedly reserved the right to repurchase the subject property for
without further or preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. the same price within three months from the date of the instrument.
Further, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to rebut such, and this the 2. Garcia did not redeem the subject property within the three-month
plaintiff failed to do. period.
3. Consequently, Vicente instituted a petition for consolidation of
ownership over the property as an heir of the vendee.
Ratio:  Garcia’s Defense: Garcia alleged that the document
evidencing the pacto de retro sale was a forgery. He claimed
1. It is a settled rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public that he and his wife were in the USA from June 1, 1988 to
are public documents which are admissible in evidence without November 14, 1992, and therefore could not have possibly
necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due executed the said pacto de retro sale on May 26, 1992.
execution. 4. On February 15, 1994, Garcia filed a complaint for annulment of
2. As a public document, the Deed of Assignment Biondo executed in favor pacto de retro sale and recovery of the owner’s title with preliminary
of Eden not only enjoys a presumption of regularity but is also injunction against Vicente.
considered prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.  In his complaint, Garcia reiterated that he and his wife never
3. A party assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized participated in the execution of the alleged deed of pacto de retro
document is, consequently, required to present evidence that is clear, sale dated May 26, 1992 and that in fact, they were still in
convincing and more than merely preponderant. possession of the said property.
 He further alleged that he came to know the existence of said
Hence, in view of the Spouses Realubit’s failure to discharge this onus, we document only when the counsel of Vicente sent him a letter on
find that both the RTC and the CA correctly upheld the authenticity and January 18, 1993 demanding that he should repurchase the
validity of said Deed of Assignment upon the combined strength of the property pursuant to the purported terms of the pacto de retro sale
abovediscussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies of Jaso and of within 15 days from receipt of said letter.
the Notary Public.  Upon further inquiry, he discovered that a certain Mr. P. Pacot had
executed the questioned document by misrepresenting himself as
Furthermore, the forgery assertion is not supported. Forgery is never Marcelino G. Garcia (bearing the wrong middle initial) who resided
presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and convincing evidence by in Casinglot, Misamis Oriental, as evidenced by the Residence
the party alleging the same.23 Aside from not being borne out by a Certificate used in the acknowledgement page of the pacto de retro
comparison of Biondo’s signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement24 and sale.
the Deed of Assignment,25 said forgery is, moreover debunked by Biondo’s 5. During the trial, Vicente presented TCT No. T-25464 and Tax
duly authenticated certification dated 17 November 1998, confirming the Declaration No. 41672 to prove the due execution of the pacto de retro
transfer of his interest in the business in favor of Eden. sale, which was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of CDO.
6. On the other hand, Garcia testified that he went to the USA on
November 7, 1987. A few months later, he returned to the Philippines.
He went back to the USA on June 1, 1988. His three children were left
in the Philippines, while the titles to his properties were left in the office
2. Manzano Jr v Garcia 661 S 186 of his business establishment in Tablon, Cagayan de Oro City with two
of their children.
FACTS:

