G.R. No. L-6505, October 24, 1911
CHIU YUCO and CHIU JUANCO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. VICTORIANO PORE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Chiu Yuco and Chiu Juanco, filed a complaint to collect a debt of P717.72 from the defendant, Victoriano Pore, based on a promissory note dated November 16, 1907. The debt was payable within one year, but remained unpaid as of the complaint’s filing on June 17, 1910. The instrument was ratified before a notary on February 15, 1909, with the notary certifying that Pore personally appeared, acknowledged the document, and exhibited his cedula (tax certificate). Pore denied under oath the authenticity and execution of the instrument. At trial, evidence was presented suggesting the ratification was fraudulent, including testimony that a Chinese associate of the plaintiffs obtained Pore’s cedula details from the municipal treasury without Pore’s presence. The notary, however, testified that Pore did appear before him, and the instrument was translated and acknowledged. The trial court upheld the validity of the instrument and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE

Whether the notarial ratification of the promissory note is valid and sufficient to prove its execution by the defendant, despite allegations of fraud and irregularities.

RULING

Yes, the notarial ratification is valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the notary’s certificate of ratification, made under existing law, prima facie establishes the due execution of the document. The Court found that the defendant’s evidencesuch as testimony about the cedula details being obtained separately and inconsistencies in Pore’s cedulas regarding his age, occupation, and signaturedid not sufficiently overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to notarial acts. The notary’s testimony that he translated the document, verified Pore’s identity, and obtained his ratification was deemed credible. The Court emphasized that the notary’s certification under prevailing law required only knowledge acquired at the time of ratification, not prior personal knowledge as under Spanish notarial rules. Thus, the instrument was enforceable, and Pore was liable for the debt. Costs were awarded against the appellant.