PRELIMS

Notarial Rules
1. Acknowledgment v. Jurat
Section 1, Rule 2 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Acknowledgment is an act in which an individual on a single occasion AAR
1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally
complete instrument
2. Attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by
the same through competent evidence of identity
3. Represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument
was voluntarily affixed by him for purposes stated in the instrument,
declares that he has executed the same as his free and voluntary act
and deed, and if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that
he has the authority to sign in that capacity

Acknowledgement is a declaration that a person has himself executed the deed.

Purpose: To authorize the deed to be given in evidence without proof of its
authenticity and due execution (to make it a public document)
Application: Used to notarize documents transmitting rights or property

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Leyte ) S.S
Municipality of Alangalang )

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte this 8th day of February 2019 personally appeared Simon Petrikov,
[with ID and ID No. issued by agency on date of issuance] with Driver’s License No. ICE-1234 issued by the Land Transportation Office on 3 January 2017,
known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and
voluntary deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place first above written.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the day year, and place first above written.

Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang, Leyte
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2019.
 Jurat An act in which an individual on a single occasion AAST
1. Appears in person before the notary public and presents an
instrument
2. Attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by
the same through competent evidence of identity
3. Signs instrument in the presence of notary public
4. Takes an oath or affirmation before the same as to such instrument

Jurat is a certification that the instrument was “sworn” to before the notary public.
Purpose: To give document legal character
Application: Used to notarize any document
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte on this 8th day of February 2019, affiant exhibiting before me
his SSS ID. No. 1234 issued on 11/8/2013 at Quezon City, Philippines.

Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang, Leyte
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2019.

2. Competent Evidence of Identity

Sec. 12, Rule 2 of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
The phrase refers to the identification of an individual based on
1. At least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual
Such as Passport, Driver’s License, PRC ID, NBI Clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID,
SSS, GSIS, etc.
2. Or the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the
instrument who is personally known to the notary public and who personally
knows the individual or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to
the instrument, who each personally knows the individual and shows to the
notary public documentary identification.
3. S.S. means SCILICET/SUBSCRIPSI. SCILICET means "to wit; namely" while SUBSCRIPSI
means "to write or sign below". Hence, the header in an Affidavit means "Republic of
the Philippines namely subscribed in City of Quezon". This part of an Affidavit refers
to the venue where the instrument was executed. It also indicates the jurisdiction
within which the notary public may administer oaths.
 4. Affidavit of Loss (Prelims)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Municipality of Alangalang )
Province of Leyte ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS

I, Tyrion Lanester, Filipino, of legal age, and resident of King’s Landing, Westeros City, having duly been sworn
in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am a Financial Adviser for PhilamLife;

2. That while I was the bus stop at King’s Landing waiting for a ride to the office, I dropped my Philippine passport;
3. That despite diligent search and efforts to locate the said passport, I could not find the same such that I now
believe that it is now lost beyond recovery; and
4. As such, I am executing this Affidavit of Loss to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to support the
application for issuance of a new Philippine passport in lieu of the one I lost.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have set my hand this 4th day of February 2019, in Alangalang, Leyte, Philippines.

(Signature)
Tyrion Lanester
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th of February 2019, by affiant who personally appeared exhibiting
to me his Driver's License no. KL1234, valid until January 30, 2020 and issued by LTO at Westeros City, Philippines.

Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang, Leyte

Doc. No. 2;
Page No. 3;
Book No. 4;
Series of 2019.

5. Cases

Cruz v. Centron 442
SCRA 53 (2004)
Tigno v. Spouses
Aquino 444 SCRA 61
(2004)
Violation Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733)
and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation
to Sections G, M and N Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of
Court. Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries
public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or
administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the
exercise of their official functions. In the present case, it is not
within Atty. Centron competence, as it is not part of her official
function and duty, to notarize the subject deed of sale.
Respondent is guilty of abuse of authority.
CA reversed the decision of RTC and ruled in favor of Spouses
Aquino. The appellate court ratiocinated that there were no
material or substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies
of Cariño and De Francia that would taint the document with
doubtful authenticity; that the absence of the acknowledgment
and substitution instead of a jurat did not render the instrument
invalid; and that the non-assistance or representation of Bustria
by counsel did not render the document null and ineffective. It
was noted that a notarized document carried in its favor the
presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and
that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant evidence to contradict the same.

Whether or not the deed of sale was notarized properly, hence

admissible as evidence.

No. SC ruled in favor of Tigno. RTC decision is reinstated.

The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S.
MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of October

1985 at Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the same
parties who executed the foregoing instrument.
FRANKLIN CARIÑO
Ex-Officio Notary Public
Judge, M.T.C.
Alaminos, Pangasinan

There are palpable errors.

1. Deed of Sale is certified by way of Jurat instead of
Acknowledgment (despite the header title) – Jurat v.
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;
A jurat – is that part of an affidavit where the
officer certifies that the same was sworn before
him.
2. Authority of MTC Judge to notarize document as Deed of
Sale
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the
functions of notaries public ex officio under Section 76
of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known
as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the
Revised Administrative Code. However, as far back as
 1980 in Borre v. Moya, the Court explicitly declared that
municipal court judges such as Cariño may notarize only
documents connected with the exercise of their official
duties. The Deed of Sale was not connected with any
official duties of Judge Cariño, and there was no reason
for him to notarize it.