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 15

  Garcia testified that the signatures appearing in the pacto de (1) Irregularities in the notarization of the document may be established by
retro sale were not his and his wife’s. He presented his oral evidence of persons present in said proceeding.
passport and driver’s license, both of which bear an entirely (2) In the case at bar, even more convincing evidence of the irregularity
different signature than what appeared in the pacto de retro was presented as it was the notary public himself who testified that the
sale document. person who appeared before him was not respondent Garcia. Since the
 Atty. Mediante, the person who notarized the deed of very official who attested to the crucial facts in the notarization i.e., that
conveyance in question, testified that the Marcelino the persons who personally appeared before him are the same persons
Garcia who appeared in his office and who executed who executed the deed of conveyance admitted in open court the falsity
the pacto de retro sale is not the same Marcelino Garcia of said manifestation, the reliability of the Acknowledgment that clothes
who was in court during the trial of the case. the document with a presumption of regularity is completely shattered.
 Perla Babano, one of the witnesses to the execution of the We, therefore, agree with the Court of Appeals that the presumption of
pacto de retro sale, likewise testified that the person who regularity of the notarized deed of pacto de retro sale was sufficiently
introduced himself as Marcelino G. Garcia and signed the overcome by the testimony of Atty. Mediante.
document on May 26, 1992 is not the same Marcelino Garcia
who was in court during the trial of the case.
7. RTC Ruling: held that Garcia failed to prove that his signature in the
OTHER REQUISITES NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
pacto de retro sale was forged.
8. CA’s Ruling set aside the decision of the RTC:
 there is no rule requiring expert testimony to determine the
genuineness of a signature appearing on a document.
SECTION 24 RULE 132—PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
 Since it was plainly obvious from the evidence on record that
the signature appearing on the pacto de retro sale is far
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents
different from the customary signature of Garcia that appeared
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
in his passport and drivers license, the testimony of Garcia that
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
the signature was not his is sufficient evidence of the forgery
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or
pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
 The Court of Appeals added that on the basis of Atty.
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the
Mediantes testimony, the presumption of regularity in the
office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate
execution of the public document has been sufficiently
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
destroyed and overcome.
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 office.
ISSUE/S: WON the notarized deed of pacto de retro sale was entitled to the
presumption of regularity and should be given great weight.
 Although there is no need to authenticate public documents, there is
still a necessity, under this Section to show that indeed, a record of the
HELD: No. official acts of official bodies, tribunals, or public officers exists. And this
RATIO: It is settled that while a notarized document enjoys this presumption, is done through:
the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. a. An official publication thereof
The presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may b. By a copy of the document attested by the officer having legal
be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. custody of the record or by the attestation of his deputy; or if
the record is not in the Philippines, the attestation may be

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 16

 made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul SECTION 25 RULE 132—WHAT THE ATTESTATION MUST STATE
general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer
in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the
seal of his office 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
What should the attestation state? See Section 25. attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the
seal of such court. (26a)

1. that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be.
2. That the original is with the custody of the public official;
3. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if
there be any, or
a. if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 17

SECTION 26. RULE 132—IRREMOVABILITY OF PUBLIC RECORD SECTION 27. RULE 132. PUBLIC RECORD OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

Section 26. Irremovability of public record. — Any public record, an Section 27. Public record of a private document. — An authorized public
official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy
from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate
the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a certificate that such officer has the custody.
pending case. (27a)
A public record of a private document may be proved by any of the
following, as attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
 This is the reason why an attestation is always necessary because of appropriate certificate that such officer has custody:
the general rule that the original copy may not be removed from the
office in which it is kept, except upon the order of a court where the (1) by the original record; or
inspection is necessary to the just determination of a pending case (2) by a copy thereof,

Reason for the Rule

 public is generally entitled to have it at the place for inspection at any
time except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record by Example: a justice of the peace cannot certify a copy of a deed of conveyance
said court it essential to the just determination of a case pending of a land because the law made no authorization for such
therein, or the court is sitting in the same building with such office
 original is in great danger to be lost Effect:
 public record of a private writing is evidence only of the fact that such
public writing is of record but not as to its contents, due execution, and
genuineness (Government of the Philippine Islands vs Martinez)

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 18

SECTION 28. RULE 132—PROOF OF LACK OF RECORD SECTION 29. RULE 132—HOW JUDICIAL RECORD IMPEACHED

Section 28. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an Section 29. How judicial record impeached. — Any judicial record may
officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that be impeached by evidence of: (a) want of jurisdiction in the court or
after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to judicial officer, (b) collusion between the parties, or (c) fraud in the
exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings.
provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office
contain no such record or entry. Impeaching Judicial Records through Proof of Extrinsic Matters
 there can be no question as to the right of any person adversely
affected by a judgment, to maintain an action to enjoin its enforcement,
When the issue involved is on the absence of an official record, the and to have it declared a nullity, on the ground of fraud and collusion
proving lack of such record may be done through: practiced in the very matter of obtaining the judgment, when such fraud
is extrinsic or collateral to the matters involved in the issues raised at
 A written statement signed by the officer having custody of an the trial which resulted to the judgment
official record or by his deputy. It must contain the following:

(1) that there has been a diligent search of the record;

(2) that despite the diligent search, no record of entry of a specified tenor
is found to exist in the records of his office
(3) that such officer had custody of the official records

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 19

SECTION 30. RULE 132—PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS SECTION 31. RULE 132—HOW TO EXPLAIN ALTERATION IN DOCUMENT

Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly Section 31. Alteration in document, how to explain. — The party
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears
presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. He may show that
instrument or document involved. the alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or was
made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or was otherwise
 It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a properly or innocent made, or that the alteration did not change the
conclusive presumption of its existence and execution meaning or language of the instrument. If he fails to do that, the
document shall not be admissible in evidence.

REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT ALTERED DOCUMENTS BE ADMISSIBLE

AS EVIDENCE: the alteration found in the document which appears to have
been done after the execution must be accounted for by the proponent by
showing that:

1. Alteration was made by another, without his concurrence, or

2. Was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, or
3. Was otherwise properly or innocent made, or
4. That the alteration did not change the meaning or language of the
instrument

Otherwise, such is not admissible in evidence.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 20

SECTION 32. RULE 132—SEAL SECTION 33. RULE 132—DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN AN UNOFFICIAL
LANGUAGE
Section 32. Seal. — There shall be no difference between sealed and
unsealed private documents insofar as their admissibility as evidence is Section 33. Documentary evidence in an unofficial language. —
concerned. 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.

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 21

 C. OFFER AND OBJECTION  second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the
case.
RULE 132 SECTION 34 – OFFER OF EVIDENCE
Offer must be specific
 The purpose for which the offer is made must be specific
Section 34. Offer of evidence. — The court shall consider no  It is the duty of the party offering the evidence to select evidence that
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which is admissible and competent
the evidence is offered must be specified. (35)  Where the evidence is inadmissible for the purposes stated in the offer,
it must be rejected, though the same may be admissible for other
purposes
General Rule: Evidence must be offered and the court shall consider no
evidence, which has not been formally offered.
 Effect: that evidence may not be ascribed any evidentiary value How is it done?
because such may only be done after ruling the admissibility
On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to
Reason for the Rule: make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last
 It is the duty of the court to base its findings of fact and judgment witness and the opposing party is required to immediately
strictly upon evidence offered by the parties interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the judge shall make
 Otherwise, this may draw unwarranted consequences: the parties will the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the
be deprived of the opportunity to examine and object to its judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in
admissibility; and the appellate court will have difficulty in reviewing conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
documents not previously scrutinized
Note that the party may opt not to offer the evidence presented in
court formally if he considers the same to not advance the cause of
What is formally offering it as evidence? the party.
 Not simply marked for identification
 It is done only when the party rests its case Question: may the other party then use the said evidence as his
own although said party was not the proponent?

When is formal offer of evidence not necessary?

1. during summary proceedings; Cases:
2. documents taken judicial notice of or judicially admitted; 1. Heirs of Carmen Cruz-Zamora v Multiwood International Inc
3. documents, affidavits, and depositions used in summary judgment GR 146428, January 19, 2009- SALTERAS
4. documents used in deciding quasi-judicial or administrative cases;
5. lost objects previously marked, identified and described in the record  Exhibits K- K7 cannot be interpreted to be given evidentiary
6. where repeated references to certain exhibits were made during the value as contemporaneous acts because such were not formally
trial both by the parties and of the court (admission) offered as evidence. They were just marked and identified and
7. If the other party has failed to object to failure to formally offer cannot be considered.
evidence
In the case of vda de Oñate: provided that the following is complied with:
2. Heirs of Pasag v Spouses Parocha et al GR 155483 April 27,
 first, the same must have been duly identified by testimony duly 2007- ARANETA
recorded and,

