Leg Forms Reviewer

LAWS, CASES, AND NOTES ON LEGAL
FORMS
Patrick Edward Balisong
I. NOTARIAL LAW ......................................................................................................................................... 4

A. Sources Of Notarial Law ..................................................................................................................... 4
Act No. 2103 .................................................................................................................................... 4
Convention Abolishing The Requirement Of Legalisation For Foreign Public Documents .... 5
Act No. 2711 .................................................................................................................................. 13
Executive Order No. 292, As Amended...................................................................................... 19
Republic Act No. 7160, As Amended By R.A. No. 8553 ............................................................ 20
Presidential Decree No. 1158 ....................................................................................................... 22
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC ..................................................................................................................... 22
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC ..................................................................................................................... 22
Supreme Court Memorandum Order No. 75-04 Dated 25 November 2004 ............................ 35
OCA Circular No. 27-2007 ........................................................................................................... 36
Bar Matter No. 2493...................................................................................................................... 37
OCA Circular No. 110-2014 ......................................................................................................... 40
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, SC En Banc Resolution Dated 15 August 2006 ...................................... 50
Supreme Court Circular I-90, 26 February 1990 ......................................................................... 62
OCA Circular 156-2006 ................................................................................................................ 63
B. Importance of Notarization ................................................................................................................ 67
1. Notarized documents as public instruments.......................................................................... 67
2. Validity of Contracts................................................................................................................. 71
C. Notarial Acts .................................................................................................................................... 86
1. Jurat ........................................................................................................................................... 86
2. Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................... 86
3. Oath and Affirmation ............................................................................................................... 88
4. Signature Witnessing................................................................................................................ 88
5. Copy Certification..................................................................................................................... 88
6. Certifying the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark............................................. 88
7. Signing on behalf of a person physically unable to sign or make a mark ............................ 89
II. BASIC LEGAL FORMS......................................................................................................................... 90
A. Legal Opinion/Memorandum ............................................................................................................ 90
B. Affidavit ............................................................................................................................................ 91
C. General and Special Powers of Attorney ............................................................................................ 95
D. Demand Letter/Response to Demand Letter .................................................................................... 101
2 Ateneo de Manila University School of Law A.Y. 2018-2019
1ST SEM. Laws, Cases, and Notes on Legal Forms 3
I. NOTARIAL LAW
A. Sources of Notarial Law
ACT NO. 2103

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
AUTHENTICATION OF INSTRUMENTS AND DOCUMENTS
WITHOUT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, BE IT ENACTED BY THE
PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE, THAT:
SECTION 1. AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED AND

AUTHENTICATED IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
OR DEPENDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AUTHENTIC IF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AUTHENTICATION ARE MADE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
(A) THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE MADE BEFORE A NOTARY

PUBLIC OR AN OFFICER DULY AUTHORIZED BY LAW OF THE
COUNTRY TO TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF INSTRUMENTS OR
DOCUMENTS IN THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT IS DONE. THE NOTARY
PUBLIC OR THE OFFICER TAKING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL
CERTIFY THAT THE PERSON ACKNOWLEDGING THE INSTRUMENT
OR DOCUMENT IS KNOWN TO HIM AND THAT HE IS THE SAME
PERSON WHO EXECUTED IT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SAME
IS HIS FREE ACT AND DEED. THE CERTIFICATE SHALL BE MADE
UNDER HIS OFFICIAL SEAL, IF HE IS BY LAW REQUIRED TO KEEP A
SEAL, AND IF NOT, HIS CERTIFICATE SHALL SO STATE.
(B) THE CERTIFICATE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR THE OFFICER TAKING

THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE AUTHENTICATED BY THE
COUNTRY CLERK OR HIS DEPUTY, OR BY A CLERK OR DEPUTY CLERK
OF ANY COURT OF RECORD OF THE COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR
JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREIN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS TAKEN,
OR BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OR OTHER
SIMILAR FUNCTIONARY OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, OR DEPENDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THE
CASE MAY BE. THE OFFICER MAKING THE AUTHENTICATION SHALL
CERTIFY UNDER THE SEAL OF HIS OFFICE OR COURT THAT THE
PERSON WHO TOOK THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WAS AT THE TIME
DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS NOTARY PUBLIC OR THAT HE WAS
DULY EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE BY VIRTUE OF
WHICH HE ASSUMED TO ACT, AND THAT AS SUCH HE HAD
AUTHORITY UNDER THE LAW TO TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS IN THE PLACE WHERE THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT WAS TAKEN, AND THAT HIS SIGNATURE AND
SEAL, IF ANY, ARE GENUINE.
SECTION 2. AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED AND

AUTHENTICATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AUTHENTIC IF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AUTHENTICATION ARE MADE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
(A) THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE MADE BEFORE (1) AN

AMBASSADOR, MINISTER, SECRETARY OF LEGATION, CHARGÉ
D’AFFAIRES, CONSUL, VICE-CONSUL, OR CONSULAR AGENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, ACTING WITHIN THE COUNTRY OR PLACE TO

1
WHICH HE IS ACCREDITED, OR (2) A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OFFICER

DULY AUTHORIZED BY LAW OF THE COUNTRY TO TAKE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS IN THE
PLACE WHERE THE ACT IS DONE.
(B) THE PERSON TAKING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL CERTIFY

THAT THE PERSON ACKNOWLEDGING THE INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT IS KNOWN TO HIM, AND THAT HE IS THE SAME PERSON
WHO EXECUTED IT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SAME IS HIS
FREE ACT AND DEED. THE CERTIFICATE SHALL BE UNDER HIS
OFFICIAL SEAL, IF HE IS BY LAW REQUIRED TO KEEP A SEAL, AND IF
NOT, HIS CERTIFICATE SHALL SO STATE. IN CASE THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS MADE BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC OR AN
OFFICER MENTIONED IN SUBDIVISION (2) OF THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH, THE CERTIFICATE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR THE
OFFICER TAKING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE
AUTHENTICATED BY AN AMBASSADOR, MINISTER, SECRETARY OF
LEGATION, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES, CONSUL, VICE-CONSUL, OR
CONSULAR AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ACTING WITHIN THE
2
COUNTRY OR PLACE TO WHICH HE IS ACCREDITED. THE OFFICER

MAKING THE AUTHENTICATION SHALL CERTIFY UNDER HIS
OFFICIAL SEAL THAT THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT WAS AT THE TIME DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACT
AS NOTARY PUBLIC OR THAT HE WAS DULY EXERCISING THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH HE ASSUMED TO
ACT, AND THAT AS SUCH HE HAD AUTHORITY UNDER THE LAW TO
TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS IN
THE PLACE WHERE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WAS TAKEN, AND
THAT HIS SIGNATURE AND SEAL, IF ANY, ARE GENUINE.
SECTION 3. INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED AND

AUTHENTICATED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT BEFORE THE SAME TAKES EFFECT SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AUTHENTIC.
SECTION 4. THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPEAL IN ANY WAY

ANY OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER X, PART I, OF ACT
NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY, ENTITLED "AN ACT PROVIDING
3
A CODE OR PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN

THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS."
CONVENTION ABOLISHING THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGALISATION FOR

FOREIGN PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 1
THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL APPLY TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WHICH
HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE CONTRACTING STATE
AND WHICH HAVE TO BE PRODUCED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER
CONTRACTING STATE. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT CONVENTION,
THE FOLLOWING ARE DEEMED TO BE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS:
(A) DOCUMENTS EMANATING FROM AN AUTHORITY OR AN OFFICIAL

CONNECTED WITH THE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OF THE STATE,
INCLUDING THOSE EMANATING FROM A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A
CLERK OF A COURT OR A PROCESS-SERVER ("HUISSIER DE JUSTICE");
(B) ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS;
(C) NOTARIAL ACTS;
(D) OFFICIAL CERTIFICATES WHICH ARE PLACED ON DOCUMENTS

