Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HELD: Yes. It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed
therein, a notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due
execution[ and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.
However, such clear and convincing evidence is present here, while it is true that the SPA was
notarized, it is no less true that there were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a
finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. The absence of Manuels data supports
his claim that he did not execute the same and that his signature thereon is a forgery moreover,
we have Manuels positive testimony that he never signed the SPA, in addition to the expert
testimony that the signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuels true signature.
PANTALEON V. ASUNCION
FACTS: Pantaleon instituted an action against Asuncion for recovery of a sum of money;
summons was issued but was returned since Asuncion is residing in B-24 Tala Estate,
Caloocan, Rizal. However, such summons was returned unserved since the Sheriff found
out that Asuncion was no longer residing in that address and diligent effort served no
purpose. Upon Pantaleons motion, the court declared that Asuncion shall be summoned
by publication. It was only 46 days after rendition of the decision that Asuncion learned
of the complaint as well as of the adverse decision. Asuncion filed a petition for relief
alleging that he had not been summoned or notified of the hearing; no copy of the
summons and publication were sent since he had not received any; and his
nonappearance is excusable it being due to the mistake of the authorities.
ISSUE: Whether or not the summons was served and thus conferred jurisdiction upon
the lower court.
HELD: No. A well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in
personam, like the one at bar, personal service of summons, within the forum, is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who does not
voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. In other words, summons by
publication cannot consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer
upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant. Although a state legislature has more
control over the form of service on its own residents than nonresidents, it has been held
that in action in personam service by publication on resident defendants, who are
personally within the state and can be found therein is not "due process of law", and a
statute allowing it is unconstitutional. Lastly, from the viewpoint of substantial justice
and equity, we are of the opinion that defendant's petition for relief should have been
granted because to begin with, it was filed well within the periods provided in the Rules
of Court. Secondly, and, this is more important, defendant's verified answer, which was
attached to said petition, contains allegations which, if true, constitute a good defense.