Short answer. Not automatically, but you carry the burden. Rule 132, Section 31 requires the party producing a document that appears altered after execution, in a material part, to account for the alteration — showing it was made by someone else, with consent, innocently, or that it did not change the instrument's meaning — or the document becomes inadmissible.
What the law says
The party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration.
Rule 132, Section 31 — Alteration in document, how to explain. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If he or she fails to do that, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.
Rule 132, Section 31 — Alteration in document, how to explain. Read the full provision →
Why a visible alteration triggers a burden, not an automatic bar
A document that has clearly been changed after it was signed raises an obvious question: who made the change, and does it undermine the reliability of the document as a whole? Rather than treating every alteration as fatal, Section 31 puts the burden on the party who wants to use the document as genuine to explain what happened to it. That approach recognizes that alterations happen for innocent reasons far more often than for fraudulent ones — a corrected typo initialed by both parties looks very different from a unilateral change to a key figure made after signing, and the rule lets the explanation sort one from the other.
What "material to the question in dispute" actually limits
The accounting requirement is triggered only where the alteration touches a part of the document material to the question actually in dispute — a change to the amount owed on a promissory note being sued upon is squarely material, since it goes to the very heart of what is being enforced, while an immaterial correction elsewhere on the same document, unrelated to the dispute, would not trigger the same scrutiny. This limitation keeps the rule focused on alterations that could actually mislead the court about the substance of the obligation, rather than any mark or correction anywhere on the page.
The four ways to satisfy the burden
The rule lists several ways the producing party can account for the change: showing the alteration was made by another person without the producing party's concurrence, showing it was made with the consent of the parties affected by it, showing it was otherwise properly or innocently made, or showing that despite appearances the alteration did not actually change the meaning or language of the instrument. Successfully establishing any one of these keeps the document in play; failing to offer a credible explanation for a material alteration means the document is not admissible in evidence at all, regardless of how genuine the rest of it looks.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 31 — Alteration in document, how to explain
- Rule 132, Section 30 — Proof of notarial documents
- Rule 132, Section 32 — Seal