(2) Effect: The Deed of Sale is deemed not notarized at all. The
validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from the
authority of the notarial officer. If the notary public does not
have the capacity to notarize a document, but does so anyway,
then the document should be treated as not notarized.
What is the effect of this effect?
Civil Law: The absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would
not necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein.
Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a
contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over
immovable property should be in a public document, yet it is
also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper
form does not render the transaction invalid. Thus, it has been
uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 (form) is
not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction,
but required merely for convenience
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.
Fuentes v. Buno 560 According to complainant Geronimo Fuentes respondent judge
SCRA 22 (2008) notarized said document as ex-officio Notary Public, thereby
abusing his discretion and authority as well as committing graft
and corruption.

5. In defense, respondent judge contended that he could not

be charged of graft and corruption, since in a municipality where
a notary public is unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to
notarize documents or deeds as ex-officio notary public.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge has authority to

notarize the documents
RULING: No. MTC Judge has no authority to notarize documents
such as Deed of Sale. While Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296,
as amended, and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code
authorize MTC and MCTC judges to perform the functions of
notaries public ex officio, the Court laid down the scope of said
authority.
Prohibition of judges
SC Circular No. 1-90 prohibits judges from undertaking the
preparation and acknowledgment of private documents,
contracts and other deeds of conveyances which have no direct
relation to the discharge of their official functions. In this case,
respondent judge admitted that he prepared both the
document itself, entitled "Extra-judicial Partition with
Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" and the acknowledgment
of the said document, which had no relation at all to the
performance of his function as a judge. These acts of
respondent judge are clearly proscribed by the aforesaid
Circular.

While it may be true that no notary public was available or

residing within respondent judge’s territorial jurisdiction, as
shown by the certifications issued by the RTC Clerk of Court and
the Municipal Mayor of Talibon, Bohol, SC Circular No. 1-90
specifically requires that a certification attesting to the lack of
any lawyer or notary public in the said municipality or circuit be
made in the notarized document. Here, no such certification was
made in the Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Deed of
Sale. Respondent judge also failed to indicate in his answer as to
whether or not any notarial fee was charged for that transaction,
and if so, whether the same was turned over to the Municipal
Treasurer of Talibon, Bohol. Clearly, then, respondent judge, who
was the sitting judge of the MCTC, Talibon-Getafe, Bohol, failed
to comply with the aforesaid conditions prescribed by SC Circular
No. 1-90, even if he could have acted as notary public ex-officio
in the absence of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality
or circuit to which he was assigned.
SC Circular 1-90 Power of MTC judges as Notaries Public ex
officio

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted

hereunder, is the Resolution of the Court En Banc, dated
December 19, 1989, in Administrative Matter No. 89-11-1303
MTC, "Re: Request for clarification on the power of municipal
trial court judges and municipal circuit trial court judges to act as
Notaries Public Ex Officio":
 Acting on a query regarding the power of municipal trial court
judges and municipal circuit trial court judges to act in the
capacity of notaries public ex officio in the light of the 1989 Code
of Judicial Conduct, the Court Resolved to issue a clarification on
the matter.

Municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court

(MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the function of
notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No.
296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948)
and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the
Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope
of this power:
GR
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the
notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of
their official functions and duties [Borne v. Mayo, Adm. Matter
No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penera v.
Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA
193.] They may not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of private documents,
contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct
relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The
1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate
their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of
conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from
engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).
XPN
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that there
are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries
public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to
municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may,
in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any act
within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that:
(1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the
Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena,
Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114
SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the notarized
documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in
such municipality or circuit.
Gamido vs. New In the Resolution of 7 September 1994, The Court required Atty.
Bilibid Prisons G.R. Icasiano M. dela Rea, to show cause why no disciplinary action
No. 114829 (1995) should be taken against him for making it appear in the jurat of
the petition in this case that the petitioner subscribed the
verification and swore to before him, as notary public, on 19
April 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not. In
his Explanation, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea admitted having
executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner Gamido.
The explanation states: “xxx I did it in the honest belief that
since it is jurat and not an acknowledgement. xxx” Then he
apologizes to the Court and assures it that henceforth he would
be more careful and circumspect.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Rea’s explanation is satisfactory that he

honestly confused Jurat and Acknowledgement.

RULING: No, a jurat which is, normally in this form:

Subscribed and sworn to before me in _______________, this

____ day of ____________, affiant having exhibited to me his
Community (before, Residence) Tax Certificate No.
____________ issued at ______________ on ____________.

It is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the

instrument was sworn to before him. It is not a part of a pleading
but merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was properly
made. The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the
words "subscribed and sworn to me."

To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name;

to sign at the end of a document. To swear means to put on
oath; to declare on oath the truth of a pleading, etc. Accordingly,
in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of
and take his oath before a notary public or any other person
authorized to administer oaths.