SIGNED BY PERSONS IN THEIR PRIVATE CAPACITY,
SUCH AS OFFICIAL CERTIFICATES RECORDING THE REGISTRATION OF

A DOCUMENT OR THE FACT THAT IT WAS IN EXISTENCE ON A CERTAIN DATE
AND OFFICIAL AND NOTARIAL AUTHENTICATIONS OF SIGNATURES.
HOWEVER, THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL NOT APPLY:
(A) TO DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BY DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR AGENTS;
(B) TO ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS DEALING DIRECTLY WITH

COMMERCIAL OR CUSTOMS OPERATIONS.
ARTICLE 2
EACH CONTRACTING STATE SHALL EXEMPT FROM LEGALISATION
DOCUMENTS TO WHICH THE PRESENT CONVENTION APPLIES AND WHICH
HAVE TO BE PRODUCED IN ITS TERRITORY. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
PRESENT CONVENTION, LEGALISATION MEANS ONLY THE FORMALITY BY
WHICH THE DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR AGENTS OF THE COUNTRY IN
WHICH THE DOCUMENT HAS TO BE PRODUCED CERTIFY THE AUTHENTICITY
OF THE SIGNATURE, THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THE PERSON SIGNING THE
DOCUMENT HAS ACTED AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE IDENTITY OF THE
SEAL OR STAMP WHICH IT BEARS.
ARTICLE 3
THE ONLY FORMALITY THAT MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CERTIFY THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURE, THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THE PERSON
SIGNING THE DOCUMENT HAS ACTED AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE
IDENTITY OF THE SEAL OR STAMP WHICH IT BEARS, IS THE ADDITION OF THE
CERTIFICATE DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 4, ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THE DOCUMENT EMANATES.
HOWEVER, THE FORMALITY MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING

PARAGRAPH CANNOT BE REQUIRED WHEN EITHER THE LAWS,
REGULATIONS, OR PRACTICE IN FORCE IN THE STATE WHERE THE
DOCUMENT IS PRODUCED OR AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
CONTRACTING STATES HAVE ABOLISHED OR SIMPLIFIED IT, OR EXEMPT THE
DOCUMENT ITSELF FROM LEGALISATION.
ARTICLE 4
THE CERTIFICATE REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 3
SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DOCUMENT ITSELF OR ON AN "ALLONGE"; IT
SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF THE MODEL ANNEXED TO THE PRESENT
CONVENTION.
IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE DRAWN UP IN THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF

THE AUTHORITY WHICH ISSUES IT. THE STANDARD TERMS APPEARING
THEREIN MAY BE IN A SECOND LANGUAGE ALSO. THE TITLE "APOSTILLE
(CONVENTION DE LA HAYE DU 5 OCTOBRE 1961)" SHALL BE IN THE
FRENCH LANGUAGE.
ARTICLE 5
THE CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERSON WHO
HAS SIGNED THE DOCUMENT OR OF ANY BEARER.
WHEN PROPERLY FILLED IN, IT WILL CERTIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF

THE SIGNATURE, THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THE PERSON SIGNING THE
DOCUMENT HAS ACTED AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE IDENTITY OF THE
SEAL OR STAMP WHICH THE DOCUMENT BEARS.
THE SIGNATURE, SEAL AND STAMP ON THE CERTIFICATE ARE EXEMPT

