A.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. The Art of Conveyancing and of Drafting Documents and Pleadings

Drafting legal documents is an art. This art requires brevity and clearness of legal
expression, so as to avoid future legal complications and useless lawsuits. A sensible notary
need not draft a document by simply copying one from a book of legal forms; he should read the
statutory provisions governing the particular kind of transaction on hand, and then proceed to
draft his document in accordance with the law and the particular facts of the case-briefly, clearly,
and accurately.

The following are some of the cardinal rules in drafting legal documents:

(2) The full (not abbreviated or initial) names of the parties, their capacity, civil status, and their
residences, should come next. A logical order in which parties are to be named in the document
must be observed. Thus, in a deed of conveyance, the name of the seller, mortgagor, or grantor
must first be stated; in employment contracts, the name of the employer usually comes first.

(4) Verbosity should be avoided.

(5) Specific or technical terms, which have special meanings in the document should be
especially defined.

(6) Names of parties should be repeated, where the use of pronouns would give rise to
ambiguity.

(7) The document must be neat, free from erasures, interlineations, or suspicions of alterations.

(8) A clause may be inserted at the end of an agreement that "this contract shall extend and be
binding upon the parties thereto, their executors, administrators, and assigns."

(9) The place and date of execution of the document usually come last, and may be stated thus:
"Signed in the City of Manila, Philippines, this____day of, 2____.

Any instrument notarized by a notary public or a competent public official with the
solemnities required by law, is a "public document."

(Soriano v. Basco, A.C. No. 6648, September 21, 2005.)

 A document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the
presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and
a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption,
there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the
presumption must be upheld, In addition, one who denies the due execution of a deed where
one's signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the jurat, one
never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act.
(Ocampo and Tan v. Land Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009).

Written admissions, especially those stipulated in court and certified to by the seal of a
notary public, have always been considered as evidence of the highest order against those
making them (Cabrera v. Villanueva, 150 SCRA 672, 679 citing Valencia v. Tantoco, 99 Phil.
824; Adiso v. Guzman, 37 Phil. 652).

It can be assumed that prior to notarization, the notary public, in the regular performance
of his duties, would have verified from the affiants themselves the verac ity of the contents of
their affidavit (Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, (1987) 150 SCRA 353, 363).

Presumption of regularity in the performance of duties favors the notary pub lic. A
notarized document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven oth erwise by clear
and convincing evidence. (Dy v. Sacay, [1988] 165 SCRA 473, 481). But once evidence is
shown that a notary public has violated his oath, the court will not hesitate to punish him. In a
recent case, an erring notary public was suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months
and his notarial commission was revoked for failure to verify the identity of the person appearing
before him before notarizing a deed of sale (Gonzales u. Padiernos, A.C. No. 6713, December
8, 2008).

When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his
hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of
requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity
which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents
to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by law
entitled to full faith and credit.

In the case of pleadings, civil or criminal, the practitioner should read carefully the
pertinent provisions of the law in such cases, find out the essential requisites or prerequisites for
the sufficiency of the pleading in question, and then, in clear, definite, and concise terms,
proceed to draft the same in accordance with the law governing, stating only, if it be a
complaint, the ultimate facts" constituting the plaintiff's cause or causes of action, omitting the
statement of mere evidentiary facts.

2. Form and Size of Documents

All unprinted documents presented to the superior courts of the Philippines shall be
written on paper of good quality, 12 3/8 inches in length by 8 1/2 inches in width, leaving a
margin at the top and at the left-hand side not less than 1 1/2 inches in width. A reasonable
margin at the right-hand side must be observed. Typewritten documents shall be written double-
spaced. One side only of the page shall be written upon. All papers required by the Rules of
Court to be printed shall be printed with black ink on unglazed paper, with pages 6 inches in
width by 9 inches in length, in pamphlet form. The type used shall not be printed smaller than
twelve point. The paper used shall be of sufficient weight to prevent the printing upon one side
from being visible upon the others.

______________

to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private
instrument (Gonzales v. Ramos, A.C. No. 6649, June 21, 2005).

A notary public was absolved from the charges against him for lack of suff cient proof to
overcome the presumption that he performed his duties as required by the notarial law. The
charges of refusing the complainant a copy of the document he notarized, discourtesy, and
failure to submit periodical reports were dismissed, the evidence merely proving that both
parties did not employ the language of modera tion in their confrontation. But a notary public
was warned and admonished to be more careful in the future in his actuations as a notary and
to observe faithfully the requirements of the law (Villanueva v. De la Cruz, 99 SCRA 137
[1980]).

A witness' gratuitous testimony cannot prevail over the recitals in a notarized public
document. The recital in a public instrument celebrated with all the legal for malities under the
safeguard of a notarial certificate is evidence against the parties and a high degree of proof is
necessary to overcome the legal presumption that such recital is true (Castillo v. Castillo 95
SCRA 40 [1980], 54-55 citing Valencia v. Tan toco, et al., 99 Phil. 824). In order to overthrow a
certificate of a notary public to the effect that the grantor executed a certain document and
acknowledged the fact of its execution before him, mere preponderance of evidence will not
suffice. Rather, the evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all
reasonable dispute as to the falsity of the certificate. When the evidence is conflicting, the
certificate will be upheld (Heirs of Joaquin Teves, et al., vs. CA, G.R. No. 109963, October 13,
1999).