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 22

 judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in
Facts: conformity with Section 35, Rule 132.
1. Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Titles, Recovery
of Possession and Ownership, Reconveyance, Partition and Damages And this, the petitioner failed to do.
filed by petitioners at the Urdaneta City RTC of Pangasinan against
respondents alleging that the respondent has fraudulently adjudicated What is the effect if the party failed to formally offer his evidence?
upon himself the parcels of land covered in the said Titles.  The Rules of Court provides that “the court shall consider no evidence
a. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the said which has not been formally offered.” A formal offer is necessary
property was transferred to them by a deed of Quitclaim because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts and their
executed by the predecessor-in-interest (the grandparents of judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at
the parties) the trial.
2. During the trial, when the petitioners rested their case, they  Its function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes
were granted 10 days to submit their formal offer of for which the proponent is presenting the evidence. On the other hand,
documentary exhibits. this allows opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its
a. The petitioners asked for 2 extensions but the admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate court will
petitioners still failed to submit their formal offer of not be required to review documents not previously scrutinized by the
evidence after the required extended periods. trial court.
3. Hence, the trial court judge issued an Order declaring the right  The pretrial guidelines and Sec. 35 of Rule 132 jointly considered, it is
of the petitioners to submit and make their formal offer of made clear that the party who terminated the presentation of evidence
evidence as deemed waived by their failure to submit on time. must make an oral offer of evidence on the very day the party
4. The respondents then filed a Demurrer to evidence. presented the last witness. Otherwise, the court may consider the
5. Through a resolution, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the party’s documentary or object evidence waived. While Sec. 35 of Rule
complaint of the petitioners ruling that the petitioners failed to prove 132 says that the trial court may allow the offer to be done in writing,
their claim through preponderance of evidence. This was upheld by the this can only be tolerated in extreme cases where the object evidence
Court of Appeals. or documents are large in number––say from 100 and above, and only
where there is unusual difficulty in preparing the offer.
Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the order of the trial
court saying that they have waived their right to formally offer evidence deprived
them of due process. 3. Catuira vs. CA – 236 S 398- BALDEO

Issue: Was there a waiver of the right to formally offer evidence? The formal offer of evidence of testimony of witness must be done before the
witness testifies. However, failure to object by the opponent is deemed as
Ruling: Yes, and by reason of such, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence waiver. Hence, despite such belated formal offer of evidence of
for consideration of the court in proving their claim. testimony of witness, the same is admissible for consideration.

How is the formal offer of evidence done?

4. Vda. de Onate vs. CA – 250 S 283- SALTERAS
On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to
make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last
witness and the opposing party is required to immediately Facts:
interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter the judge shall make 1. the respondent administratix Taguba in this case filed an action for
the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However, the specific performance on against the petitioner, Elvira Vda de Oñate, to

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 23

 compel the latter to execute a Deed of Sale covering 2 parcels of land In a previous case, relaxed the foregoing rule and allowed evidence not
on behalf of the deceased Taguba. formally offered to be admitted and considered by the trial court
2. The trial court rendered a decision in favour of the respondent rejecting provided the following requirements are present, viz: first, the same
the defense of the petitioner Oñate that what they executed was a must have been duly identified by testimony duly recorded and,
verbal contract of loan and that the parcels of land were merely second, the same must have been incorporated in the records of the
mortgaged to the plaintiff- respondent. case.
3. The petitioners then went to the CA and contended that the trial court
erred when it took cognizance of the plaintiff’s evidence, particularly
Exhibits “F,” “F1,” “F2” and “F3,” which had been marked but never In the present case:
formally submitted in evidence as required by the Rules of Court.
Consequently, it was claimed that the trial court erred in relying on the The evidence in question refers to Exhibits “F,” receipt for P2,250.00 dated
said evidence in deciding for private respondents. January 20, 1976; “F1,” receipt for P750.00 dated February 23, 1976; “F2,”
4. Decision of the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. In receipt for P1,000 dated March 20, 1976; and “F3,” receipt for another P1,000.00
sustaining the lower court, the respondent court held that dated July 29, 1976, all showing the varying amounts paid by Leonor Taguba to
Exhibits “F,” “F1,” “F2” and “F3” though not formally offered, Elvira Mato Vda. de Oñate. These exhibits were marked at the pretrial for
may still be admitted in evidence for having complied with the the purpose of identifying them. In fact, the payment of P5,000.00 was
two (2) requisites for admission enunciated in our admitted by herein petitioners in the same pretrial. On March 5, 1984, Eulalia
jurisprudence, that is, Marcita Taguba identified the said exhibits in her testimony which was
(1) evidence must be duly identified by testimony duly duly recorded.
recorded; and
(2) it must be incorporated in the records of the case. Likewise, extant from the records is the witness’ explanation of the contents of
each of the said exhibits. Also telling is petitioner’s counsel vigorous cross-
examination of the said witness who testified on the exhibits in question.

