November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197443 : November 28, 2011]
SPS. ERNESTO SANTOS AND LOURDES SANTOS v. SPS. RENATO AND PAG-ASA SANTOS
G.R. No. 197443 - (Sps. Ernesto Santos and Lourdes Santos v. Sps. Renato and Pag-Asa Santos). - In our September 5, 2011 Resolution, we denied the petitioners' petition for review on certiorari (1) for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and (2) for failure to strictly comply with the requirements specified under Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Specifically, the petition lacked a valid affidavit of service, in accordance with Sections 3 and 5, Rule 45, and Section 5 (d), Rule 56 in relation to Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, there being no properly accomplished jurat showing that the affiant exhibited before the notary public at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the affiant as required under Sections 6 and 12, Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by the Court En Banc Resolution dated February 19, 2008 in A.M. No. 02-8-13, as only the community tax certificate was presented.
In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners argue that identification by the notary public of the affiant through a competent evidence of identify is not required when the jurat contains a statement that the affiant is "personally known to the notary public." On the merits, they reiterate that the lower courts should have dismissed the complaint since the respondents failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the Petty Cash Vouchers as required under Section 8, Rule 8[1] of the Rules of Court.
The motion for reconsideration is partly meritorious.
We agree that competent evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to the notary public. This is clear from the wording of Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, which states:
SEC. 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document, [underscoring and emphasis ours]
"In legal hermeneutics, or is a disjunctive that expresses an alternative or gives a choice of one among two or more things. The word signifies disassociation and independence of one thing from another thing in an enumeration."[2] Thus, when Notary Public Isagani O. Ramos affirmed in the jurat that he personally knew the affiant, then there was no more need to present a competent evidence of identification of the affiant.[3]
On the merits, the petition still fails, however, despite being reinstated as it has not sufficiently shown any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud and want of consideration.[4] Besides, we note that the petitioners are deemed to have waived the mantle of protection given them by Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court when they proceeded with the trial proper, acted in complete disregard of or wholly overlooked Section 8, Rule 8, and did not object to the introduction and admission of evidence questioning the genuineness and due execution of the Petty Cash Vouchers.[5]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petitioners' motion for reconsideration is PARTLY GRANTED. The September 5, 2011 Resolution is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the denial of the petition for failure to strictly comply with the requirements specified under Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
� (Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SEC. 8. How to contest such documents. � When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall he deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.[2] Guzman v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182390, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 409, 516-517.
[3] See Amora, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192280, January 25, 2011, 640 SCRA 473.
[4] Simon v. Canlas, 521 Phil. 558, 574 (2006); Acabal v. Acabal, 494 Phil. 528, 540-541 (2005); Republic of the Phils. v. CA, 357 Phil. 174, 186 (1998); Bough and Bough v. Cantiveros and Hanopol, 40 Phil. 209, 213-214 (1919); Hibberd v. Rolide and McMillan, 32 Phil. 476, 480 (1915).
[5] Central Surety and Insurance Co. v. C.N. Hodges, et al, 148 Phil. 158, 166 (1971); Yu Chuck v. Kong Li, 46 Phil. 608 (1924).