7/23/2019 CASE NO.2 - AUG.19,2015

1/3

2. HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES VICENTE S. ARCILLA, et.al. vs. TEODORO

561 SCRA 545

FACTS: Respondent Teodoro initially fled with the RTC an application or land registration o two parcels o landlocated at Barangay San Pedro, Virac, Catanduanes. Respondent alleged that, with the exception o the commerciauilding 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 partitiono the estate o his ather, +ose "rcilla e*idenced y a document entitled xtra!udicial Settlement o state.

-n their pposition, petitioners contended that they are the ownerspro-indiviso o the su!ect lots includingthe uilding and other impro*ements constructed thereon y *irtue o inheritance rom their deceased parentsspouses Vicente and +osea "rcilla. Petitioners mo*ed to dismiss the application o respondent and sought theideclaration as the true and asolute ownerspro-indivisoo the su!ect lots and the registration and issuance o thecorresponding certifcate o 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 toinclude in her application, the *erifcation and certifcate against orum shopping re)uired y Supreme Court Re*isedCircular 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 certifcateagainst 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 theapplication 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 intoto the Decision of the MTC.

"ggrie*ed y the RTC %ecision, petitioners fled a Petition or Re*iew with the C". The C" promulgated itspresently assailed %ecision dismissing the Petition. Petitioners fled a /otion or Reconsideration ut the same wasdenied y the C" in its Resolution.

ISSUE: 8hether or notthe 9onorale Court o "ppeals did not rule in accordance with pre*ailing laws and!urisprudence when it held that the certifcation o non3orum shopping suse)uently sumitted yrespondent does not re)uire a certifcation rom an o7cer o the oreign ser*ice o the Philippines aspro*ided under Section 15, Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court.

HELD:The certifcation o non3orum shopping executed in a oreign country is not co*ered y Section 15Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court.

There is no merit to petitioners contentions that the *erifcation and certifcation suse)uentlysumitted y respondent did not state the country or city where the notary pulic exercised hernotarial unctions; and that the /TC simply concluded, without any asis, that said notary pulic was rom/aryland,

7/23/2019 CASE NO.2 - AUG.19,2015

2/3

executed. 9owe*er, ater !udicious studies o the rule, Sec. 15, Rule ':1 o the '&& Rules o Courtasically pertains to written o7cial acts, or records o the o7cial o the so*ereign authority, o7cial odiesand 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 toco*er notarial documents, the rule could ha*e included the same. Thus, petitioners3oppositors contentionthat the certifcate o orum shopping that was sumitted was deecti*e, as it did not ear the certifcationpro*ided under Sec. 15, Rule ':1 o the Rules o Court, is de*oid o any merit. 8hat is important is the actthat the respondent3applicant certifed eore a commissioned o7cer clothed with powers to administeroath 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 thepresent case ecause the Rules o *idence which were in eDect at that time were the old Rules prior totheir amendment in '&2&. The rule applied in Lopez,which was decided prior to the eDecti*ity o theamended 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, whenadmissile or any purpose, may e e*idenced y an o7cial pulication thereo or y a copyattested y the o7cer ha*ing the legal custody o the record, or y his deputy, and accompanied, ithe record is not 6ept in the Philippines, with a certifcate that such o7cer has the custody. - theo7ce in which the record is 6ept is in a oreign country, the certifcate may e made y a secretaryo emassy or legation, consul general, consul, *ice consul, or consular agent or y any o7cer inthe 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 phraseAn ocial record or an entrytherein,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 pulicationthereo or y a copy attested y the o7cer ha*ing legal custody o the record, or y his deputy, andaccompanied, i the record is not 6ept in the Philippines, with a certifcate that such o7cer has thecustody. - the o7ce in which the record is 6ept is in a oreign country, the certifcate may e madey a secretary o the emassy or legation, consul general, consul, *ice consul or consular agent ory any o7cer in the oreign ser*ice o the Philippines stationed in the oreign country in which therecord 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*idencedocuments 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, o7cia

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 eentered therein.

"ll other writings are pri*ate.

7/23/2019 CASE NO.2 - AUG.19,2015

3/3

-t cannot e o*eremphasi=ed that the re)uired certifcation o an o7cer in the ?oreign Ser*iceunder Section 15 reers only to the documents enumerated in Section 'a$, to wit> written o7cial acts orrecords o the o7cial acts o the so*ereign authority, o7cial odies and triunals, and pulic o7cers othe Philippines or o a oreign country. The Court agrees with the C" that had the Court intended toinclude notarial documents as one o the pulic documents contemplated y the pro*isions o Section 15,it should not ha*e specifed only the documents reerred to under paragraph #a$ o Section '&.

-n Lopez, the re)uirements o then Section 1E, Rule ':1 were made applicale to all pulic oro7cial records without any distinction ecause the old rule did not distinguish. 9owe*er, in the presentrule, it is clear under Section 15, Rule ':1 that its pro*isions shall e made applicale only to thedocuments reerred to under paragraph #a$, Section '&, Rule ':1.