公证文书的证据效力探析

Exploring notarized documents' evidentiary value

我国现行法律中关于公证文书的证据效力的相关规定条文简单粗糙,在适用过程出现了一定的问题。从公证文书的性质着手,公证与见证确实存在差异,不应否认其作为书证之证据方法。而以公证之二元区分来看,对于公证标的不同的公证与认证应分开讨论其形成的公证文书的证据效力。基于现行民诉及公证立法,公证程序中的公证审查实质上确属形式审查,实际体验的要素欠缺因而无法为公证文书的实质证据力提供基础。因此,宜借鉴德日等大陆法系国家相关立法例,将公证文书与一般的公文书作相同处理,而非赋予其特殊的实质证据力甚至将其作为免证事实。对于文书之公证,实质上即认证,其形成的公证文书则以认证书来处理。

The application of current laws on the evidentiary value of the notarized documents, which are written simply and roughly, is problematic. With respect to the nature of notarized document, notary is obviously different from witness testimony. But the notarized documents should not be denied as one type of documentary evidence. In light of the binary distinction of notarization, the evidentiary value of notary and authentication should be separately defined. Under current civil procedure law and laws on notary, the notarization procedure merely enforces a formal review of the examined document. The lack of first-hand experience forbids the notarized documents from being treated as substantial evidence. Therefore, it is not a bad idea to draw lessons from legislative experience of the civil law countries such as Germany and Japan. The notarized should be treated as general affidavits, instead of being given substantial evidentiary value or exempted from authentication. Notarization, in essence, is authentication. Notarized documents should be treated as affidavits.