Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    Tigno vs. Aquino Doctrine:: G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004

    Uploaded by

    sdfoisaiofas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Sale presented by the Aquinos was not valid evidence because it was improperly notarized. Specifically, it contained a jurat instead of an acknowledgment, and the notarizing judge did not have authority to notarize the document as it was not related to his official duties. As a private document, it needed to be properly authenticated per the rules of evidence, which it was not. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of Tigno, finding doubts about the authenticity and origins of the Deed of Sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tigno vs. Aquino Doctrine:: G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004

    Uploaded by

    sdfoisaiofas
    66 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Sale presented by the Aquinos was not valid evidence because it was improperly notarized. Specifically, it contained a jurat instead of an acknowledgment, and the notarizing judge did not have authority to notarize the document as it was not related to his official duties. As a private document, it needed to be properly authenticated per the rules of evidence, which it was not. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of Tigno, finding doubts about the authenticity and origins of the Deed of Sale.

    Original Description:

    xczcz

    Original Title

    01 Tigbo v. Aquino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Sale presented by the Aquinos was not valid evidence because it was improperly notarized. Specifically, it contained a jurat instead of an acknowledgment, and the notarizing judge did not have authority to notarize the document as it was not related to his official duties. As a private document, it needed to be properly authenticated per the rules of evidence, which it was not. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of Tigno, finding doubts about the authenticity and origins of the Deed of Sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    66 views1 page

    Tigno vs. Aquino Doctrine:: G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004

    Uploaded by

    sdfoisaiofas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Sale presented by the Aquinos was not valid evidence because it was improperly notarized. Specifically, it contained a jurat instead of an acknowledgment, and the notarizing judge did not have authority to notarize the document as it was not related to his official duties. As a private document, it needed to be properly authenticated per the rules of evidence, which it was not. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of Tigno, finding doubts about the authenticity and origins of the Deed of Sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Tigno vs.

    Aquino
    G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004

    Doctrine:
    A jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
    competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the
    same was sworn before him.

    Recit-Ready Summary:
    Facts:
    The Aquinos filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages against Isidro Bustria. The complaint sought to enforce an alleged
    sale by Bustria to the Aquinos. The property was not registered either under the Land Registration Act or under the Spanish Mortgage Law,
    though registrable under Act No. 3344.
    Eventually, Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise agreement, whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale, and
    the Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to repurchase the same property after the lapse of seven (7) years.
    Upon submission, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch VII, approved and incorporated the compromise agreement in a
    Decision.
    Bustria died in October of 1986. Petitioner Zenaida B. Tigno (Tigno), in substitution of her deceased father Isidro Bustria, attempted to
    repurchase the property by filing a Motion for Consignation. RTC denied the Motion for Consignation. Tigno filed a Motion for a Writ of
    Execution, which was likewise opposed by the Aquinos, and denied by the RTC. Then, Tigno filed an action for Revival of Judgment, seeking
    the revival of the decision in the 1st Civil Case, so that it could be executed accordingly. The Aquinos filed an answer, wherein they alleged
    that Bustria had sold his right to repurchase the property to them in a deed of sale.
    The admission of the Deed of Sale was objected to by Tigno on the ground that it was a false and fraudulent document which had not been
    acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that its existence was suspicious, considering that it had been previously unknown, and not even
    presented by the Aquinos when they opposed Tigno’s previous Motion for Consignation. RTC refused to admit the Deed of Sale in evidence.
    A Decision was rendered by the RTC in favor of Tigno. The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the Deed of Sale.
    CA reversed the RTC decision saying that that the absence of the acknowledgment and substitution instead of a jurat did not render the
    instrument invalid.
    Issue: Whether the Deed of Sale is admissible in evidence despite having a jurat instead of an acknowledgement – NO
    Ruling:
    There are palpable errors in the certification. Most glaringly, the document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment. A
    jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
    competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the
    same was sworn before him. Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act, which has been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree
    No. 1529, the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a notary public.
    But there is an even more substantial defect in the notarization, one which is determinative of this petition. This pertains to the authority of
    Judge Franklin Cariño to notarize the Deed of Sale. The Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties of Judge Cariño, and there
    was no reason for him to notarize it.
    Clearly, the presumption of regularity relied upon by the Court of Appeals no longer holds true since the Deed of Sale is not a notarized
    document. The Deed of Sale, invalidly notarized as it was, does not fall under the enumeration of public documents; hence, it must be
    considered a private document. The nullity of the alleged or attempted notarization performed by Judge Cariño is sufficient to exclude the
    document in question from the class of public documents. Even assuming that the Deed of Sale was validly notarized, it would still be
    classified as a private document, since it was not properly acknowledged, but merely subscribed and sworn to by way of jurat.
    Being a private document, the Deed of Sale is now subject to the requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132, which states:
    Section 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.

    The dubiousness in origin of the Deed of Sale is not alleviated by the other observations of the RTC. It also pointed to certain incredible
    aspects in the Aquinos’ tale of events. It noted that no receipts were ever presented by the respondents to evidence actual payment of
    consideration by them to Bustria, despite the allegation of the respondents that the amount was covered by seven (7) receipts.

    You might also like