Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
1. Iwasa v Gangan
G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013
FACTS
Iwasa, a Japanese national, met Gangan, a Filipina, in 2002 during his visit in the
Philippines. Gangan represented that she is “single” and “never married.” They became
close. On Nov. 28, 2002, they got married and thereafter lived in Japan. However, 7
years later, Iwasa noticed that Gangan became depressed so he asked her about it
suspecting something might have happened in the Philippines. To Iwasa’s shock, she
admitted that her previous husband passed away. When he confirmed the truth of her
confession, he learned that his wife was indeed previously married to one Raymond
Arambulo on June 20, 1994, and it was due to poverty and joblessness that she married
him.
Iwasa filed a petition for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage on the ground
that it is a bigamous marriage having been celebrated during the subsistence on
Gangan’s marriage to Arambulo.
During trial, he presented the following documents issued by NSO:
(1) Certificate of marriage between him and Gangan
(2) Certificate of marriage between Gangan and Arambulo
(3) Certificate of death of Arambulo
(4) Certification to the effect that there are two entries of marriage recorded by
the office pertaining to Gangan to prove that private respondent in fact
contracted two marriages, the first one was to Arambulo on June 20, 1994,
and second, to Iwasa on November 28, 2002.
However, the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition on the ground that Iwasa
was not able to prove the prior existing marriage of Gangan because it was only Iwasa
who testified about such documents. His testimony is unreliable because he has no
personal knowledge of such marriage nor the death of Arambulo making him a stranger
to the marriage certificate and the death certificate. His testimony about the NSO
certification is also unreliable because he is a stranger to the preparation of said
document.
ISSUE: Whether the testimony of the NSO records custodian on the authenticity and
due execution of the documents necessary before said documents could be given
probative value? NO
DECISION
Article 410 of the Civil Code provides that “the books making up the civil register and
all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima
facie evidence of the facts therein contained.” Hence, there is no question that the NSO
documents submitted are public documents. As public documents, the are admissible
in evidence even without further proof of their authenticity and due execution.
The RTC was incorrect when it disregarded the documents on the ground that Iwasa
did not present the NSO custodian who issued them to testify on their due execution
and genuineness since such are no longer necessary.
In addition, they should also be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And in this case, the prosecution and the
Gangan failed to present evidence to the contrary.
2. Asian Terminals v Philam
G.R. No. 181163, July 24, 2013
FACTS
Nichimen Corp shipped to Universal Motor 219 packages containing Nissan Pickup
Truck without engine from Japan to Manila via S/S Calayan Iris owned by Westwind.
The shipment was insured against all risks by Philam. When the shipmen arrived in
Manila, Asian Terminals unloaded the packages and it discovered 2 packages were
damaged. Such damage was noted in the Turn Over Survey dated April 21, 1995. When
Universal Motors received the packages, it declared that one Frame Axle Sub and 6
chassis were a total loss and thereafter filed a claim with Westwind but was not paid.
So it sought reparation from Philam under the Marine Policy. Philam paid Universal
Motor P633,957.15 for the damage. Universal Motors issued a Subrogation Receipt in
favor of Philam after receipt of the payment.
Philam then filed a complaint for damages against Westwind, ATI, and the customs
broker RF Revilla. To establish the basis of its claims, Philam formally offered in
evidence the Marine Certificate it issued to Universal Motors and the Subrogation
Receipt that Universal Motors issued. The admission of these 2 documents were
objected to by Westwind and ATI for being hearsay as they were not authenticated by
the persons who executed them. ATI also assailed that the Marine Certificate was
issued only on April 27, 1995 implying that the policy was issued after the loss.
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
RTC found Westwind and ATI liable to Philam of the full claim P633,957.15 with interest
and absolved RF Revilla. However, although the CA found both Westwind and ATI
liable, it modified the award P190,684.48 as Philam was only able to prove the damage
of the one Frame Axle and not the 6 chassis. All parties appealed to the SC; hence, these
3 consolidated cases.
ISSUE: Whether the Marine Certificate and the Subrogation Receipt were
authenticated and thus admissible? Subrogation Receipt only
DECISION
The nature of the documents as public or private determines how they will be admitted
in evidence in court. For public documents enumerated under Section 19 of Rule 132
are self-authenticating and need not be authenticated to be presented as evidence in
court. On the other hand, private documents is any other writing, deed or instrument
executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person
legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth.
