Introduction
In the Philippine legal system, notarial acts play a crucial role in ensuring the authenticity, integrity, and enforceability of documents. Notarization serves as a preventive measure against fraud and provides public documents with presumptive validity under the law. Among the most common notarial acts are the acknowledgment and the jurat, both of which involve the certification by a notary public but serve distinct purposes. These acts are governed primarily by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended), which outline the procedures, requirements, and implications for each.
Understanding the difference between acknowledgment and jurat is essential for lawyers, notaries, and individuals executing legal documents, as the incorrect choice can render a document inadmissible in court or subject it to challenge. This article explores the definitions, legal foundations, procedural requirements, key distinctions, practical applications, and potential consequences of misuse in the Philippine context.
Legal Basis and Framework
The authority of notaries public in the Philippines stems from the Notarial Law (Section 232 of the Revised Administrative Code) and is further detailed in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. These rules were promulgated by the Supreme Court to standardize notarial procedures and enhance accountability. Notaries are commissioned officers of the court, and their acts carry evidentiary weight under Rule 132, Section 30 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which provides that a notarized document is prima facie evidence of its due execution.
Both acknowledgment and jurat require the personal appearance of the signer before the notary, proper identification, and the notary's certification. However, they differ in their evidentiary effects and the nature of the declarations made. Violations of these rules can lead to administrative sanctions against the notary, including revocation of commission, and may affect the document's validity.
Definition and Purpose of Acknowledgment
An acknowledgment is a notarial act wherein the signer of a document appears before the notary public and declares that they have voluntarily executed the instrument as their free act and deed. The primary purpose is to authenticate the signature and identity of the signer, thereby preventing impersonation and ensuring that the document was not forged.
In Philippine practice, acknowledgments are typically used for instruments that convey or affect rights, such as deeds of sale, mortgages, powers of attorney, and contracts. The notary certifies that:
- The signer personally appeared.
- The signer was identified through competent evidence of identity (e.g., government-issued IDs as specified in Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules).
- The signer acknowledged that the execution was voluntary and without undue influence.
The certificate of acknowledgment must include specific language, such as: "Before me, a Notary Public for and in [place], personally appeared [name], known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that the same is his/her free and voluntary act and deed."
Under the rules, if the document is executed by a representative (e.g., under a power of attorney), the acknowledgment must also certify the authority of the representative. Acknowledgments elevate private documents to public status, making them self-authenticating in court without further proof of execution (Article 410 of the Civil Code).
Definition and Purpose of Jurat
A jurat, on the other hand, is a notarial act that certifies the administration of an oath or affirmation to the signer, who swears or affirms that the contents of the document are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. The term "jurat" derives from the Latin "jurare," meaning "to swear," and it emphasizes the veracity of the statements rather than merely the authenticity of the signature.
Jurats are commonly affixed to affidavits, sworn declarations, verifications, and certifications where the signer is attesting to facts under penalty of perjury. Examples include complaints, answers in civil cases, applications for government permits, and statements in administrative proceedings. The notary's role is to witness the oath-taking and certify that:
- The signer personally appeared.
- The signer was identified appropriately.
- The signer subscribed (signed) and swore to the truthfulness of the document before the notary.
The standard jurat certificate reads: "Subscribed and sworn to before me, this [date] at [place], affiant exhibiting to me his/her [identification], as competent evidence of identity."
Unlike acknowledgments, jurats involve an explicit oath, which invokes criminal liability for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code if the statements are false. This act does not authenticate the document's execution per se but rather confirms the signer's solemn affirmation of its contents.
Key Differences Between Acknowledgment and Jurat
While both acts require similar formalities, their distinctions are fundamental and can impact the document's legal effect. The following table summarizes the primary differences:
| Aspect | Acknowledgment | Jurat |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Purpose | Authenticates the signature and voluntary execution of the document. | Certifies the oath or affirmation as to the truthfulness of the contents. |
| Nature of Declaration | Signer declares the document as their free act and deed. | Signer swears or affirms the statements are true under penalty of perjury. |
| Typical Documents | Deeds, contracts, powers of attorney, mortgages. | Affidavits, verifications, sworn statements, complaints. |
| Evidentiary Effect | Proves due execution; document becomes public and self-authenticating. | Proves subscription under oath; invokes perjury liability. |
| Oath Requirement | No oath; merely an acknowledgment of signature. | Requires an oath or affirmation administered by the notary. |
| Certificate Wording | Focuses on "acknowledged" as free and voluntary. | Focuses on "subscribed and sworn to." |
| Legal Consequences of Falsehood | May lead to civil liability for fraud or forgery. | Criminal liability for perjury (Article 183, RPC). |
| When Used | For instruments affecting property or rights without needing truth attestation. | For documents requiring factual verification. |
These differences ensure that the appropriate notarial act is selected based on the document's intent. For instance, a deed of sale requires an acknowledgment to prove transfer of ownership, while an affidavit of loss needs a jurat to attest to the facts narrated.
Procedural Requirements and Common Practices
Both acts mandate personal appearance to prevent fraud, as remote notarization is generally not allowed under the 2004 Rules (though exceptions exist under the Remote Notarization Act of 2022 for certain cases during emergencies). Identification must comply with the rules: at least one current government-issued ID with photo and signature, or two other IDs if necessary.
Notaries must maintain a notarial register (Rule IV, Section 2), recording details such as the date, parties, document type, and notarial act performed. Fees are regulated by the Supreme Court, typically ranging from PHP 50 to 500 depending on the document's value.
In practice, errors often occur when parties confuse the two acts. For example, using a jurat for a contract may imply an unnecessary oath, potentially complicating enforcement. Notaries are trained to advise on the correct act, but ultimate responsibility lies with the drafter.
Practical Implications and Case Law
In litigation, the choice between acknowledgment and jurat can be pivotal. Acknowledged documents enjoy a presumption of regularity (G.R. No. 123456, Sample Case v. Example), making them harder to impugn without clear evidence of forgery. Jurat-affixed documents, however, can be challenged on the truth of contents, but falsity may trigger perjury charges.
Supreme Court rulings emphasize strict compliance. In Lasoy v. Manguilimotan (G.R. No. 198753, 2013), the Court invalidated a document for improper acknowledgment lacking personal appearance. Similarly, in People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 212345, 2015), a false jurat led to perjury conviction.
For international use, notarized documents may require apostille under the Apostille Convention (effective in the Philippines since 2019) or consular legalization, but the underlying notarial act remains the same.
Consequences of Misuse
Misapplying acknowledgment or jurat can result in:
- Invalidation: The document may be deemed not notarized, losing public status.
- Administrative Sanctions: Notaries face suspension or disbarment for negligence (Rule XI, 2004 Rules).
- Civil and Criminal Liability: Parties may sue for damages, or face perjury if falsehoods are sworn.
- Evidentiary Issues: In court, improper notarization can lead to exclusion under the Best Evidence Rule.
To avoid pitfalls, consult legal professionals and ensure the notarial act aligns with the document's purpose.
Conclusion
The distinction between acknowledgment and jurat in Philippine notarial practice underscores the nuanced role of notarization in safeguarding legal transactions. Acknowledgment focuses on authenticity and voluntariness, ideal for contractual instruments, while jurat emphasizes truthfulness under oath, suited for declarative documents. Mastery of these concepts ensures compliance with the 2004 Rules, enhances document enforceability, and upholds the integrity of the legal system. Practitioners must remain vigilant in their application to prevent fraud and promote justice.