11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly public official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.[53] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) The English translation submitted by petitioner was published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc., [54] a private company in Japan engaged in publishing English translation of Japanese laws, which came to be known as the EHS Law Bulletin Series.[55] However, these translations are "not advertised as a source of official translations of Japanese laws;" [56] rather, it is in the KANPO or the Official Gazette where all official laws and regulations are published, albeit in Japanese.[57] Accordingly, the English translation submitted by petitioner is not an official publication exempted from the requirement of authentication. Neither can the English translation be considered as a learned treatise. Under the Rules of Court, "[a] witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his [or her] personal knowledge[.]"[58] The evidence is hearsay when it is "not . . . what the witness knows himself [or herself] but of what he [or she] has heard from others."[59] The rule excluding hearsay evidence is not limited to oral testimony or statements, but also covers written statements.[60] The rule is that hearsay evidence "is devoid of probative value[.]"[61] However, a published treatise may be admitted as tending to prove the truth of its content if: (1) the court takes judicial notice; or (2) an expert witness testifies that the writer is recognized in his or her profession as an expert in the subject.[62] Here, the Regional Trial Court did not take judicial notice of the translator's and advisors' qualifications. Nor was an expert witness presented to testify on this matter. The only evidence of the translator's and advisors' credentials is the inside cover page of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan.[63] Hence, the Regional Trial Court was correct in not considering the English translation as a learned treatise. Finally, settled is the rule that, generally, this Court only entertains questions of law in a Rule 45 petition.[64] Questions of fact, like the existence of Japan's law on divorce, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65383 5/11