Practice question
Two executed counterparts of an agreement were intended by the signatories to have the same effect. One party produces its counterpart, but the opponent claims it cannot be an original because another counterpart was signed first. Under Section 4(a), which is correct?
- Only the earliest signature sheet can be original
- Every counterpart is automatically forged
- Original status depends solely on possession by the plaintiff
- A counterpart intended to have the same effect may itself be an original; chronology alone does not exclude it
- Only a photocopy can qualify
Legal references
- A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, Rule 130, Sections 3–4; People v. Lastimosa, G.R. No. 265758, February 3, 2025, main decision.
- Reviewed primary authority, Rule 130, Sections 3–4: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
- Reviewed primary authority, Main decision, current original and duplicate rules: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_265758_2025.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.