As to acknowledgment, Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103

provides:

(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public

or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place
where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his
free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official
seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his
certificate shall so state. (See Lorenzo M. Tañada and Francisco
A. Rodrigo, Modern Philippine Legal Forms, vol. II, 1964 Fifth ed.,
735).
 It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear
before the notary public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.

The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of

petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is
not an acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his
belief since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then
he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath
in a jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by law to
administer oaths or to take acknowledgments should not take
for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices.
Such duties are dictated by public policy and are impressed
with public interest.
COQUIA v. FACTS:
LAFORTEZA
Atty. Laforteza was a former Clerk of the RTC, Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan, having assumed office in November 17,
2004 until January 31, 2011.

On February 1, 2011, Atty. Laforteza transferred to the

Department of Justice.

On February 6, 2012, this Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a petition for

disbarment against Atty. Laforteza, for Conduct Unbecoming of a
Lawyer due to the unauthorized notarization of documents. C

Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not

authorized to administer oath on documents not related to his
functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC. Thus, the instant
complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

On January 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant referred the
complaint to Atty. Cristina B. Layusa, Deputy Clerk of Court and
Bar Confidant, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, for
appropriate action.

On March 19, 2012, the Court resolved to require Atty. Laforteza

to comment on the complaint against him. In compliance, Atty.
Laforteza submitted his Comment where he denied the
allegations in the complaint. Atty. Laforteza recalled that on
January 7, 2009, while attending to his work, fellow court
employee, Luzviminda Solis, wife of Clemente, with other
persons, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda introduced
said persons to him as the same parties to the subject
documents.
Luzviminda requested him to subscribe the subject documents as
proof of their transaction considering that they are blood
relatives. Atty. Laforteza claimed that he hesitated at first and
even directed them to seek the services of a notary public but
they insisted for his assistance and accommodation. Thus, in
response to the exigency of the situation and thinking in all good
faith that it would also serve the parties' interest having arrived
at a settlement, Atty. Laforteza opted to perform the
subscription of the jurat. He, however, insisted that at that time
of subscription, after propounding some questions, he was
actually convinced that the persons who came to him are the
same parties to the said subject documents.

Atty. Laforteza likewise denied that there was conspiracy or

connivance between him and the Solis. He pointed out that other
than the subject documents and Coquia's bare allegation of
conspiracy, no evidence was presented to substantiate the same.
Atty. Laforteza lamented that he was also a victim of the
circumstances with his reliance to the representations made
before him.

In a Joint-Affidavit of Clemente and Luzviminda, both denied to

have connived or conspired with Atty. Laforteza in the
preparation and execution of the subject documents.

On October 11, 2012, the Court resolved to refer the instant case
to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In its
Report and Recommendation dated December 18, 2013, the IBP-
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended that the
instant complaint be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

However, in a Notice of Resolution, the IBP-Board of Governors

resolved to reverse and set aside the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and
cautioned Atty. Laforteza to be careful in performing his duties
as subscribing officer.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Atty. Laforteza acted in abuse of his authority in

committing an unauthorized notarial act.

Whether or not Atty. Laforteza violated is in violation of the

notarial law of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
HELD:

We concur with the findings of the IBP-Board of Governors,

except as to the penalty.

In the instant case, we find that Coquia failed to present clear

and preponderant evidence to show that Atty. Laforteza had
direct and instrumental participation, or was in connivance with
the Solis' in the preparation of the subject documents. The Court
does not thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion
and speculation.

Consequently, the empowerment of ex officio notaries public to

perform acts within the competency of regular notaries public
under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is now more of an
exception rather than a general rule.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza notarized

and administered oaths in documents that had no relation to his
official function. The subject documents are both private
documents which are unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official
functions. The civil case from where the subject documents
originated is not even raffled in Branch 68 where Atty. Laforteza
was assigned. While Atty. Laforteza serve as notary public ex
officio and, thus, may notarize documents or administer oaths,
he should not in his ex officio capacity take part in the execution
of private documents bearing no relation at all to his official
functions.

It is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the

rules of notarial law.

Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless

the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated therein.

While Atty. Laforteza was merely an ex-officio notary public by

virtue of his position as clerk of court then, it did not relieve him
of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed
upon other commissioned notaries public. However, this Court
can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty.
Laforteza for the purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions over
erring court employees since the instant complaint against him
was filed after he has ceased to be a court employee.
 WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Atty. Emmanuel E.
Laforteza's notarial commission, if there is any, is REVOKED, and
he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public
for a period of one (1) year. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Nevada v. Casuga The Facts

Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada &

Sons, Inc., a family corporation which operates the Mt.
Crest Hotel located at Legarda Road, Baguio City (the
Hotel).

In her affidavit-complaint[1] dated June 28, 2007, with

annexes, Nevada alleges that she and Casuga are
members of the One in Jesus Christ Church, a religious
group which counts the latter as one of its elders.
According to Nevada, she has allowed the use of one of
the Hotels functions rooms for church services. And in
time, Casuga was able to gain her trust and confidence.

