TRIAL NOTE 0010: A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ITS CONTENTS.

 

SOURCE:  SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND  BRIGIDA PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ (G.R. NO. 172227, 29 JUNE 2011,  DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECTS: VALIDITY OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; NOTARIZED DOCUMENT. (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSE PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK).

 

==================================== 

 

WHEN YOU PRESENT A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT DURING TRIAL AND YOUR OPPONENT ATTACKS IT, YOU MAY ARGUE THAT A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ITS CONTENTS ABSENT ANY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.

As to the RTC’s finding that “the x x x bank acted in bad faith when it made it appear that the mortgage was executed by the [petitioners] on June 16, 1997, when the document was acknowledged before Atty. German, x x x when in truth and in fact, the [petitioners] executed said mortgage sometime in March, 1997 x x x,” we find the same without basis.  A careful perusal of the real estate mortgage contract would show that the bank did not make it appear that the real estate mortgage was executed on June 16, 1997, the same day that it was notarized, as the date of execution of the real estate mortgage contract was left blank.[1][41]  And the mere fact that the date of execution was left blank does not prove bad faith.  Besides, any irregularity in the notarization or even the lack of notarization does not affect the validity of the document.  Absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.[2][42]

====================================  

 

YOU MAY FURTHER ARGUE AS RULED ABOVE:

–                     EVEN THE LACK OF NOTARIZATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENT.

–                     ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE NOTARIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY.

 

[1][41] Records, p. 8.

[2][42] Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009, 591 SCRA 562, 571-572.