This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Regarding the non-notarization of the contract of lease raised by private respondent, petitioner avers that this "does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties' transaction void ab initio."[19] | |||||
|
2008-07-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Further challenging the due execution of the board resolution bearing the Secretary's Certification, petitioner wants us to consider the same as inadmissible on the ground that Atty. Agcaoili did not appear before a notary public for notarization. We do not agree, because in the past, we have already held that the non-appearance of the party before the notary public who notarized the deed does not necessarily nullify or render the parties' transaction void ab initio.[10] However, the non-appearance of the party exposes the notary public to administrative liability which warrants sanction by the Court. This fact notwithstanding, we agree with the respondent court that it is not enough to overcome the presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the board resolution. To overcome the presumption, there must be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.[11] In the absence of such proof, the document must be upheld. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.[12] | |||||