Because a private document lacks the sovereign character of a public document or the
solemnities prescribed by law, it requires authentication prescribed under Section 20
of Rule 132 which provides:
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. — Before any private document offered
as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must
be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed
to be.
The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four
instances:
(a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule
132 of the Rules
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have
not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party;
(c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been
admitted; or
2
(d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.
In this case, both the Marine Certificate and the Subrogation Receipt are private
documents. And since none of the exceptions aforementioned are present in this case,
they need to be authenticated to be admitted.
With regard to the Subrogation Receipt, Philam presented its claims officer Onchangco
to testify on the execution of the Subrogation Receipt. Ongchango testified that he
personally delivered the check payment to Universal Motors and personally saw an
officer of Universal signed the Subrogation Receipt that it issued. To establish the
authenticity of document, the Rules required the testimony of the person who saw the
document executed or written. With the testimony of Onchangco, the trial court did
not err in admitting the Subrogation Receipt.
However, the same cannot be said of the Marine Certificate. Onchangco merely
identified such document and did not testified that he personally saw an authorized
officer of Philam signed it. Yet, even without the Marine Certificate, the Subrogation
Receipt, on its own, is adequate proof that Philam paid the consignee’s claim on the
damaged goods.
As regards the issuance of Marine Certificate after the fact of loss occurred, said
document simply certifies the existence of an open insurance policy in favor of the
consignee. The Court finds it completely absurd to suppose that any insurance
company, of sound business practice, would assume a loss that has already been
realized, when the profitability of its business rests precisely on the non-happening of
the risk insured against.
3. Lazaro v Agustin
G.R. No. 152364. April 15, 2010
FACTS
This complaint for partition is filed by Alejandra and Leoncio Santos against the children
of their eldest sibling Basilisa. The complaint alleged the following facts: The 4 Santos
siblings, viz. Basilisa (married to Agustin; dead), Alejandra (married to Lazaro), Leoncio,
and Alberto (dead), inherited from their father a parcel of land. The siblings agreed that
the land be titled under the name of Basilisa, as she is the eldest, but such would not
necessarily mean that she is the sole owner. A house was built on the land with the
money contributed mainly by Alejandra and her husband. Without the knowledge of
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
her siblings, Basilisa transferred the title to her children. Alejandra informed Basilisa
that the transfer would imply that she is the exclusive owner thereof to which Basilisa
replied that she executed an Affidavit recognizing the ¼ share of her siblings on the lot.
Thereafter, Basilisa died. When Alejandra and Leoncio tried to initiate a partition, the
children of Basilisa opposed on the ground that they are the exclusive of the same.
MTCC ruled that no evidentiary value could be given to the Affidavit allegedly executed
by Basilisa because the affiant was not presented on the witness stand, such that all
the statements made in her Affidavit were hearsay. It also gave credence to the
testimony of the notary public that the said Affidavit was already complete and
thumbmarked when the same was presented to him by a person who claimed to be
Basilisa.
RTC affirmed with modification that Alejandra built the house in good faith and thus
entitled to indemnity. CA affirmed.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners contended that petitioners contended the following:
(1) Basilisa's Affidavit which recognizes her siblings' share in the disputed property is a
declaration against interest which is one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay
rule; (2) since the Affidavit was duly notarized, it should be admitted in court without
further proof of its due execution and authenticity.
ISSUE: Whether the Affidavit can be given full faith and credence in view of the issues
raised regarding its genuineness and due execution? NO
DECISION:
In general, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have
in their favor the presumption of regularity. However, not all notarized documents are
exempted from the rule of authentication. An affidavit does not automatically become
a public document just because it carried notarial jurat. The presumptions that
attached to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as the notarization was
regular.
Although the questioned sworn statement is a public document having in its favor the
presumption of regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by competent
witnesses.
3
In this case, the notary public was presented to testify on the due execution and
authenticity of the Affidavit. However, the Court ruled that his testimony is not enough
to rebut the evidence presented by the children of Basilisa considering that he
admitted that the Affidavit was already thumbmarked when presented to him by one
who claimed to be Basilisa Santos and whom, the witness said he did not know
personally. Further, what makes the documents suspect is the fact that it was
subscribed on the same date as the financial statement of Alejandra Santos.