Issue: Was the trial court correct in considering the said documents which were Herein subject exhibits were also incorporated and made part of the records of
merely marked during the trial in making its decision? this case.

Ruling: Yes. the Formal offer of evidence rule may be relaxed under certain
conditions, as in the present case. 5. Sy vs. CA – 330 S 550 (supra)- ARANETA

General Rule: marking for identification is not sufficient to be Facts: (Same facts as before, pinili ko na lang yun directly related sa
considered as formal offer of evidence. If the party does not offer the present topic)
evidence formally, then the court may not consider such.
 Marking for identification is done first is done in the course of 1. Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted
the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes
an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests in Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. Their union was blessed
its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally with two children.
offer his evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or 2. The petitioner Filipina then filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the
not to do so at all. In the event he chooses to do the latter, the ground of psychological incapacity.
trial court is not authorized by the Rules to consider the same. 3. During their trial before the RTC, the parties submitted as evidence their
marriage contract, and the birth certificates of their children, which
Relaxation of the rule: indicated their date of marriage. It appears on their documents, and as

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 24

 admitted by both parties, their marriage ceremony was celebrated after Facts:
the expiration of the marriage license. 1. the petitioners in this case are the accused in a criminal proceeding for
4. Nevertheless, both the RTC and CA denied the petition for nullity for the the murder of Johnny Villanueva.
failure of Filipina to prove psychological incapacity. 2. During the trial of the case, the prosecution introduced in evidence the
5. Hence, the present action by the petitioner. However, the petitioner Extrajudicial Confession of one of the accused, Benedicto Gonzales
raises for the first time, the issue of the validity of their marriage on the confessing to his participation as well as implicating the other
ground of lack of valid marriage license. It appears that, according to petitioners. It was labeled as Exhibit B. the transcript also of the
her, the date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of preliminary investigation was also presented as Exhibit D containing also
issuance of their marriage certificate and marriage license are different the extrajudicial confession and implication of other accused.
and incongruous. 3. The extrajudicial confession (Exhibits B and D) was offered at
6. It is also to be noted that their marriage certificate and the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the
marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth prosecution. The defense then interposed their objection on
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah Sheryll. the admissibility of the said confession as such were executed
without the assistance of a counsel.
Issue: in view of the glaring issue of validity of marriage by reason of 4. The trial court issued an order ruling that the extrajudicial confession
lack of a valid marriage license, Should the SC take such issue despite was inadmissible after finding that indeed, Benedicto Gonzales had no
the fact that the documentary evidence on such were mere counsel at such time.
photocopies and the same issue being raised only for the first time? 5. then, the respondent sought the nullification of the said order
of the trial court before the CA. the CA rendered a decision
Ruling: Yes. there is no reason to prevent the SC from appreciating and nullifying said order and held that the extrajudicial confession
taking into consideration the documentary evidence presented by the of Benedicto as admissible in evidence for the belated
parties as they were admitted in evidence during the trial. objection of the defense to the said admissibility of the
evidence. It ratiocinated that:
a. Those markings (as Exhibit B and as Exhibit D) show that the
1. these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial documents were introduced during the prosecution’s evidence-
below, which shows that these have been examined and admitted by inchief; and, necessarily, they were testified on by a
the trial court, with no objections having been made as to their prosecution witness.
authenticity and due execution. b. The fact that the prosecution proposed to formally offer them
2. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioner’s testimony in open in evidence at the close of trial implies that when the
court when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their documents were first introduced through the prosecution
marriage was on November 15, 1973. witness at the trial, the defense did not object to their
3. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, introduction.
with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents c. To prevent the introduction of such kind of evidence, the
are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein. practice is for the defense to move for its exclusion at any time
before commencement of trial. Such failure of the defense may
Question: So nothing will stop the court from using or appreciating the evidence therefore be taken as a waiver of their objection—and the
different with the purpose stated during the formal offer of evidence? Kasi dito, waiver was made at the trial by said accused who was in fact
during the time they were offered in evidence, the purpose was to prove only the assisted by counsel.
existence of the marriage kasi yung issue nila before is psychological incapacity. d. Thus, because of such failure to object, the prosecution
Then naiba yung theory/ cause of action altogether. So pwede? succeeded to introduce the subject documents and cause them
to be marked for identification as Exhibits B and D.
6. Macasiray vs. People – 291 S 154- BALDEO

