Short answer. No, not necessarily. Rule 132, Section 27 lets you prove an authorized public record of a private document either through the original record itself or through a copy attested by the record's legal custodian, as long as an appropriate certificate confirms that officer actually has custody of it — a properly certified copy can stand in for the original.
What the law says
An authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody.
Rule 132, Section 27 — Public record of a private document. Read the full provision →
What counts as a 'public record of a private document'
The document itself may be private in origin — a contract, deed, or similar instrument between private parties — but once it has been officially recorded with a government office, that recording becomes an authorized public record of a private document. It is the fact of the official recording, not the original private nature of the document, that brings this section into play.
The two ways this section lets you prove it
Section 27 gives you a choice: it may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record. You are not locked into producing the original file kept by the recording office — a properly attested copy is an equally valid alternative under this rule, which matters when the original is not practical to bring to court or to remove from official custody.
What the custodian's certificate needs to show
A copy alone is not automatically sufficient — it must come with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. That certificate is what links the copy back to the official who actually holds the record, giving the court assurance that the copy being offered genuinely reflects what is on file with that office rather than an unverified reproduction.
Why this saves you from needing the original
For documents recorded with registries, notarial archives, or similar offices, requiring the original every time would be impractical — the recording office needs to retain its own file, and removing it for every case that needs it would disrupt the very record-keeping the recording was meant to preserve. A properly attested and certified copy under this section serves the same evidentiary purpose without that disruption, which is exactly why the rule offers it as an alternative rather than treating the original as mandatory. This is especially useful in property and title disputes, where the same recorded instrument may need to be produced as evidence in several separate cases over the years.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 26 — Irremovability of public record
- Rule 132, Section 28 — Proof of lack of record