2. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES VICENTE S. ARCILLA, et.al. vs. TEODORO 561 SCRA 545
Respondent Teodoro initially fled with the RTC RTC an application or land registration o two parcels o land located at Barangay San Pedro, Virac, Catanduanes. Respondent alleged that, with the exception o the commercial uilding constructed thereon, she purchased the su!ect lots rom her ather, Pacifco "rcilla #Pacifco$, as shown y a %eed o Sale dated %ecemer &, '&((, and that, prior thereto, Pacifco ac)uired the said lots y *irtue o the partition o the estate o his ather, +ose "rcilla e*idenced y a document entitled xtra!udicial Settlement o state.
FACTS:
-n their pposition, petitioners contended that they are the owners pro pro-in indi divi viso so o the su!ect lots including the uilding and other impro*ements impro*ements constructed constructed thereon thereon y *irtue *irtue o inheritanc inheritance e rom their deceased parents, parents, spouses spouses Vicente Vicente and +osea "rcilla. "rcilla. Petitioners Petitioners mo*ed to dismiss dismiss the application application o respondent respondent and sought sought their declaration as the true and asolute owners pro pro-in indi divi viso so o o the su!ect lots and the registration and issuance o the corresponding certifcate certifcate o title title in their names. Suse)uently, trial o the case ensued. Respondent fled a /otion or "dmission contending that through o*ersight and inad*ertence she ailed to include in her application, the *erifcation and certifcate against orum shopping re)uired y Supreme Court Re*ised Circular 0o. 123&' in relation to SC "dministrati*e Circular 0o. 453&5. Petitioners fled a /otion to %ismiss "pplication on the ground that respondent should ha*e fled the certifcate against orum shopping simultaneously with the petition or land registration which is a mandatory re)uirement o SC "dministrati*e Circular 0o. 453&5 and that any *iolation o the said Circular shall e a cause or the dismissal o the application upon motion and ater hearing. /TC rendered a decision in a*or o respondent Teodoro. Petitioners then fled an appeal with the RTC, howe*er it was dismissed or lac6 o merit. The RTC a7rmed in toto the Decision of the MTC. "ggrie*ed "ggrie*ed y the RTC %ecision, petitioners petitioners fled fled a Petition Petition or Re*iew Re*iew with the C". The C" promulgate promulgated d its presently assailed %ecision dismissing the Petition. Petitioners fled a /otion or Reconsideration ut the same was denied y the C" in its Resolution. ISSUE: 8hether or not the 9onorale Court o "ppeals did not rule in accordance with pre*ailing laws and
!ur !urispr isprud uden ence ce when when it held held that that the the cert certif ifca cati tion on o non3 non3o oru rum m shop shoppi ping ng sus suse) e)ue uent ntly ly sum sumit itte ted d y respondent does not re)uire a certifcation rom an o7cer o the oreign ser*ice o the Philippines as pro*ided under Section 15, Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court. The cer certi tif fcati cation on o non3 non3o oru rum m shop shoppi ping ng exec execut uted ed in a or orei eign gn coun countr try y is is not not co* co*er ered ed y Sect Sectio ion n 15 15,, HELD: The Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court. Ther There e is no meri meritt to peti petiti tion oner ers s cont conten enti tion ons s that that the the *eri *erif fcati cation on and and cert certif ifca cati tion on suse suse)u )uen entl tly y sumit sumitted ted y respo responde ndent nt did not state state the countr country y or city city where where the notary notary pulic pulic exerc exercise ised d her notarial unctions; and that the /TC simply concluded, without any asis, that said notary pulic was rom /aryland, wit> ?rom the oregoing pro*ision @reerring to Section 15, Rule ':1, Rules o CourtA, it can e gathered that it does not include documents ac6nowledged eore @aA notary pulic aroad. ?or oreign pulic documents to e admissile or any purpose here in our courts, the same must e certifed y any o7cer o the Philippine legation stationed in the country where the documents could e ound or had een