Nevada further alleges that unbeknownst to her, Casuga,

sometime in 2006, started to represent himself as the
administrator of the Hotel. In fact, on March 1, 2006, he
entered into a contract of lease[2] with a certain Jung
Jong Chul (Chul) covering an office space in the Hotel.
Notably, Casuga signed the lease contract over the
printed name of one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized
the document himself.

Annex B[3] of the affidavit-complaint is a notarized

letter dated May 15, 2007, wherein Chul attested that he
gave Casuga, upon contract signing, the amount of
ninety thousand pesos (PhP 90,000) as rental deposit for
the office space. The amount thus deposited, so Nevada
claims, was never turned over to her or to C.T. Nevada
& Sons, Inc.
Nevada adds that, in the course of their
acquaintanceship, Casuga was able to acquire from her
several pieces of jewelry: a K diamond solitaire ring,
earrings with three (3) diamonds each and a ring with
three (3) diamonds, with an aggregate value of three
hundred thousand pesos (PhP 300,000), and a solid gold
Rolex watch with diamond dials valued at twelve
thousand US dollars (USD 12,000). Casuga took
possession of the valuables purportedly with the
obligation of selling them and to remit any proceeds to
Nevada. However, despite repeated demands by Nevada
for Casuga to return the valuables or otherwise remit the
proceeds of the sale, no jewelry or money was ever
returned.

In compliance with a directive from the Court, Casuga

submitted an Affidavit[4] dated December 5, 2007, as
comment on the administrative complaint. In it, Casuga
claims that Nevada informally instituted him as the
administrator of the Hotel in a limited capacity but
denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from Chul. With regard
to the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch, Casuga
stated that Nevada actually pawned them in a pawnshop
and that she later asked his wife to redeem them using
their own money. Thereafter, Nevada asked Casugas
wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the
proceeds of the sale.

By Resolution of July 2, 2008, the Court, thru the Office

of the Bar Confidant, referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation/decision. The case was docketed as
CBD Case No. 7591 entitled Corazon T. Nevada v. Atty.
Rodolfo D. Casuga.
On September 22, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), thru Commisioner Norberto B. Ruiz,
issued and sent out a Notice of Mandatory Conference
directing the parties to appear before it on October 23,
2008. On that date, only Nevada showed up, prompting
the designated commissioner to reset the conference to
November 25, 2008, with a warning that he, Casuga,
will be declared in default and the case submitted for
resolution should he again fail to appear. November 25,
2008 came, but only Nevada was present at the
conference. Thus, CBD Case No. 7591 was submitted
for resolution on the basis of Nevadas Position Paper
dated December 3, 2008 and the evidence she submitted
consisting of, among others, twenty-one (21) official
rental receipts Casuga issued to at least two (2) lessors
of the Hotel.

Casuga violated the Notarial Rules

(1)
The Notarial Rules, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, provides in its
Rule IV, Section 1(c) and Sec. 3(a) when a notary public
may sign a document in behalf of another person, thus:

SEC. 1. Powers. x x x
xxxx

(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on

behalf of a person who is physically unable to
sign or make a mark on an instrument or
document if:

(1) the notary public is directed by

the person unable to sign or make a
mark to sign on his behalf;

(2) the signature of the notary

public is affixed in the presence of
 two disinterested and unaffected
witnesses to the instrument or
document;

(3) both witnesses sign their own

names;

(4) the notary public writes below

his signature: Signature affixed by
notary in presence of (names and
addresses of person and two (2)
witnesses);

(5) the notary public notarizes his

signature by acknowledgment or jurat.

(2)
On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 3(a) disqualifies a
notary public from performing a notarial act if he or
she is a party to the instrument or document that is to
be notarized.

None of the requirements contained in Rule IV,

Sec. 1(c), as would justify a notary signing in behalf of a
contracting party, was complied with in this case.
Moreover, Casugas act of affixing his signature above
the printed name Edwin T. Nevada, without any
qualification, veritably made him a party to the
contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of
notarizing a deed to which he is a party is a plain
violation of the aforequoted Rule IV, Sec. 3(a) of the
Notarial Rules, for which he can be disciplinarily
sanctioned provided under Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of
the Notarial Rules, which provides:

SECTION 1. Revocation and

Administrative Sanctions. x x x.

(b) In addition, the Executive Judge

may revoke the commission of, or impose
 appropriate administrative sanctions upon,
any notary public who:

(10) knowingly performs or

fails to perform any other act
prohibited or mandated by these
Rules;

Aside from being a violation of the Notarial Rules,

Casugas aforementioned act partakes of malpractice of
law and misconduct punishable under the ensuing Sec.
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of

attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, x x x or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before admission
to practice x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

So it was that in Lanuzo v. Bongon[14] the Court

suspended a notary public from the practice of law for one
(1) year for violation of the Notarial Rules. This was on
top of the penalty of disqualification from being
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

In Dela Cruz v. Zabala,[15] the Court adjudged the

respondent notary public guilty of gross negligence for
failing to require the parties to be physically present
before him. In revoking the erring notarys commission,
the Court, in Dela Cruz, stressed the significance of
notarization and proceeded to define the heavy burden
that goes when a lawyer is commissioned as a notary
public. The Court wrote:

x x x [N]otarization is not an empty,

meaningless routinary act. It is invested with
substantive public interest. It must be
 underscored that x x x notarization x x x
converts a private document into a public
document making that document admissible
in evidence without further proof
of authenticity thereof. A notarial document
is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. For this reason, a notary public must
observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of x x x
duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public
in the integrity of this form of conveyance
would be undermined.

xxxx

A notary public should not notarize a

document unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be
delegated because what are stated therein are
facts they have personal knowledge of and are
personally sworn to. Otherwise, their
representatives names should appear in the
said documents as the ones who executed the
same.