The court point out here that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate
documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a
document under his hand and seal, he gives the document
the force of evidence. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties,
which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. A notary public
should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein.
Side issue
It is wrong for petitioners to argue that Basilisa's alleged sworn statement is a
declaration against interest. It is not a declaration against interest. Instead, it is an
admission against interest. There is a vital distinction between admissions against
interest and declarations against interest. Admissions against interest are those made
by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such
party and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.
Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in
privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to
the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a
witness. In the present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and
is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if
proven genuine and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against
interest.
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
4. Republic of the Philippines vs Unabia
G.R. No. 213346. February 11, 2019
FACTS
Miller Omandam Unabia filed before the RTC a "Petition for Correction of Entries on
the Birth Certificate of Mellie Umandam Unabia.” He claimed that his birth certificate
contained errors: that his name appeared as “Mellie Umandam Unabia” instead of
“Miller Omandam Unabia” and that his sex was entered as “FEMALE” instead of
“MALE”. To support the claim for change of entry as to gender, a Medical Certificate
was presented which was supposedly issued by a physician of the Northern Mindanao
Medical Center, Dr. Labis, of the Department of Health. The certificate stated that
respondent was "phenotypically male"; however, the physician was not presented in
court to testify on his findings and identify the document. Miller was the sole witness
presented.
RTC found the documents presented by Miller to warrant the change of entries of his
name and sex. The Republic appealed on the ground that that the medical certificate
cannot stand on its own as it was not established and proved as a public document as
Dr. Labis was not presented in court in order that his qualifications may be established
and he may identify and authenticate the Medical Certificate. However, RTC decision
was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether Dr. Labis should have been presented in Court in order that the
Medical Certificate be proven to be a public document? NO
DECISION
The Medical Certificate is a public document because it was issued by a public officer,
Dr Labis of the Department of Health, in the performance of his official duty. As such,
it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Under Section 23, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, "documents consisting of entries in public records made in
the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person,
of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. Therefore,
there was no need to further identify and authenticate Dr. Labis' Medical Certificate
because a public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because
it has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent
public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a
4
private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and requires no further
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.
5. Mariano vs Echanez
A.C. No. 10373. May 31, 2016
FACTS
Flora Mariano filed this Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Anselmo Echanez for
notarizing documents despite lack of notarial commission. Mariano presented
documents notarized in 2007 and 2008 by Atty Echanez and a Certificate of Lack of
Authority for a Notarial Act from Executive Judge Anghad and a list of notarial
commission signed by Judge Anghad, where the name of Atty Echanez was not
included. IBP-CBD directed Atty Echanez to file his comments but he failed to do so.
IBP-CBD recommended that he be suspended for 2 years and be barred from being a
notary.
ISSUE: Whether Atty Echanez violated the Notarial Act? YES
DECISION
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act. It is invested with
substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. The act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties.
In this case, it is undisputable that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts on several
documents without a valid notarial commission. The fact of his lack of notarial
commission at the time of the unauthorized notarizations was likewise sufficiently
established by the certifications issued by the Executive Judges in the territory where
Atty. Echanez performed the unauthorized notarial acts.
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
6. Heirs of Salud vs Rural Bank of Salinas
G.R. No. 202756. April 6, 2016
FACTS
Corazon Salud was the owner of a parcel of land with building called Silver Coin
Building. When she died, she left the property to her 2 adopted daughters Deogracia
and Carmencita. Deogracias et al claimed that with a purported SPA from Corazon,
Carmencita obtained a 1M loan from Rural Bank of Salinas secured by the parcel of land
with Silver Coin Building. Carmencita failed to pay the loan and the property was
foreclosed. Claiming that the signature of Corazon in the SPA is a forgery, Deogracia
and her children filed this Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Mortgage, SPA,
Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Certificate of Sale and Damages against Rural Bank of
Salinas.
During pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved in the
case is whether the signature of Corazon on SPA was genuine and that the it shall be
subjected to examination by a NBI handwriting expert whose finding shall be binding
upon them.
During trial, the following persons testified:
(1) Teodoro, the bank manager, testified that Corazon has been a borrower
of the bank years prior and that it was Corazon who approached him about
a loan.
(2) The notary public, Atty Trias, who notarized the SPA testified that Corazon
appeared before him to have the SPA notarized although said document
was already signed by her and since he personally knew Corazon he did
not inquire whether the signature was that of Corazon.
