Short answer. Generally no. Under Rule 132, Section 30, an instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument. Prima facie means the presumption can still be rebutted.
What the law says
Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.
Rule 132, Section 30 — Proof of notarial documents. Read the full provision →
What the notarization buys you
The section provides: Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved. An ordinary private document must be authenticated before a court will receive it — someone has to establish that it is what it claims to be. A duly acknowledged instrument skips that step: the acknowledgment itself carries the document into evidence, and the notarial certificate stands as evidence that the instrument was executed.
Prima facie, not conclusive
The section chooses its words: the certificate is prima facie evidence of the execution of the document. Prima facie evidence holds the field until contrary evidence displaces it — it shifts the burden to the party attacking the document, but it does not close the question. A litigant who claims the signature is forged, or that the document was never executed as the certificate recites, may still prove it; the acknowledgment simply means the attacker now carries the load, and carries it against a presumption the law has placed on the other side of the scale.
Two limits worth understanding
First, the benefit belongs to instruments duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law — the word duly is load-bearing. A notarization that did not comply with what the law requires of it does not earn the exemption, and the document then stands as an ordinary private writing needing proof. Second, the presumption speaks to execution — that the parties signed the instrument — not to the truth of everything written inside it. A duly notarized contract proves it was executed; whether its recitals are accurate, whether it was performed, and what it legally means remain open questions to be litigated on other evidence.
Practical bearings
If you are relying on a notarized document, keep the original and be ready to show the acknowledgment is regular on its face — that is usually the whole of your authentication burden. If you are contesting one, understand the shape of the fight: you will need affirmative evidence against execution, not mere denial, because the presumption runs against you. In both positions, the notarial certificate itself deserves scrutiny before anything else, since the entire evidentiary shortcut stands or falls on whether the instrument was duly acknowledged in the first place.