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 25

Hence, the present action by the petitioners arguing that they interposed their
objection on the proper time—during the formal offer of evidence, and not
during the identification and marking of the exhibits. 8. Candido and Rumbaua vs. CA and Dabu– 253 S 78- ARANETA

Issue: Should the petitioners be considered as having waived their objections? Facts:
1. The petitioners Candido and Rumbaua owned a riceland located in
Ruling: No. the petitioners were able to make their proper objections at the Orion, Bataan. On the other hand, the respondent Dabu was their
proper time—during the formal offer of evidence. The fact that the exhibits were agricultural tenant.
marked as such does not signify that they had been admitted by the court. such 2. The RTC Complaint: the petitioners then filed a complaint against
merely means that they were presented in court during the trial. Respondent for termination of tenancy relationship and recovery of
unpaid rentals for certain crop years.
a. The petitioners alleged that respondent failed to pay in
When should the objection to evidence be done? accordance with the provisional rates (26- 29 sacks of palay),
allegedly set by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
1. Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally b. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there
offered.4 In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all was no such provisional rates that they have agreed
the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying upon and that he has no unpaid rentals.
the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this 3. By motion of the respondent, the case was suspended so that the
time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence parties be able to obtain a preliminary determination and certification
may be made. from the Department of Agrarian reform that the issue of unpaid rentals
2. In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents as well as the termination of the tenancy relationship was right for the
when they were formally offered. trial court to resolve.
3. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners did not waive a. During the administrative proceedings with the DAR, it
objection to admissibility of the said documents by their failure to object would appear that the petitioners submitted a verified
when these were marked, identified, and then introduced during the complaint and affidavit with a statement of the
trial. That was not the proper time to make the objection. “Objection to provisional rates they were trying to impose.
the documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally 4. The DAR then issued a certificate ruling that the issue of non-payment
offered, not earlier. of rentals was proper for the determination of the court, but not the
4. Objection to the identification and marking of the document is not issue of termination of tenancy.
equivalent to objection to the document when it is formally offered in 5. Then, the trial proceeded and the RTC rendered a decision dismissing
evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document at the the complaint of the petitioners finding that no evidence was adduced
time it is formally offered as an exhibit. by the petitioners to prove the provisional rental alleged to have been
5. Objections to the admissibility of documents may be raised during trial fixed by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
and the court may rule on them then, but, if this is not done, the party 6. The CA likewise, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, upholding the
should make the objections when the documentary evidence is formally ruling of the RTC finding that no evidence was introduced to prove the
offered at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence for the other provisional rates of allegedly imposed by DAR.
party. 7. Hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that the verified
complaint and the affidavit presented by petitioners to the DAR are
proofs of the provisional rentals fixed by it and that it was error for the
trial court not to have taken cognizance of these documents.

7. Tuason vs. CA – 241 S 695- SALTERAS

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 26

Issue: were the lower courts correct in not considering the verified complaint and can we consider it of public knowledge, or capable of unquestionable
the affidavit presented by the petitioners to the DAR as proofs of the provisional demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
rentals? functions.

Ruing: yes. They were correct as such documentary evidence were not formally
offered in evidence during the trial. It is settled that courts will only consider as 9. People vs. Barellano – 319 S 567- BALDEO
evidence that which has been formally offered.

1. The affidavit of petitioner Natividad Candido mentioning the provisional

rate of rentals was never formally offered; neither the alleged
certification by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Not having been 10. People vs. Sanchez – 308 S 264- SALTERAS
formally offered, the affidavit and certification cannot be considered as
evidence. Thus the trial court as well as the appellate court correctly
disregarded them.
2. If they neglected to offer those documents in evidence, however vital
they may be, petitioners only have themselves to blame, not respondent
who was not even given a chance to object as the documents were
never offered in evidence.