(3) The NBI expert testified that there are significant differences between the
signatures in the SPA and the samples.
Deogracia et al invoked that the finding of the NBI expert is binding upon as agreed
upon by them in the pre-trial conference and that the testimony of Atty Trias is
unreliable since he is working for the bank and has office in the bank premises for 10
years.
ISSUE: Whether the signature in the SPA was proven to be that of Corazon? YES
5
DECISION
Section 22 of Rule 132 provides that: "The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen
the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has
acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made
by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of
the judge."
Under the Rules of Court, the genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the
following:
(1) A witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument;
(2) A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion
thereon, such opinion being an exception to the opinion rule;
(3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and admitted
genuine specimen thereof; and
(4) Expert evidence
The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the different
means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person. It is likewise clear from the
foregoing that courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the
opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.
In this case, although the Bank agreed to abide by the conclusions in the NBI report
relative to Corazon's signature, the courts may not be compelled to adopt such
findings. Besides, RBSI's evidence does not depend upon the NBI report and NBI
expert's testimony; expert testimony is irrelevant to RBSI in view of positive testimony
from its witnesses to the effect that Corazon appeared before them and signed the
questioned SPA. Besides, the questioned SPA is a notarized document. Only petitioners
are entirely dependent on the NBI report and Dominguez's testimony, since they have
no other way of proving that Corazon did not sign the questioned SPA.
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
7. Makati Shangri-La Hotel vs Harper et al
G.R. No. 189998. August 29, 2012
FACTS
Christian Harper, a Norwegian, visited the Philippines and checked in to Makati
Shangri-La Hotel. On the early morning of his supposed check out date, at 12:14am,
Christian returned to his hotel room followed by a woman at 12:17am and a Caucasian
male at 2:48am. The woman left at 5:33am and the man at 5:46am.
At around 11am of the same day, a Caucasian male went to a jewelry store in Glorietta
expressing interest to buy a Cartier’s lady’s watch valued at 320k using 2 MC credit
cards and an American Express card issued in the name of Christian Harper. However,
during verification of the credit card representative, the man was not able to answer
arousing the suspicion of the saleslady who has said man for his passport. The man
hurriedly left the store leaving the passport and the cards. Christian’s family in Norway
called him to inform him of the attempt to use his cards, but he was unreachable. The
family then called the Hotel and requested to check Christian’s room. The security
personnel were shocked to discover his lifeless body, his eyes and mouth were covered
with electrical tapes and his hands bound by a white rope.
The widow Ellen and son Jonathan of the deceased with their representative in the
Philippines, Gillera, filed this complaint for damages against Makati Shangri-La. To
show that they are indeed the widow and son of the deceased, they presented the
following documents:
1. Birth Certificate of Jonathan showing he is the son of Ellen and Christian
2. Marriage Certificate of Ellen and Christian
3. Birth certificate of Christian
4. Certificate from the Oslo Probate Court stating that Ellen was married to
Christian and both Ellen and Jonathan are listed as heirs of Christian
Makati Shangri-La opposed the admission of the documents on the ground that proof
marriage and filiation presented did not comply with the rules on authentication
because the legal custodian did not duly attest that the documents were the correct
copies and because there was no certification stating that “such officer has custody of
the originals.”
6
ISSUE: Whether the documents presented by the widow and son duly authenticated to
be admissible? YES
DECISION
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 state the following for a copy of records of public
documents be admitted:
1. must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the record:
a. with a certificate the such officer has the custody if the record is in the
Philippines OR,
b. with a certificate by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, 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 his seal, if the record is kept in a
foreign country.
2. The 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 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.
In the case, the records of the documents herein are kept in Norway. The documents
were not accompanied with a certificate that was duly attested by the person having
legal custody of the documents by stating that such person had custody of the
documents. However, the Court said that such deviation from the Rules is not enough
to reject their admission.
Birth Certificates
The birth certificates of Christian and Jonathan were extracts from the registry of births
of Oslo, Norway, signed by Y. Ayse B. Nordal, Registrar. The Marriage Certificate of
Ellen and Christian was issued by the Office of the Vicar of Ullern. The probate court
certificate issued by the Oslo Probate Court. All documents were similarly
authenticated by the signatures of Tanja Sorlie of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Norway as well as by the official seal of that office. Also, Consul Marian Jocelyn R.
