Antillon v. Barcelon 37 Phil 148 (1917)

Antillon v. Barcelon

37 Phil 148 (1917)

Facts:

1.     The present action relates to the possession and ownership of a certain piece or parcel of land The action was commenced in the CFI of Laguna

2.     Plaintiff (contention)- alleged that he was the owner of said parcel of land and that the defendant was illegally interfering with his possession of the same;

a.     that prior to the commencement of the present action the Barcelon had presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration (Cause No. 8350) for the registration of said parcel of land in his name as administrator of the estate of Antonio Bueno, deceased;

b.     that Antillon opposed the registration of said parcel of land, alleging that he was the owner of the same; that said cause was brought on for hearing in the Court of land Registration and was finally decided that reached the conclusion that the Barecelon was not entitled to have said parcel of land registered; that said parcel of land belonged to the Antillon

c.      that notwithstanding said decision of the Court of Land Registration Barcelon continued molesting Antillon and interfering with his possession of said parcel of land.

3.     The defendant answered said petition by a general denial.

4.     After hearing the evidence, the judge, reached the conclusion that Antillon was the owner of said parcel of land; that he had purchased the same from Albino Villegas (Exhibit F); that Albino Villegas had acquired the title to said land by purchase from Petra Dionido (Exhibit E), and rendered a judgment in favor aisle the plaintiff

5.     Defendant appealed to this court and made several assignments of error.

a.     he alleges that the lower court erred in admitting Exhibits E and F of the plaintiff as said documents had not been properly identified and that their due execution and delivery had not been proved.

b.     that the lower court committed an error in admitting Exhibit G (G-1). Said exhibit is the record of the Court of Land Registration in an action in which the present defendant was the petitioner and the present plaintiff was the upsetter

6.     An examination of the evidence with reference to said Exhibits E and F shows that, at the time said exhibits were affray as proof, the defendant objected to their admissibility upon the ground that they were impertinent immaterial and irrelevant; that the two exhibits were no more than ordinary papers.

7.     In reply to that objection the attorney for the plaintiff pointed out that said exhibits were public documents duly acknowledged before a notary public.

8.     The attorney for the defendant then made a further objection that they had not been properly identified. The court admitted said documents, and the attorney for the defendant duly excepted.

Issue:

How may a document duly acknowledged under the hand and seal of a notary public be proved?

Held:

The rule is well established that before private documents may be admitted in evidence as proof, their due execution and delivery must be proved. (Sec. 321, Act No. 190.) Their due execution and delivery may be proved (a) by any one who saw the document executed, or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker, or (c) by a subscribing witness.

To the foregoing rules with reference to the method of proving private documents an exception is made with reference to the method of proving public documents executed before and certified to, under the hand and seal of certain public officials.

* The courts and legislatures have recognized the valid reason for such an exception. The litigation is unlimited in which testimony by officials is daily needed; the occasions in which the officials would be summoned from his ordinary duties to declare as a witness are numberless.

Xxx

For these reasons, and for many others, a certain verity is accorded such documents, which is not extended to private documents.

The law reposes a particular confidence in public officers that it presumes they will discharge their several trusts with accuracy and fidelity; and, therefore, whatever acts they do in discharge of their public duty may be given in evidence and shall be taken to be true under such a degree of caution as the nature and circumstances of each case may appear to require.

The notary public is recognized by the law merchant, and his official acts are received as evidence, not only in his own, but in all countries. His duties are, often, of great variety and importance, consisting for the most part, in protesting inland and foreign bills of exchange, promissory notes, etc

Xxx

In all such cases the notary’s certificate or jurat, when accompanied with his official seal of office and proper certificates of his official character if the act is to be used beyond his own county or State, is received as prima facie evidence.

All documents acknowledged by a notary public and certified to by him are considered public documents in this jurisdiction.

The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal he thereby gives such a document the force of evidence.

Section 331 of Act No. 190 provides that, "every instrument conveying or affecting real property situated in the Philippine Islands, acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law prevailing in the Philippine Islands, may, together with the certificate of the acknowledgment or proof, be read in evidence in an action or proceeding without further proof."

Indeed, one of the very purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given in evidence without further proof of their execution and delivery

Our conclusions is, therefore, with reference to the first assignment of error, that a document duly acknowledged before a notary public under his hand and seal, with his certificate thereto attached, is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution and delivery, unless and until some question is raised as to the verity of said acknowledgment and certificate.

What has been said with reference to the first assignment of error, we believe, also answers the contention of the appellant in his second assignment of error.

The appellant contends that the lower court committed an error in admitting Exhibit G (G-1). Said exhibit is the record of the Court of Land Registration in an action in which the present defendant was the petitioner and the present plaintiff was the upsetter. While the appellant does not say so, the inference is that his objection is based upon the ground that said exhibit had not been identified by the custodian of said document. By section 18 of Act No. 2347, the clerks of the courts of the respective provinces or districts are ex officio deputies of the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, and, as such, may identify records made up in the Courts of First Instance relating to the registration of land under the Torrens system.

A careful examination of the record shows that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the peaceable and quiet possession of the land in question.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.