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.
Thus, a fictitious conveyance does not bind the parties despite its notarization. Similarly, a forged document is void, and will remain void even if it is notarized.
Nevertheless, it bears stressing that even if the document or instrument is void, it may still be admissible in evidence, as long as it is relevant to the case, since there is no provision in the Rules of Court which excludes the admissibility of a void document. The rules only require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by the rules for its admissibility. A void document is admissible as evidence because the purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the document itself. (Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, G.R. No. 190846, February 3, 2016; Chua v. Bank of Commerce, G.R. Nos. 263632 & 264110, 22 January 2025)