Note that formal offer of evidence is not mere marking for

identification.
 A document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence when it is
simply marked for identification; it must be formally offered, and the
opposing counsel given an opportunity to object to it or crossexamine
the witness called upon to prove or identify it.
 A formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their
findings of fact and judgment only—and strictly—upon the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial.
 To allow a party to attach any document to his pleading and then
expect the court to consider it as evidence may draw unwarranted
consequences.
 The opposing party will be deprived of his chance to examine the
document and object to its admissibility.
 The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion
on appeal of documentary evidence or exhibits in the records cannot be
stretched as to include such pleadings or documents not offered at the
hearing of the case.

Further, the petitioner cannot argue or even compel the judge to take
judicial notice of the same, since the said documents are not among the
matters which the law mandatorily requires to be taken judicial notice of; neither

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 27

Section 35. When to make offer. — As regards the testimony of a Section 36. Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must
witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to be made immediately after the offer is made.
testify.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after the examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds
presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
orally unless allowed by the court to be done in writing.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3)
days after notice of the unless a different period is allowed by the
court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified. (36a)

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 28

Section 37. When repetition of objection unnecessary. — When it Section 38. Ruling. — The ruling of the court must be given
becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a immediately after the objection is made, unless the court desires to
witness that the question being propounded are of the same class as take a reasonable time to inform itself on the question presented; but
those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was the ruling shall always be made during the trial and at such time as will
sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the give the party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his situation presented by the ruling.
continuing objection to such class of questions. (37a)
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a
ruling sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify
the ground or grounds relied upon. (38a)

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 29

Section 39. Striking out answer. — Should a witness answer the Section 40. Tender of excluded evidence. — If documents or things
question before the adverse party had the opportunity to voice fully its offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the
objection to the same, and such objection is found to be meritorious, same attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded
the court shall sustain the objection and order the answer given to be is oral, the offeror may state for the record the name and other
stricken off the record. personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
proposed testimony. (n)
On proper motion, the court may also order the striking out of answers
which are incompetent, irrelevant, or otherwise improper. (n)

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 30

 RULE 133 SECTION 2 – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
SECTION 1 – PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, HOW DETERMINED reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such
a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance
or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and Cases:
opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or 1. DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies vs Radio Mindanao
improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and Network GR 147039, Jan 27, 2006
also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately 2. Encinas v National Book Store GR 162704, November 19, 2004
appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of 3. People vs Villarico GR 158362, April 4, 2011
witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the 4. People vs. Mejia – 55 S 453
greater number. (1a) 5. People vs. Matrimonio – 215 S 613
6. People vs. Gondora – 265 S 408
7. People vs. Cabiles – 248 S 207
8. People vs. Lorenzo – 240 S 624
9. People vs. Rigodon – 238 S 27
10. Tin vs. People – 362 S 594

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 31

SECTION 3: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND RULE 133 SECTION 4 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN
FOR CONVICTION SUFFICIENT

Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for

conviction. — An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial
be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
corpus delicti. (3)
(a) There is more than one circumstances;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (5)

Cases:

1. People v Anticamara GR 178771, June 8, 2011

2. People vs. Salvame – 270 S 766
3. People vs. Malimit – 264 S 167 (supra)
4. People vs. Ramos – 240 S 191
5. People vs. Adofina – 239 S 67

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 32

RULE 133 SECTION 5 – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Section 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence. — The
court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate caution. (6)
to justify a conclusion. (n)

1. Ang Tibay vs. CIR – 69 P 635

2. Bascos v Taganahan GR 180666, February 18, 2009
3. Fabella vs. CA – 282 S 256
4. PAL vs. NLRC – 263 S 638
5. Villaflor vs. CA – 280 S 297

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 33

Section 7. Evidence on motion. — When a motion is based on facts
not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or
depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may
direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or
depositions. (7)

VII. Evidence. Araneta. 11384085. AY2015-16. Atty. Custodio 34