The function of a notary public is,

among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements. By affixing his
notarial seal on the instrument, he converted
the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private
document into a public document. x x x As a
lawyer commissioned to be a notary public,
respondent is mandated to discharge his
sacred duties with faithful observance and
utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an
oath in an acknowledgment or jurat. Simply
put, such responsibility is incumbent upon
him, he must now accept the commensurate
consequences of his professional
indiscretion. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
[16]
G.R. No. Anent the first assigned error, petitioners are correct in pointing out
174240 March that notarized documents carry evidentiary weight conferred upon
20, 2013 them with respect to their due execution and enjoy the presumption
of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong
and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.20 However,
the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be
affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization
was regular.21 A defective notarization will strip the document of its
public character and reduce it to a private
instrument.22 Consequently, when there is a defect in the
notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary
standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is
dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such
document is preponderance of evidence.23

G.R. No. 189255, June As to the first ground, petitioner contends that respondents'
17, 2015 petition for certiorari filed with the CA should have been
dismissed on the ground that it was improperly verified because
JESUS G. REYES, the jurat portion of the verification states only the community
Petitioner, v. tax certificate number of the affiant as evidence of her identity.
GLAUCOMA Petitioner argues that under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
RESEARCH as amended by a Resolution8 of this Court, dated February 19,
FOUNDATION, INC., 2008, a community tax certificate is not among those considered
EYE REFERRAL as competent evidence of identity.
CENTER AND MANUEL
B. AGULTO, The Court does not agree.
Respondent.
This Court has already ruled that competent evidence of identity
is not required in cases where the affiant is personally known to
the notary public.9

Thus, in Jandoquile v. Revilla, Jr.,10 this Court held

that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
If the notary public knows the affiants personally, he need not
require them to show their valid identification cards. This rule is
supported by the definition of a "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A "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; (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.11cralawlawlibrary
Also, Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
provides as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SEC. 2. Prohibitions -
(a) x x x

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person

involved as signatory to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise

identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules.
Moreover, Rule II, Section 6 of the same Rules states that:

SEC 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a

single occasion:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(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.
In legal hermeneutics, "or" is a disjunctive that expresses an
alternative or gives a choice of one among two or more things.12
The word signifies disassociation and independence of one thing
from another thing in an enumeration.13

Thus, as earlier stated, if the affiant is personally known to the

notary public, the latter need not require the former to show
evidence of identity as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice, as amended.

Applying the above rule to the instant case, it is undisputed that

the attorney-in-fact of respondents who executed the
verification and certificate against forum shopping, which was
attached to respondents' petition filed with the CA, is personally
known to the notary public before whom the documents were
acknowledged. Both attorney-in-fact and the notary public hold
office at respondents' place of business and the latter is also the
legal counsel of respondents.
MIDTERMS

1/5/19
Nothing L

1/12/19 Assignment
Read the following cases for 1/12/19 discussion:

1. ROSALINDA BERNARDO VDA DE ROSALES vs. ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS AC No. 5645 (July
2002)
2. ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ vs. ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA AC No. 6294 (November
2004)
3. TIGNO VS. SPOUSES AQUINO (G.R. NO. 129416. NOVEMBER 25, 2004)
4. Sec 19 and 20 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence
5. CHONG V. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. NO. 148280, JULY 10, 2007)
6. ART. 749 NEW CIVIL CODE
7. QUILALA vs. ALCANTARA GR 132681
8. ABELLANA vs. SPOUSES PONCE GR 160488
9. ART. 1771-1773 CIVIL CODE
10. ART 805-806 CIVIL CODE
11. GARCIA vs. GATCHALIAN GR L – 20357
12. AZUELA vs. CA GR 122880
13. ART 1498
14. ART 1544
15. DY JR. vs. CA GR 92989

Admissibility of Documents
Classes of documents and Proof of private documents, Sections 19 & 20, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence

Sec. 19, Rule 132 Admissibility in Documents in EvidenceàClassification of documents

according to Admissibility (QUIZ)
For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

1. Written official acts, or records of the 1. All other writings are private J
official acts of the sovereign authority,
official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines or of
a foreign country
 2. Documents acknowledged before a
notary public except last wills and
testament
3. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein

Sec. 20, Rule 132 Proof of a private document

Before any private document is offered as authentic is received in evidence, its 1) due
execution and 2) authenticity (genuineness) 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.

