Skip to main content

Supreme Court Ruling: Forged Documents Remain Void Despite Notarization

Legal documents are presumed valid and authentic once notarized, but what happens when forgery is involved? The Supreme Court (SC) recently clarified that notarization does not cure a fraudulent document, affirming the principle that forged agreements remain unenforceable, no matter their notarial formality.

Background of the Case

In the case of Gil G. Chua vs. Bank of Commerce, the SC’s Second Division, led by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, ruled that Chua was not liable for a PHP 150 million loan secured by Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.

  • The loan was backed by notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSA), with Chua named as a surety.

  • Unlike the other signatories, Chua was neither an officer, director, nor shareholder of Interbrand.

  • When Interbrand defaulted, the Bank of Commerce sued all sureties, including Chua.

  • Chua denied any involvement, stating he never signed the CSA or appeared before a notary public.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) held him liable, but the Supreme Court reversed their rulings and cleared him of responsibility.

Key Legal Principles from the Decision

1️⃣ Notarization Does Not Validate a Forged Document

  • While notarization carries a presumption of authenticity, it does not automatically make a document legally binding if proven to be fraudulent.

  • The SC emphasized: > “It is not the intention nor the function of the notary public to validate and make [a forged document] binding.”

2️⃣ Forgery Can Be Challenged Even for Notarized Contracts

  • Chua successfully disputed the CSA’s authenticity, consistently denying his signature and notarial presence.

  • The Bank had no specimen of his signature to compare against the CSA.

  • The notary public who allegedly notarized the CSA was never presented in court, raising doubts about legitimacy.

3️⃣ Legal Accountability Requires Genuine Consent

  • Since Chua did not voluntarily sign the agreement, he cannot be held liable for Interbrand’s debt.

  • However, Interbrand and the remaining sureties were ordered to pay the PHP 150 million loan plus penalties and legal fees.

Legal Takeaways for Business and Financial Transactions

✅ Always verify notarized documents – Notarization does not guarantee authenticity; due diligence is crucial.

✅ Challenge forged agreements immediately – If fraud is suspected, parties must present evidence proving their non-involvement.

✅ Notarization alone does not bind parties – Contracts require genuine consent, and courts can invalidate falsified agreements.

✅ Signatures and authentication are key in legal liability – Banks and businesses must establish the validity of signatories before enforcing financial agreements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruling affirms that notarization cannot legitimize a forged document, reinforcing protections against contractual fraud. Legal transactions must comply with the principles of consent, authenticity, and due process to ensure fairness and prevent wrongful liabilities.

📌 For the full SC decision, check .

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more