This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-16 |
HEIRS OF JOSE MARCIAL K. OCHOA NAMELY: RUBY B. OCHOA MICAELA B. OCHOA v. G & S TRANSPORT CORPORATION
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is true that before a private document offered as authentic be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must first be proved.[15] However, it must be remembered that 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. Two reasons may be advanced in support of this rule, namely: 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, second, because public documents are authenticated by the official signature and seals which they bear and of which seals, courts may take judicial notice."[16] Hence, in a case, the Court held that in the presentation of public documents as evidence, due execution and authenticity thereof are already presumed.[17] | |||||
|
2010-04-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Teoco v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,[23] quoting Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[24] we explained: From the foregoing provision, when the special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it is certified as such in accordance with the foregoing provision of the rules by a secretary of 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 of said public document and authenticated by the seal of his office. A city judge-notary who notarized the document, as in this case, cannot issue such certification.[25] | |||||