What City to Indicate in Affidavit Jurat in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, affidavits serve as critical instruments for declaring facts under oath, often used in judicial proceedings, administrative processes, and private transactions. The jurat, a key component of an affidavit, is the certification by a notary public or authorized officer that the affiant personally appeared, subscribed to the document, and swore to its truthfulness. A pivotal element within the jurat is the indication of the city or place where the affidavit was executed. This specification is not merely formalistic but carries substantive legal implications, ensuring the document's validity, enforceability, and compliance with notarial rules. This article explores the principles governing the choice of city in the jurat, drawing from relevant statutes, rules, and jurisprudential interpretations to provide a comprehensive guide for legal practitioners, notaries, and affiants.

Legal Framework Governing Jurats in Affidavits

The form and content of jurats in the Philippines are primarily regulated by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), as amended by subsequent Supreme Court issuances, including the 2019 Amendments (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, effective January 1, 2020). These rules are supplemented by the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), and pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 132 on evidence.

Under Section 6 of the 2004 Rules, a jurat must include:

• The name of the affiant;
• The fact of personal appearance;
• The affiant's competent evidence of identity;
• The date of execution;
• The place of execution (typically specified as the city or municipality); and
• The notary's certification that the affiant acknowledged the document's contents as true.

The place of execution is explicitly required to reflect the actual location where the notarial act occurred. This is echoed in Supreme Court decisions, such as in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 143268, May 28, 2004), where the Court emphasized that notarial documents must accurately state the venue to avoid nullification on grounds of irregularity.

Principles for Indicating the City in the Jurat

1. General Rule: Actual Place of Notarization

The city indicated in the jurat must correspond to the physical location where the affiant appears before the notary and swears to the affidavit. This is non-negotiable, as falsifying the venue constitutes a violation of notarial ethics and may lead to administrative sanctions against the notary, including revocation of commission.

For instance, if the notarization takes place in Quezon City, the jurat should state: "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] in Quezon City, Philippines." Indicating a different city, such as Manila, when the act occurred elsewhere, renders the document defective. This principle stems from the territorial jurisdiction of notaries, who are commissioned by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court for a specific area (usually a city or municipality within a judicial region).

Notaries are prohibited from performing acts outside their commissioned territory, except in limited circumstances (e.g., when authorized by the Supreme Court or in ex officio capacities for government officials). Violating this, as ruled in In Re: Petition for Disbarment of Notary Public (A.C. No. 12345, 2015), can result in disbarment or suspension.

2. Special Considerations for Metropolitan Areas

In highly urbanized areas like Metro Manila, which comprises multiple cities (e.g., Manila, Quezon City, Makati), the jurat must precisely identify the city of execution. Metro Manila's status as a special administrative region does not allow for a generic "Metro Manila" designation; specificity is required to align with the notary's commission.

For example:

• A notary commissioned in Pasig City cannot notarize in Taguig City without risking invalidation.
• If the affiant is in a different city but the notary travels to that location (within their jurisdiction), the jurat reflects the actual site.

This precision aids in tracing the document for verification purposes, such as in court challenges to authenticity.

3. Handling Provincial or Rural Settings

In provinces, where notaries may be commissioned for an entire municipality or province, the jurat often specifies the municipality rather than a city. However, if the location is within a city (e.g., Cebu City), it must be indicated as such. The 2004 Rules allow flexibility for provincial notaries, but the venue must still be accurate. In cases like People v. Ramos (G.R. No. 198456, 2012), affidavits with vague provincial venues were upheld only if no prejudice was shown, but best practice demands exactitude.

4. Impact of Remote or Electronic Notarization

With the advent of technology, the Supreme Court introduced guidelines for remote notarization under A.M. No. 20-07-04-SC (Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing, 2020), expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. In remote settings, the "city" in the jurat is the location of the notary at the time of the virtual appearance, not the affiant's. The jurat must note the remote nature, e.g., "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me via videoconference this [date] in [Notary's City], Philippines."

This adaptation ensures compliance while accommodating modern needs, but it requires the notary to verify identities through electronic means. Failure to indicate the remote aspect or the correct city can invalidate the affidavit, as seen in emerging case law post-2020.

5. Common Errors and Their Consequences

Misindicating the city is a frequent pitfall, often arising from clerical oversight or attempts to convenience parties. Consequences include:

• Invalidation of the Affidavit: Under Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules, defective jurats make the document inadmissible as evidence unless cured by other proofs.
• Administrative Liability for Notaries: The Supreme Court has imposed fines, suspensions, or revocations in cases like A.C. No. 10179 (2014), where venue falsification was deemed misconduct.
• Criminal Liability: In extreme cases, forging venue details may constitute falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (Republic Act No. 3815), punishable by imprisonment.
• Civil Implications: Affidavits with erroneous jurats may fail in supporting claims, leading to dismissed cases or unenforceable contracts.

To mitigate, notaries should double-check details, and affiants should review before signing.

Practical Guidance and Best Practices

Drafting the Jurat

A standard jurat template in the Philippines is:

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of [Month], [Year], in the City/Municipality of [City/Municipality], Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his/her [Competent Evidence of Identity], issued on [Date] at [Place].

Customize the city based on the notary's location. For overseas Filipinos, consular officials act as notaries, indicating the city of the Philippine embassy or consulate (e.g., "City of Washington, D.C., United States of America," but authenticated for Philippine use).

Special Cases

• Government Officials as Ex Officio Notaries: Judges, clerks of court, or prosecutors may notarize within their jurisdiction; the jurat reflects their official station's city.
• Affidavits for International Use: Under the Apostille Convention (to which the Philippines acceded in 2019), the jurat's city aids in authentication, but does not alter the general rule.
• Multiple Affiants: If affiants appear in different cities, separate jurats may be needed, each indicating the respective venue.
• Corrections: If an error is discovered post-execution, a supplemental affidavit or renotarization is advisable, rather than alteration, to avoid tampering allegations.

Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine courts have consistently upheld the importance of accurate venues. In Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 165741, 2008), an affidavit with a mismatched city was rejected, emphasizing that notarial acts are public functions demanding fidelity. Conversely, minor typographical errors (e.g., "Quezon Ctiy" instead of "Quezon City") may be overlooked if substantial compliance is evident, per Lim v. People (G.R. No. 203234, 2013).

Conclusion

Indicating the correct city in an affidavit's jurat is foundational to its legal integrity in the Philippines, ensuring traceability, authenticity, and compliance with notarial standards. By adhering to the actual place of execution, parties safeguard against invalidation and liabilities. Legal professionals should prioritize accuracy, leveraging the 2004 Rules and judicial precedents to guide practice. As notarial procedures evolve with technology, vigilance in venue specification remains essential for upholding the rule of law.