Tirol of the Philippine Consulate in Stockholm, Sweden authenticated the signatures of
Tanja Sorlie and the official seal of the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway,
explicitly certifying to the authority of Tanja Sorlie "to legalize official documents for
the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway." The Consul further certified that the
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
Marriage Certificate was a true translation into English of a transcript of a Marriage
Certificate.
In sum, the official participation in the authentication process of Tanja Sorlie of the
Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the attachment of the official seal of
that office on each authentication indicated that the documents were documents of a
public nature in Norway, not merely private documents. It cannot be denied that based
on Philippine Consul Tirol's official authentication, Tanja Sorlie was "on the date of
signing, duly authorized to legalize official documents for the Royal Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Norway." At a minimum, the documents substantially complied with the
requirements of Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132.
Substantial compliance of authentication requirements
Substantial compliance is justified if there is presence of equitable conditions to
administer justice effectively and efficiently without damage or injury to the spirit of
the legal obligation. In this case, there are such equitable conditions attendant here:
respondents had gone to great lengths to submit the documents. Respondents'
compliance with the requirements on attestation and authentication of the documents
had not been easy; they had to contend with many difficulties (such as the distance of
Oslo, their place of residence, from Stockholm, Sweden, where the Philippine
Consulate had its office; the volume of transactions in the offices concerned; and the
safe transmission of the documents to the Philippines). The principle of substantial
compliance recognizes that exigencies and situations do occasionally demand some
flexibility in the rigid application of the rules of procedure and the laws.
Heirs of Cabais case v Heirs of Conti case
Makati Shangri-La cited these cases and asked the Court to resolve an apparent conflict
between the rulings in Cabais case which did not allow baptismal certificate to establish
filiation and Conti case which allowed admission of baptismal certificate to establish
filiation. In Cabais, the Court did not accept a baptismal certificate to establish filiation
ruling that a baptismal certificate is a private document, which, being hearsay, is not a
conclusive proof of filiation. It does not have the same probative value as a record of
birth, an official or public document. They merely presented one baptismal certificate
here. In Conti, there were four (4) baptismal certificates which, when taken together,
uniformly show that 4 people had the same set of parents and with the undisputed
testimony. Such baptismal certificates have acquired evidentiary weight to prove
filiation. Obviously, Conti did not treat a baptismal certificate, standing alone, as
sufficient to prove filiation; on the contrary, Conti expressly held that a baptismal
7
certificate had evidentiary value to prove filiation if considered alongside other
evidence of filiation. As such, a baptismal certificate alone is not sufficient to resolve a
disputed filiation.
Unlike Cabais and Conti, the PRESENT CASE has respondents presenting SEVERAL
documents, like the birth certificates of Harper and respondent Jonathan Harper, the
marriage certificate of Harper and Ellen Johanne Harper, and the probate court
certificate, all of which were presumably regarded as public documents under the laws
of Norway.
8. Salas vs Sta. Mesa Market Corp
G.R. No. 157766. July 12, 2007
FACTS
A management agreement was entered into by Domingo, as Chairman of Sta Mesa
Market Corp (SMMC) and estate manager Salas. Under such agreement, Salas will
manage the estate of Domingo including SMMC, and as compensation, Domingo will
transfer to Salas 30% of the subscribed and paid up capital of stock of SMMC if Salas
can achieve a monthly market revenue of at least P350k. SMMC under the
management of Salas, leased the Sta Mesa Market to Malaca. However, it turned out
that Malaca was financially incapable of improving the market prompting SMMC to
terminate the lease. The board of directors of SMMC became dissatisfied with the
management of Salas, and the management contract was terminated.
Salas filed a complaint for specific performance and damages asking the court to
compel Domingo to transfer to him 30% of the capital stock as they monthly revenue
of SMMC increased to P350k during his management. He presented copies of the
financial statements of SMMC.
RTC ruled in favor of Salas. However, the CA reversed the RTC, ruling that Salas failed
to prove the authenticity of the audited financial statements because he did not
present a representative of SMMC's external auditor to testify on the genuineness and
due execution of the audited financial statements. What was presented was a
memorandum prepared by a member of the management team of Salas attesting to
the increase in the corporation's monthly market revenue. CA ruled that the audited
financial statements were not only self-serving but also hearsay.
