The doctrine of specific performance upholds contractual obligations when initial formal requirements are unmet by allowing courts to order the performance of the contract as agreed, including fulfilling any outstanding formalities like notarization. This legal remedy emphasizes the fulfillment of the contractual terms as conceived by the parties, ensuring that the intent of the contract is respected and executed despite procedural lapses. It preserves contractual integrity and enforces the realization of agreed obligations, providing a mechanism to rectify non-compliance with formal requirements without invalidating the underlying agreement .

The execution of a public instrument is not necessary for the validity of a sale of land between a seller and a buyer. Although notarization by a notary public is preferred for providing convenience and greater protection to the parties, it is not a legal requirement for the validity of the contract itself. The contract remains valid even if only captured in a private document. The lack of notarization does not invalidate the sale but may affect its enforceability in terms of evidentiary purposes. Parties can compel each other to have the contract notarized to meet formalities for efficacy .

If a contract is not notarized, the primary legal consequence is related to the evidentiary value rather than the contract's validity. While the contract remains valid, a non-notarized contract might face challenges in proving its authenticity and terms in court. The lack of notarization means parties may struggle to provide incontrovertible proof of the contract's execution and contents, thereby complicating enforcement actions or disputes that might arise. Notarization provides a presumption of regularity and authenticity, which eases the burden of proof for the parties involved .

The rationale for allowing a sale of land to remain valid, even when only captured in a private document, is grounded in the principle that the essential validity of a contract is based on mutual agreement and intention rather than formalistic criteria. The law places importance on the substance of an agreement—consensus ad idem—more than its form. Notarization serves primarily as a means of safeguarding through increased legal recognition and is not a precondition of contractual validity. This approach allows flexibility and ensures that valid agreements are not unduly invalidated due to procedural technicalities, as long as the parties' fundamental rights and obligations are preserved .

The absence of notarization can substantially affect the enforceability of a contract in legal proceedings, primarily by impacting the contract's evidentiary weight. While a non-notarized contract is still valid, proving its terms and execution becomes more challenging, as notarization typically provides presumptive proof of authenticity and free consent. Courts may view a non-notarized contract with more scrutiny and demand additional evidence to substantiate claims, which can complicate or delay proceedings. The protective benefit lost without notarization could lead to potentially burdensome legal efforts to enforce terms, reflecting the practical necessity of notarization despite its non-essential status for validity .

If the law requires a special form for a contract, but the parties initially fail to observe this requirement, they still acquire the right to compel each other to observe the necessary formality. This right can be exercised simultaneously with taking action upon the contract, meaning that even if the formal requirement was not initially met, the contract itself remains valid and can be enforced .

The legal principle that permits the enforcement of formal requirements post-contract formation is the doctrine of specific performance. This principle supports contractual relationships by ensuring that the agreed-upon formalities necessary for legal efficacy can still be executed to align with legal requirements, thus safeguarding the rights and obligations of the parties. It upholds the contract's intent and allows parties to rectify formal discrepancies without invalidating the agreement itself, ensuring legal enforceability and protecting parties from prejudicial actions .

When a property sale includes the phrase 'including all its contents,' the law interprets this to mean every item actually owned by the seller at the time of sale. However, it cannot include items not owned by the seller at that time, regardless of any agreement to acquire them later. For instance, an antique chair belonging to X, even if X agreed to sell it to S, would not be included in the sale to B as the chair is not S's property at that moment. The phrase ‘all its contents’ is limited by the ownership status at the time of sale as it cannot encompass items distinct and separate from the ownership of the seller .

Ownership is pivotal in determining which items are included in a property sale described as 'including all its contents.' Only those items that are legally owned by the seller at the time of sale can be included. For example, an item such as an antique chair which the seller does not legally own cannot be included in the sale despite the phrase 'including all its contents.' This prevents the unauthorized transfer of items belonging to third parties and ensures the transaction respects existing ownership rights .

If a contract requires notarization by law but was executed without this requirement, parties can take legal action to compel the notarization of the contract. This action, based on the right to ensure legal formalities are met, serves to fulfill the regulatory requirements post-formation of the agreement. Failure to have a contract notarized when required can limit enforceability in terms of evidentiary acceptance, so the corrective measure is essential for full legal compliance and protection. The parties can invoke specific performance to compel each other to fulfill these formalities, thereby solidifying the contract's legal standing .