EVID FACTS:
[57] TIGNO V. AQUINO  In 1980, respondent Spouses Aquinos filed a complaint for enforcement of a
G.R. NO. 129416 | NOVEMBER 25, 2004 | TINGA, J.
BELGIRA | GROUP I
PETITIONERS: Zenaida B. Tigno, Imelda B. Tigno and Armi B. Tigno
RESPONDENTS: Spouses Estafino Aquino and Florentina Aquino and the Honorable
Court of Appeals
TOPIC: B. Documentary Evidence; 3. Authentication and Proof of Documents; b.
Private Documents; Proof of Private Documents
CASE SUMMARY:
 Respondent Spouses Aquino and Isidro Bustria, petitioner Zenaida Tigno’s father,
entered into a contract of sale. After the Spouses sought to enforce the contract, the
two parties settled into a compromise, which granted Bustria a right to repurchase.
After Bustria’s death, Tigno attempted to repurchase the fishpond. However,
Spouses Aquino opposed this. During trial, the Spouses offered for admission to
evidence the deed of sale. However, the trial court denied admission and ruled in
favor of Tigno. Upon appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision. The Court
reversed the decision, holding that the then municipal judge who notarized the
document had no authority to do so and, as such, the deed of sale should be
deemed as not having been notarized at all. The presumption of regularity relied
upon by the appellate court no longer holds true since the deed of sale is not a
notarized document. As such, it is a mere private document. (Sec. 19, Rule 132)
Being a private document, the deed of sale is now subject to the requirement of
proof under Sec. 20, Rule 132.
DOCTRINE:
 The validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from the authority of
the notarial officer. To admit otherwise would render merely officious the
elaborate process devised by this Court in order that a lawyer may receive a
notarial commission.
o Notarization engages public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified
or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and
the courts and administrative offices generally.
TERMS:
 An acknowledgement 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.
 While a jurat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the same
was sworn before him.
contract of sale of a fishpond against Isidro Bustria, petitioner Zenaida Tigno’s late
father.
 Spouses Aquino and Bustria entered into a compromise agreement, which assured
the validity of the sale and granted Bustria the right to repurchase. The Court of
First Instance approved and incorporated the same.
 After her father’s death, Tigno attempted to repurchase the property. However,
the Aquinos filed an opposition.
o Tigno filed a motion for consignation and a motion for a writ of execution,
which were both denied by the trial court. Subsequently, Tigno filed an action
for revival of judgment.
o The Aquinos filed an answer wherein they alleged that Bustria sold his right
to repurchase the property.
o The witnesses presented by the Aquinos were Jesus De Francia, the
instrumental witness to the deed of sale, and former Judge Franklin Carino,
who notarized the same. The Aquinos offered for admission the deed of sale.
o Tigno objected on the ground that the deed of sale was a false and fraudulent
document which had not been acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that
its existence was suspicious, considering that it had been previously
unknown, and not even presented by the Aquinos when they opposed the
previous motion for consignation.
 The trial court refused to admit the deed of sale as evidence and ruled in favor of
Tigno. The appellate court reversed and set aside the said decision based on the
presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution. Hence, this petition
for review on certiorari.
ISSUES and RULING:
 WON the deed of sale was duly notarized, and, as such, admissible – NO
o Under Sec. 112 of P.D. No. 1529, the deed of sale should have been
acknowledged before a notary public. But there is a substantial defect in the
notarization – that which pertains to the authority of Judge Franklin Carino
to notarize the deed of sale. At the time of the notarization, he was a sitting
judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Alaminos.
o In Tabao v. Asis, municipal judges may not undertake the preparation and
acknowledgment of private documents, contract, and other acts of
conveyance which bear no relation to the performance of their functions. Although,
S.C. Circular No. I-90 permits this, there must first be certification in the
notarized document attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such
municipality or circuit.
 Judge Carino identified himself as “ex-officio notary public." A [notary
ex officio] should not compete with private law practitioners or regular
notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business.
 o The facts of this case neither warrant a reason to notarize the said document
nor a relaxed attitude towards it.
 It is incredulous that the Aquinos did not invoke the deed of sale when
they opposed Tigno’s attempts at consignation and execution of
judgment.
 No receipts were ever presented to evidence actual payment of
consideration.
 In his age, Bustria travelled to Alaminos alone.
 There are glaring differences as to the alleged signature of Bustria.
o The deed of sale should be deemed as not having been notarized at all. See
DOCTRINE and SUMMARY.
o Since the deed of sale is a private document, the due execution and
authenticity of the document must be proven. However, the two witnesses
offered to prove the deed of sale flatly contracts each other.

DISPOSITIVE:
 WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 23
December 1996 and Resolution dated 9 June 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 49879 is REVERSED, and the Decision dated 18 August 1994 of the
Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan, Branch 55, in Civil Case No. A-1918
is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents. SO ORDERED.