Dear PAO,

My best friend owns a company. He obtained a loan to fund it, and he named me as a guarantor without my consent. He forged my signature, and he was able to notarize the loan contract. Now, the lending company is going after me. I explained that I took no part in taking out the loan, and I am not in any way connected to my best friend’s company. However, they are insisting that since I signed as a guarantor in a notarized loan contract, I should be equally liable with my friend. Can they legally enforce the contract against me?

Griek

Dear Griek,

No, the contract of loan obtained by your friend is not enforceable against you, notwithstanding a notarized document purportedly evidencing its due execution.

Foremost, the principle of relativity of contracts provides that “contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs” (Article 1311 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines). Thus, the loan that was obtained without your knowledge or consent is not enforceable against you since you are not privy to such contract.

Additionally, in the case of Chua vs. Bank of Commerce, GR 263632, June 23, 2026, penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court ruled that although a notarized document creates a presumption of regularity regarding the authenticity and execution of the document, it does not cure the defects of a forged document, saying:

“Second. Indeed, Chua vigorously and consistently denied that he signed a CSA for Interbrand, let alone, acknowledged its execution in person before Notary Public Richard S. Allas (Notary Public Allas). This is a critical point, as notarization requires that the individual appearing before the notary affirm the document’s contents and sign it in their presence. Surprisingly, Atty. Umali, as the lone witness for respondent, failed to shed light on this matter, let alone, on the genuineness and due execution of the CSA as she even confirmed that respondent did not have a signature card of Chua. At any rate, respondent could have easily presented Notary Public Alias or the supposed witnesses named in the document, i.e., Gilbert Espinola and Maria Yvette A. Tambunting to refute the irregularities imputed by Chua. But it never did.

“It is settled that while notarization creates a presumption of regularity regarding the authenticity and proper execution of the contract, it does not alter the status of a void contract. The impugned documents cannot be presumed as valid because of the direct challenge posed thereto. In any case, a disputable presumption does not allow a claimant to just sit down and wait for respondent to present evidence to overcome the disputable presumption as what happened in this case xxx

“In other words, although the notarization of the subject CSA carries with it the presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of the notary public to validate and make it binding when such CSA, in the first place, was never intended to have any binding legal effect upon Chua.”

Thus, being a non-party to the contract of loan, you cannot be held liable thereto, regardless if the contract was notarized or not. Notarization cannot cure the defects of a forged document; it merely creates a disputable presumption which may be challenged by any evidence demonstrating the contract’s undue execution.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]