executed. 9owe*er, ater !udicious studies o the rule, Sec. 15, Rule ':1 o the '&& Rules o Court asically pertains to written o7cial acts, or records o the o7cial o the so*ereign authority, o7cial odies and triunals, and pulic o7cers, whether o the Philippines, or o a oreign country. This is so, as Sec. 15, Rule ':1 explicitly reers only to paragraph #a$ o Sec. '&. - the rule comprehends to co*er notarial documents, the rule could ha*e included the same. Thus, petitioners3oppositors contention that the certifcate o orum shopping that was sumitted was deecti*e, as it did not ear the certifcation pro*ided under Sec. 15, Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court, is de*oid o any merit. 8hat is important is the act that the respondent3applicant certifed eore a commissioned o7cer clothed with powers to administer oath that @sAhe has not and will not commit orum shopping. The ruling o the Court in Lopez v. Court of Appeals, cited y petitioners, is inapplicale to the present case ecause the Rules o *idence which were in eDect at that time were the old Rules prior to their amendment in '&2&. The rule applied in Lopez, which was decided prior to the eDecti*ity o the amended Rules o *idence, was Section 1E, Rule ':1, to wit> Sec. 1E. Proof of public or ocial record "n o7cial record or an entry therein, when admissile or any purpose, may e e*idenced y an o7cial pulication thereo or y a copy attested y the o7cer ha*ing the legal custody o the record, or y his deputy, and accompanied, i the record is not 6ept in the Philippines, with a certifcate that such o7cer has the custody. - the o7ce in which the record is 6ept is in a oreign country, the certifcate may e made y a secretary o emassy or legation, consul general, consul, *ice consul, or consular agent or y any o7cer in the oreign ser*ice o the Philippines stationed in the oreign country in which the record is 6ept, and authenticated y the seal o his o7ce. #mphasis supplied$ 8hen the Rules o *idence were amended in '&2&, Section 1E, Rule ':1 ecame Section 15, Rule ':1; and the amendment consisted in the deletion o the introductory phrase An ocial record or an entry therein, which was sustituted y the phrase The record of public docuents referred to in para!raph "a# of $ection %&. Thus, Section 15, Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court now reads as ollows> Sec. 15. Proof of ocial record. 3 The record o pulic documents reerred to in paragraph #a$ o Section '&, when admissile or any purpose, may e e*idenced y an o7cial pulication thereo or y a copy attested y the o7cer ha*ing legal custody o the record, or y his deputy, and accompanied, i the record is not 6ept in the Philippines, with a certifcate that such o7cer has the custody. - the o7ce in which the record is 6ept is in a oreign country, the certifcate may e made y a secretary o the emassy or legation, consul general, consul, *ice consul or consular agent or y any o7cer in the oreign ser*ice o the Philippines stationed in the oreign country in which the record is 6ept, and authenticated y the seal o his o7ce. #mphasis supplied$ Section '&#a$ o the same Rule pro*ides> Sec. '&. Classes o documents. 3 ?or the purpose o their presentation in e*idence, documents are either pulic or pri*ate. Pulic documents are> #a$ The written o7cial acts or records o the o7cial acts o the so*ereign authority, o7cial odies and triunals, and pulic o7cers, whether o the Philippines or o a oreign country; #$ %ocuments ac6nowledged eore a notary pulic except last wills and testaments; and #c$ Pulic records, 6ept in the Philippines, o pri*ate documents re)uired y law to e entered therein. "ll other writings are pri*ate.
-t cannot e o*eremphasi=ed that the re)uired certifcation o an o7cer in the ?oreign Ser*ice under Section 15 reers only to the documents enumerated in Section '&#a$, to wit> written o7cial acts or records o the o7cial acts o the so*ereign authority, o7cial odies and triunals, and pulic o7cers o the Philippines or o a oreign country. The Court agrees with the C" that had the Court intended to include notarial documents as one o the pulic documents contemplated y the pro*isions o Section 15, it should not ha*e specifed only the documents reerred to under paragraph #a$ o Section '&. -n Lopez , the re)uirements o then Section 1E, Rule ':1 were made applicale to all pulic or o7cial records without any distinction ecause the old rule did not distinguish. 9owe*er, in the present rule, it is clear under Section 15, Rule ':1 that its pro*isions shall e made applicale only to the documents reerred to under paragraph #a$, Section '&, Rule ':1.