SEC. 23, Rule 132 Revised Rules on Evidence

DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENT

Public documents are PRIMA FACIE evidence of the facts stated therein
Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a
public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of the latter. (24a)

SEC. 30, Rule 132 Revised Rules on Evidence

Proof of notarial documents—certificate of acknowledgment before notary public is
PRIMA FACIE evidence of the execution (and authenticity) of the instrument or document
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be
presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima
facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. (31a)

Validity of Contracts
GR: A defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract.

Chong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148280, July 10, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner Loreta Chong, the common-law wife of Augusto Chong, bought a parcel of land
(subject lot) from respondent corporation. She signed a Deed of Sale over the house
constructed on the same lot and received valuable consideration. However, the deed was
notarized only two days after petitioner signed the deed and at which time she was
already in Hong Kong.

Issue:
W/N the sale of the house on subject lot is void because of defective notarization.
 Ruling:
No, the sale is not void.

The defective notarization of the deed does not affect the validity of the sale of the
house. Although Article 1358 of the New Civil Code states that the sale of real property
must appear in a public instrument, the formalities required by this article is not essential
for the validity of the contract but is simply for its greater efficacy or convenience, or to
bind third persons, and is merely a coercive means granted to the contracting parties to
enable them to reciprocally compel the observance of the prescribed form. Consequently,
the private conveyance of the house is valid between the parties.

GR: A defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract.

XPN: Where the law requires notarization as a requisite for validity.

Donation of Immovable Property

Art. 749, New Civil Code
In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the
donee must satisfy.

The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an
authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments. (633)

Quilala v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 132681. December 3, 2001; 371 SCRA 311 (2001)
(QUIZ)
Facts:
Quilala executed a “Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos” in favor of Violeta Quilala over
a parcel of land. The deed of donation was registered with the Register of Deeds and, in
due course, new title was issued in the name of Violeta Quilala. Petitioner Ricky Quilala
alleges that he is the surviving son of Violeta Quilala. Meanwhile, Gliceria Alcantara, et.
al., claiming to be Catalina’s only surviving relatives within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity, executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate, dividing and
adjudicating unto themselves the above-described property.

The “Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos” consists of two (2) pages. The first page
contains the deed of donation itself and the donee’s acceptance of the donation. There
appear on the bottom signatures by Catalina Quilala as donor, Violeta Quilala as donee,
and two instrumental witnesses. The second page which contains the Acknowledgment,
however, states that only Catalina Quilala personally appeared before the notary public
and acknowledged that the donation was her free and voluntary act and deed.

Issue:
W/N Violata’s, the donee, failure to acknowledge her acceptance before notary public
renders donation void.

Ruling:
No, the lack of acknowledgment by the donee does not render the donation void.

Under Article 749 of the Civil Code, the donation of an immovable must be made in a
public instrument in order to be valid, specifying therein the property donated and the
value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. Donation, as a mode of transfer of
ownership, is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the
donee, provided the donee is not disqualified by law from accepting. The acceptance may
be made in the same deed or in a separate public document, and the donor must know
the acceptance by the donee.

In the case at bar, the conveyance was acknowledged before a notary public by the donor
as her free and voluntary act. By this fact, the deed of donation is thus converted in its
entirety a public instrument. It cannot be considered a private document in part with
respect to the acceptance and a public document in another part with respect to the
donation. The fact that the donee was not mentioned by the notary public in the
acknowledgment is of no moment. It is the conveyance that should be acknowledged as a
free and voluntary act. Therefore, the donee’s acceptance, which is explicitly set forth on
the first page of the notarized deed of donation, was made in a public instrument.

So, the deed of donation, having complied requirements under Article 749, is not void.

Abellana v. Spouses Ponce, G.R. No. 160488, September 3, 2004; 437 SCRA 531 (2004)

Felomina, aunt of Lucila Ponce, purchased a lot with the intention of giving said lot to her
niece, Lucila. Though it was Felomina who paid for the lot, she had Lucila designated in
the deed as the vendee thereof and had the title of the lot issued in Lucila’s name.

Issue:
W/N the transaction between Felomina Abellana and Lucila Ponce is a valid donation.

Ruling:
No, there was no valid donation.

Solemn contracts like donations are perfected only upon compliance with the legal
formalities prescribed by law. Absent the solemnity requirements for validity, the mere
intention of the parties does not give rise to a contract. Under Article 749 of the New Civil
Code, in order that the donation of an immovable property may be valid, it must be made
in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy.
 In the instant case, it is clear therefore that Felomina donated the land to Lucila.
However, the donation of an immovable property was not embodied in a public
instrument as required by the foregoing article. Being an oral donation, the transaction
was void. No valid title passed regardless of the intention of Felomina to donate the
property to Lucila, because the naked intent to convey without the required solemnities
does not suffice for gratuitous alienations.

Therefore, the oral donation in this case is legally inexistent.

GR: A defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract.

XPN: Where the law requires notarization as a requisite for validity.

Partnership where immovable is contributed

Art. 1771, Civil Code
A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real
rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. (1667a)

Art. 1772, Civil Code

Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more, in money or
property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph shall not affect the
liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons. (n)

Art. 1773, Civil Code

A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an
inventory of said (immovable) property (contribution) is not made, signed by the parties,
and attached to the public instrument. (1668a)

GR: A defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract.

