Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos 383 SCRA 498 (2002)
Zabala 442 SCRA 407 (2004)
FACTS:
1. Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo
Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the PCT of a lot in her
name. The lot measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of
Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila.
2. Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked
her brother Manuel to return her title he refused. Rosalinda then
executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented the affidavit to
the Register of Deeds of Manila.
3. Rosalinda was informed by the Register of Deeds that her title to
the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel. The
document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos and
entered in his Notarial Register. Rosalinda however denied having signed
any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
4. Atty. Ramos admitted in his Answer that he had affixed his
signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter the
document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted executing
before the NBI on an affidavit regarding the matter.
5. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since
according to him he only inadvertently signed the purported Deed of
Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured through mistake,
fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that he simply
relied on the assurances of Manuel that the document would not be
used for illegal purposes. The respondent further claims to have
notarized the document out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a
legitimate excuse. It is appalling that respondent did away with the
basics of notarial procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need
of a friend and client.
ISSUE: Should the notarized documents be recorded in the notarial
registry in order to be considered as public document?
RULING: Yes. If it is not recorded in the notarial registry then the
document is not considered notarized.
The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the
necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized
and retain a copy of the document presented to him for
acknowledgment and certification especially when it is a contract. The
notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official
acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are
considered public documents. If the document or instrument does not
appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is
engendered that the document or instrument was not really notarized,
so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim made
based on this document. Considering the evidentiary value given to
notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to
record the document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely
making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was
not.
De La Cruz vs.
FACTS:
1. Complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty.
Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary public.
Complainant further alleged that respondent notarized with unknown
witnesses, a fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in
gross violation of his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon
City.
2. Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C.
Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance
of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy OCT in the names of
Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. However, complainant was not
able to register the property because the property was already
registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc.,
3. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land,
subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by respondent, with
damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale was the
same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Document and in a disbarment case against
complainant.
4. Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for
disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent
notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the
transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary
public.
5. Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have
to go beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In
notarial law, he explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a
document are the presence of the parties and their presentation of their
community tax certificate. As long as these requirements are met, the
documents may be notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized
the Deed of Sale, he had no way of knowing whether the persons who
appeared before him were the real owners of the land or were merely
poseurs.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zabala was violated the Notarial Law?
RULING: Yes. It appears that there was negligence on respondents part
which, in our view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he
did not violate the Notarial Law, and our rules regarding Notarial
Practice. Nor could we agree that, as recommended by the IBP, he
should only be reprimanded.
At least his commission as Notary Public should be revoked and for two
years he should be disqualified from being commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the
purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and
executed the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro
Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not
attached to the said Deed of Sale when it was presented for
notarization. The aforementioned circumstances should have alerted
respondent. Given the ease with which community tax certificates are
obtained these days, respondent should have been more vigilant in
ascertaining the identity of the persons who appeared before him.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest. It must be underscored that the
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document, making that document admissible in evidence without
further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in
the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined
Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008
digested by Ms. Charo L. Bayani
Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty.
Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the
Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged
to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his
father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses,
which were also questioned for the unnotated Residence
Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective
voter's affidavit.
In addition to such, the contested will was executed and
acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962,
which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of
the Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA).
Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are
falsely given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary
Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of
existing law and had complied with elementary formalities in
the performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed
simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case
against him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper.
However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to
the Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court
referred the case to the IBP and the decision of which was
affirmed with modification against the respondent and in favor
of the complainant.
Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in
Notarial Law and the Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a
spurious last will and testament?
Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is
guilty of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's
Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01nof
the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil
Code and provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is
suspended from the practice of law for one year and his
Notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not
lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary
public and as an officer of the court, he is perpetually
disqualified from reappointments as a Notary Public.
Dela Cruz v. Dimaano 565 SCRA 1 (2008)
FACTS:
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Dimaano,
complainants alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a
document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister,
Zenaida V.L. Navarro.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized
document when he made it appear, among other things, that
complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and that
they affixed their signatures on the document in his presence.
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled
their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased
parents' property in and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in
good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida
Navarro that the signatures and the community tax certificates
appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would
not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being
neighbors of, each other for 30 years.
ISSUES:
Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing
violations of his duties as a notary public.
What is the effect of a Notarized Document as a Public Instrument
RULING:
Yes, lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the
necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic
requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of
the public on notarized documents will be eroded.