cases (Classes of Documents) Flashcards
Petitioner, a Japanese national married Private respondent in 2002. In July 2009, petitioner noticed his wife become depressed. Suspecting that something might have happened in the Philippines, he confronted his wife about it. To his shock, private respondent confessed to him that she received news that her previous husband passed away. This prompted petitioner to file a petition for the declaration of his marriage to private respondent as null and void on the ground that their marriage is a bigamous one During trial, aside from his testimony, petitioner also offered the following pieces of documentary evidence issued by the NSO: (1) Certificate of Marriage between petitioner and private respondent to prove the fact of marriage between the parties on November 28, 2002; (2) Certificate of Marriage between private respondent and Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo to prove the fact of marriage between the parties on June 20, 1994 Certificate of Death of Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo; (3) Certification from the NSO to the effect that there are two entries of marriage recorded by the office pertaining to private respondent RTC rendered the assailed decision. It ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove private respondent’s prior existing valid marriage to another man. It held that while petitioner offered the certificate of marriage of private respondent to Arambulo, it was only petitioner who testified about said marriage. The RTC ruled that petitioner’s testimony is unreliable because he has no personal knowledge of private respondent’s prior marriage nor of Arambulo’s death which makes him a complete stranger to the marriage certificate between private respondent and Arambulo and the latter’s death certificate. It further ruled that petitioner’s testimony about the NSO certification is likewise unreliable since he is a stranger to the preparation of said document.
Whether or not the testimony of the NSO records custodian certifying the authenticity and due execution of the public documents issued by said office was necessary before they could be accorded evidentiary weight.
No. There is no question that the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are all public documents. Art. 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.” As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are said documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary.
Nichimen Corporation shipped to Universal Motors 219 packages containing 120 units of brand new Nissan Pickup Truck on board the vessel S/S “Calayan Iris” from Japan to Manila. The shipment was insured with Philam against all risks. When the package arrived and was unloaded by ATI, it was found that the package marked as 03-245-42K/1 was in bad order. The shipment was withdrawn by R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc., the authorized broker of Universal Motors, and delivered to the latter’s warehouse. Owing to the extent of the damage to said cargoes, Universal Motors declared them a total loss. Universal Motors filed a formal claim for damages against Westwind, ATI10 and R.F. Revilla Customs Brokerage, Inc. When Universal Motors’ demands remained unheeded, it sought reparation from and was compensated by Philam. Accordingly, Universal Motors issued a Subrogation Receipt in favor of Philam. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Philam and ordered Westwind and ATI to pay Philam. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC. When the case was elevated to the SC, petitioners objected to the admission of Marine Certificate and the Subrogation Receipt for being hearsay as they were not authenticated by the persons who executed them.
ISSUE: Whether or not certificates and/or receipts offered as evidence required authentication.
Yes. The nature of documents as either public or private determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document 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. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner prescribed under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules:
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, specifically: (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 (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine. Indubitably, Marine Certificate No. 708-8006717-4 and the Subrogation Receipt are private documents which Philam and the consignee, respectively, issue in the pursuit of their business. Since none of the exceptions to the requirement of authentication of a private document obtains in these cases, said documents may not be admitted in evidence for Philam without being properly authenticated.