XPN: Where the law requires notarization as a requisite for validity.

Due Execution of a Notarial Will

Art. 805
Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the
testator himself or by the testator’s name written by some other person in his presence,
and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental
witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the
last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed
on the upper part of each page.

The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written, and the
fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person
to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental
witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the
presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be interpreted
to them. (n)

Art. 806
Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with the
Office of the Clerk of Court.

Garcia v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-20357, November 25, 1967; 21 SCRA 1056 (1967)

Facts:
Gregorio Gatchalian died, leaving no forced heirs. Garcia filed a petition the probate of
Gatchalian’s will wherein he was instituted as sole heir. Appellees opposed the petition
upon such grounds as fraud. After due trial, the court rendered decision finding the will is
authentic but disallowing it for failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of
Article 806 of the New Civil Code. The will was acknowledged before a notary public by
the testator but not by the instrumental witnesses.

Issue:
W/N the will must be probated.

Ruling:
Disallow the will.

Article 806 of the New Civil Code provides:

Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file
another with the office of the Clerk of Court.

Compliance with the notarization requirement in Art. 806 of NCC is indispensable for its
validity as was held in many cases before (In re: Testate Estate of Alberto, G. R. No. L-
11948, April 29, 1959). Here, the document does not comply with this requirement.

Therefore, the same may not be probated.

AZUELA vs. CA, G.R. No. 122880, April 12, 2006

A will whose attestation clause does not contain the number of pages on which the will is
written is fatally defective. A will whose attestation clause is not signed by the
instrumental witnesses is fatally defective. And perhaps most importantly, a will which
does not contain an acknowledgment, but a mere jurat, is fatally defective. Any one of
 these defects is sufficient to deny probate. A notarial will with all three defects is just
aching for judicial rejection.

Facts:
Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. However,
this was opposed by Geralda Castillo, who was the attorney-in-fact of “the 12 legitimate
heirs” of the decedent. According to her, the will was forged, and imbued with several
fatal defects. In particular, the will was not properly acknowledged. The notary public,
Petronio Y. Bautista, only wrote “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10
(sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila.”

Issue:
W/N a will that is not properly acknowledged is fatally defective.

Ruling:
Yes, a notarial will that is not acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the
witnesses is fatally defective.

Under Article 806, “every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses”. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact
that it had been segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and entrusted
into a separate provision, Article 806. The non-observance of Article 806 in this case is
equally as critical as any other cited flaws in compliance with Article 805, and should be
treated as of equivalent import.

In this case, in lieu of an acknowledgment, the notary public only wrote “Nilagdaan ko at
ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila.” This is not
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. It
involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that
the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free
act and deed. The law expressly provides that the will must be “acknowledged”, and not
merely subscribed and sworn to. Hence, requirement under Article 806 has also not been
complied with.

Because of this mortal defect in its notarization, the will should be denied probate.

1/19/19
Assignment of Reports

1/26/19
Reporting
Alin-alin ang lalabas??? L

Forms
Group 1 - Affidavits
1. Desistance
 2. Support
3. Undertaking
4. Pre-Trial and Mediation
5. Negotiate Sale

Group 2 – Business and Administrative Forms

1. Antichresis
2. Conditional Sale
3. Pacto de Retro Sale
4. Quitclaim
5. Trust Agreement

Group 3 – Business and Administrative Forms

1. Self-Adjudication
2. Donation
3. Extrajudicial Settlement of Estates
4. Last Will and Testament
5. Extrajudicial Partition

Group 4 – Criminal Actions

1. Complaint Affidavit
2. Counter-Affidavit
3. Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
4. Motion to Quash
5. Demurrer to Evidence

Antichresis
Contract of Real Mortgage
Complaint
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Alangalang, Leyte

KRUL ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 98765
-versus- FOR: Unlawful Detainer

MEGAN VITUG,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That the plaintiff, KRUL ACOSTA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence and postal address at 123 Benitez Street, Alangalang, Leyte;
2. That the defendant, MEGAN VITUG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, with residence and postal address at 456 Modesto Street, Alangalang, Leyte, where they may be
served with summons and other court processes;
3. The plaintiff is the owner of a land over which an apartment had been constructed located 654 San Pedro Street, Alangalang, Leyte;
4. By virtue of a contract of lease, the plaintiff leased unto the defendant the aforesaid apartment for a consideration of P5,000.00 a month as rental to be paid within the first
ten (10) days of each month starting November 3, 2011;
5. The defendant failed to pay the agreed rental for several months starting February 19, 2012 up to the present;
6. On May 3, 2012, the plaintiff sent a letter of demand to vacate the apartment which was received by the defendant as shown in the registry return receipt hereto attached
as Annex “A”;
7. Despite said letter of demand which was repeated by oral demands, the defendant failed and still refused to pay the agreed amount of rentals and to vacated the
apartment;
8. By reason of failure of the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the unpaid rentals, the plaintiff was compelled to file this complaint engaging the services of
counsel in the amount of P10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant:
1. To vacate the subject premises;
2. To pay the amount of P5,000.00 per month as compensation for the reasonable use of the subject premises until they finally vacate the said premises;
3. To pay the plaintiff the cost of the suit.

Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte, September 24, 2012.

PADAYAO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1234, 1/F New Building
Real St., Alangalang, Leyte

By:
Rae Padayao
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF FORUM SHOPPING

Republic of the Philippines )
Province of Leyte )
Municipality of Alangalang ) S.S.

I, KRUL ACOSTA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and resident of 123 Benitez Street, Alangalang, Leyte, after having been duly sworn to in accord Nance with law do hereby depose and
say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and have read the allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complaint are true and correct of my own knowledge and authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
5. That if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency where the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed;
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme
Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 24th of September 2012, in the Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte.

KRUL ACOSTA
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of September, 2012, in the Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 12345 issued by
the Land Transportation Office on April 8, 2012 at Tacloban City, Leyte.
 Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang, Leyte
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2019.

Republic of the Philippines )

Makati City ) S.S.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That I, DAMI KOTSE, of legal age, married and resident of Makati, for and in consideration of the loan of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), granted to me by YAMAN NYA, also of legal age, married and
resident of Makati, to be paid one (1) year from date hereof, have transferred and conveyed by way of chattel
mortgage unto said YAMAN NYA, his heirs, successors and assigns, free from all liens and encumbrances that
certain motor vehicle, at present in my possession at my address, more particularly described as:

Model/Make No./Color: BMW 738i (1998), racing green; Chassis No. : 00000001111;
Engine No. : 00000001111;

of which I am the true and absolute owner by title thereto, being evidenced by Registration Certificate
of Motor Vehicle No. ______ issued in my name by the Land Transportation Office on __________________.

This chattel mortgage has been executed in order to secure the full and faithful payment of my
obligation to YAMAN NYA in accordance with the terms and conditions of this instrument; Upon payment, this
contract shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall continue in full force and effect and may be foreclosed in
accordance with law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on 7 July 2007 at Makati City.

DAMI KOTSE
Affidavit of Good Faith

We severally swear that DAMI KOTSE, mortgagor, and YAMAN NYA, mortgagee, have executed the
foregoing Chattel Mortgage in order to guarantee as good and binding the obligations mentioned above and is
not intended to defraud creditors.

YAMAN NYA DAMI KOTSE

Signed in the presence of:

UZI 1 UZI 2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines )

Municipality of Alangalang ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Municipality of Alangalang, this 9th day of February 2019, at
Alangalang, Leyte personally appeared
Name ID and Number Date and Place Issued
DAMI KOTSE January 1, 2017 / LTO Makati
AXL ROSE January 2, 2016 / LTO Makati
Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and she
acknowledged to me that the same is her free act and voluntary deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date and place first above written.

Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang, Leyte
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2019.

CONTRACT OF ANTICHRESIS

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, DAMI KOTSE, of legal age, married and resident of Makati, (hereafter referred to as DEBTOR) am
the absolute owner of the following described parcel of land, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate Title No. 1234 of
the Registry of Deeds of Makati City:

(Description)

That for and in consideration of the loan One Million Pesos, with an interest rate of three percent (3%)
per annum (by virtue of Promissory Note attached herewith and made an integral part of Annex A), which is
extended to me by AXL ROSE, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of Makati City (hereafter referred to as
“CREDITOR”), I, the said DEBTOR, in order to secure payment of said loan and its interest do hereby grant in favor
of CREDITOR, the right to receive fruits of, the above-mentioned land, with the obligation of applying them to the
payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit; the actual market value of the fruits
obtained at the time of application thereof to the interest and principal shall be the measure of such application.
That the parties hereby agree that I the DEBTOR cannot reacquire enjoyment of the above-described property,
without first having totally paid what I owe to CREDITOR. In case of default, the CREDITOR, however, does not
acquire ownership of the real estate for non-payment of the debt, but he may bring an action for specific
performance; or petition for the sale of the property in a foreclosure of mortgages under Rule 68 of the Rules of
Court, as agreed upon by the parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signatures this 9th day of February 2019 in the
Municipality of Alangalang, Leyte, Philippines.

YAMAN NYA DAMI KOTSE

CREDITOR DEBTOR
Signed in the presence of:

UZI 1 UZI 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines )

Municipality of Alangalang ) S.S.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the Municipality of Alangalang, this 9th day of February 2019, at
Alangalang, Leyte personally appeared
Name ID and Number Date and Place Issued
DAMI KOTSE January 1, 2017 / LTO Makati
AXL ROSE January 2, 2016 / LTO Makati
Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument, and she
acknowledged to me that the same is her free act and voluntary deed.

WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL on the date and place first above written.

Rae Padayao
Notary Public - Alangalang, Leyte
Commission valid until December 31, 2019
Roll No. 1234 / IBP Lifetime 1234, Leyte
PTR No. 1234, 1/5/2019, Alangalang
1/F New Building, Real St., Alangalang,
Leyte
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 3;
Series of 2019.