Salas contended that Amado, VP of SMMC, admitted the genuineness and due
execution of the AFS when he testified that the AFS were copies of those submitted by
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk.
SMMC to the BIR and SEC for purposes of tax. The admission of Amado of the
genuineness and due execution of the documents made authentication unnecessary.
ISSUE: Whether the authenticity of the audited financial statements was proven? NO
DECISION
The documents presented as evidence were mere copies of the audited financial
statements submitted to the BIR and SEC. Neither party claimed that copies presented
were certified true copies of audited financial statements obtained or secured from the
BIR or the SEC which under Section 19 (c), Rule 132, would have been public
documents. Thus, the statements presented were private documents. Consequently,
authentication was a precondition to their admissibility in evidence.
During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a document presented
as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed or that the document is neither
spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by mistake or under duress. In this case,
petitioner merely presented a memorandum attesting to the increase in the
corporation's monthly market revenue, prepared by a member of his management
team.
Application of an exception to the authenticity requirement is not applicable, that is,
authentication is not necessary where the adverse party has admitted the genuineness
and due execution of a document. The fact, however, was that nowhere in his
testimony did Amado Domingo categorically admit the authenticity of the copies of the
audited financial statements. He only testified that SMMC regularly submitted its
audited financial statements to the BIR and SEC. There was never any admission that
the documents presented by petitioner were true or faithful copies of those submitted
to the BIR and the SEC.
9. Heirs of Ochoa v G&S Transport
G.R. No. 170071-25. July 16, 2012
FACTS
These are 2 consolidated cases which stemmed from a complaint of damages filed by
the Heirs of Jose Marcial Ochoa against G&S Transport for his death while on board a
taxi owned and operated by G&S Transport. The RTC ruled in favor of the heirs
awarding P6,537,244.96 for loss of earning capacity of the deceased. On appeal to the
CA, the CA affirmed the RTC decision but with modification as to the award of damages
8
removing therefrom the P6,537,244.96 for loss of earning capacity on the ground that
the Income Certificate issued by the USAID, the employer of Jose Marcial, was self-
serving and was not supported by ITR or receipts. In the Supreme Court, the SC
awarded the P6,537,244.96 for loss of earning capacity. Both parties filed their
respective motions for reconsideration.
G&S argued the USAID Certification used as basis in computing the award for loss of
income is inadmissible in evidence because it was not properly authenticated and
identified in court by the signatory thereof. However, the Heirs of Ochoa the USAID
Certification was properly admitted in evidence. This is because Jose Marcial's widow,
witness Ruby Bueno Ochoa, was able to competently testify as to the authenticity and
due execution of the said Certification since the signatory thereof, Jonas Cruz (Cruz),
personally issued and handed the same to her the accuracy of the contents of the
Certification was never questioned by G & S as, in fact, it did not present evidence to
dispute its contents.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the USAID Certification a public document? YES
2. Whether the USAID Certification needs to be authenticated? NO
DECISION
1. The subject USAID Certification is public document, hence, does not require
authentication. Section 19(a) of Rule 132 classifies the written official acts, or records
of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country, as public documents.
USAID is the principal United States agency that extends assistance to countries
recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms
and that it is an independent federal government agency that receives over-all foreign
policy guidance from the Secretary of State of the United States. It was created through
Executive Order 10973 by President John F. Kennedy pursuant to the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961. It is headed by an Administrator and Deputy Administrator,
both appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by its Senate. From
these, there can be no doubt that the USAID is an official government agency of a
foreign country, the United States.
Hence, Cruz, as USAID's Chief of the Human Resources Division in the Philippines, is
actually a public officer. Apparently, Cruz's issuance of the subject USAID Certification
 Highly paraphrased! Read at your own risk. 9

was made in the performance of his official functions, he having charge of all employee
les and information as such officer.

2. The requirement of authentication of documentary evidence applies only to

private document. Before a private document offered as authentic be received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must first be proved. This requirement of
authentication only pertains to private documents and does not apply to public
documents, these being admissible without further proof of their due execution or
genuineness. The reason for this rule are: (1) said documents have been executed in
the proper registry and are presumed to be valid and genuine until the contrary is
shown by clear and convincing proof and (2) because public documents are
authenticated by the official signature and seals which they bear and of which seals,
courts may take judicial notice.