FROM ALL CERTIFICATION.
ARTICLE 6
EACH CONTRACTING STATE SHALL DESIGNATE BY REFERENCE TO THEIR
OFFICIAL FUNCTION, THE AUTHORITIES WHO ARE COMPETENT TO ISSUE
THE CERTIFICATE REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 3.
IT SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH DESIGNATION TO THE MINISTRY OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS AT THE TIME IT DEPOSITS ITS
INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION OR OF ACCESSION OR ITS DECLARATION OF
EXTENSION. IT SHALL ALSO GIVE NOTICE OF ANY CHANGE IN THE
DESIGNATED AUTHORITIES.
ARTICLE 7
EACH OF THE AUTHORITIES DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
6 SHALL KEEP A REGISTER OR CARD INDEX IN WHICH IT SHALL RECORD THE
CERTIFICATES ISSUED, SPECIFYING:
(A) THE NUMBER AND DATE OF THE CERTIFICATE,
(B) THE NAME OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND
THE CAPACITY IN WHICH HE HAS ACTED, OR IN THE CASE OF
UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS, THE NAME OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH
HAS AFFIXED THE SEAL OR STAMP.
AT THE REQUEST OF ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE AUTHORITY

WHICH HAS ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE SHALL VERIFY WHETHER THE
PARTICULARS IN THE CERTIFICATE CORRESPOND WITH THOSE IN THE
REGISTER OR CARD INDEX.
ARTICLE 8
WHEN A TREATY, CONVENTION OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
CONTRACTING STATES CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH SUBJECT THE
CERTIFICATION OF A SIGNATURE, SEAL OR STAMP TO CERTAIN
FORMALITIES, THE PRESENT CONVENTION WILL ONLY OVERRIDE SUCH
PROVISIONS IF THOSE FORMALITIES ARE MORE RIGOROUS THAN THE
FORMALITY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 3 AND 4.
ARTICLE 9
EACH CONTRACTING STATE SHALL TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO
PREVENT THE PERFORMANCE OF LEGALISATIONS BY ITS DIPLOMATIC OR
CONSULAR AGENTS IN CASES WHERE THE PRESENT CONVENTION
PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION.
ARTICLE 10
THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL BE OPEN FOR SIGNATURE BY THE
STATES REPRESENTED AT THE NINTH SESSION OF THE HAGUE
CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ICELAND,
IRELAND, LIECHTENSTEIN AND TURKEY.
IT SHALL BE RATIFIED, AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION

SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE
NETHERLANDS.
ARTICLE 11
THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON THE SIXTIETH
DAY AFTER THE DEPOSIT OF THE THIRD INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION
REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 10.
THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH SIGNATORY

STATE WHICH RATIFIES SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE SIXTIETH DAY AFTER THE
DEPOSIT OF ITS INSTRUMENT OF RATIFICATION.
ARTICLE 12
ANY STATE NOT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10 MAY ACCEDE TO THE
PRESENT CONVENTION AFTER IT HAS ENTERED INTO FORCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11. THE
INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS.
SUCH ACCESSION SHALL HAVE EFFECT ONLY AS REGARDS THE

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ACCEDING STATE AND THOSE CONTRACTING
STATES WHICH HAVE NOT RAISED AN OBJECTION TO ITS ACCESSION IN THE
SIX MONTHS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTIFICATION REFERRED TO IN
SUB-PARAGRAPH (D) OF ARTICLE 15. ANY SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE
NOTIFIED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS.
THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE AS BETWEEN THE

ACCEDING STATE AND THE STATES WHICH HAVE RAISED NO OBJECTION TO
ITS ACCESSION ON THE SIXTIETH DAY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF
SIX MONTHS MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.
ARTICLE 13
ANY STATE MAY, AT THE TIME OF SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION OR
ACCESSION, DECLARE THAT THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL EXTEND TO
ALL THE TERRITORIES FOR THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF WHICH IT IS
RESPONSIBLE, OR TO ONE OR MORE OF THEM. SUCH A DECLARATION SHALL
TAKE EFFECT ON THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THE STATE CONCERNED.
AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, SUCH EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTIFIED

TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS.
WHEN THE DECLARATION OF EXTENSION IS MADE BY A STATE

WHICH HAS SIGNED AND RATIFIED, THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO
FORCE FOR THE TERRITORIES CONCERNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
11. WHEN THE DECLARATION OF EXTENSION IS MADE BY A STATE WHICH
HAS ACCEDED, THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR THE
TERRITORIES CONCERNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 12.
ARTICLE 14
THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE FOR FIVE YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11, EVEN FOR STATES WHICH HAVE
RATIFIED IT OR ACCEDED TO IT SUBSEQUENTLY.
IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DENUNCIATION, THE CONVENTION SHALL

BE RENEWED TACITLY EVERY FIVE YEARS.
ANY DENUNCIATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MINISTRY OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS AT LEAST SIX MONTHS BEFORE
THE END OF THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
IT MAY BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN OF THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH THE

CONVENTION APPLIES.
THE DENUNCIATION WILL ONLY HAVE EFFECT AS REGARDS THE

STATE WHICH HAS NOTIFIED IT. THE CONVENTION SHALL REMAIN IN
FORCE FOR THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES.
ARTICLE 15
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS SHALL GIVE
NOTICE TO THE STATES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10, AND TO THE STATES
WHICH HAVE ACCEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 12, OF THE
FOLLOWING:
(A) THE NOTIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF

ARTICLE 6;
(B) THE SIGNATURES AND RATIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10;
(C) THE DATE ON WHICH THE PRESENT CONVENTION ENTERS INTO

FORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE
11;
(D) THE ACCESSIONS AND OBJECTIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12

AND THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ACCESSIONS TAKE EFFECT;
(E) THE EXTENSIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 AND THE DATE ON

WHICH THEY TAKE EFFECT;
(F) THE DENUNCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF

ARTICLE 14.
Q: Why is Act No. 2103 still relevant despite PH independence?

A: Sec. 2 of Act No. 2103 is the controlling law for consularized documents.
Q: What are the requisites for a valid authentication in a foreign country?

A: The instrument or document acknowledged and authenticated in a foreign country shall be
considered authentic if the following requisites are complied with:
(1) If the acknowledgement shall be made before an AMBASSADOR, MINISTER,
SECRETARY OF LEGATION, CHARGE D’AFFAIRES, CONSUL, VICE CONSUL, or
CONSULAR AGENT (AMLAC-VA) of the Philippines
(a) AMLAC-VA must be acting within the country or place to which he is
accredited; and,
(b) The person taking the acknowledgement shall certify that:
(i) the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to
him
(ii) the person is the same person who executed the instrument
(iii) the instrument of document is his free act and deed
(c) The certificate shall be under his official seal , if he is required to keep a seal.
If not, his certificate shall so state
(2) If the acknowledgement shall be made before a NOTARY PUBLIC OR OFFICER
DULY AUTHORIZED BY LAW OF THE COUNTRY TO TAKE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS of instruments of documents in the place where the act is
done
(a) The certificate of the Notary Public of the Officer taking the
acknowledgement shall be AUTHENTICATED by an AMLAC-VA of the
Philippines
(b) The AMLAC-VA must be acting within the country or place to which he is
accredited; and,
(c) The AMLAC-VA making the authentication shall certify under his official
seal that:
(i) The person who took the acknowledgement was at the time, DULY
AUTHORIZED to act as a Notary Public or that he was DULY
EXERCISING the functions of the office, by virtue of which he
assumed to act;
(ii) As such, he had AUTHORITY under the law to take
acknowledgement of instruments or documents in the place where
the acknowledgement was taken; and
(iii) His signature and seal are GENUINE.
DYCOCO v. ORINA
July 30, 2010 | Carpio Morales, J. | Act No. 2103
PETITIONER: Virgilio Dycoco, Cristino Grafilo, Jose Grafilo and Adolfo Grafilo
RESPONDENTS: Adelaida Orina and German Orina
SUMMARY: Dycoco allegedly executed a REM on a property to Orina. Dycoco claims that his
signature was forged. Orina was only able to present a photocopy of the REM. Dycoco calims that
he was not in the Philippines during the date that the REM was signed. RTC and CA sided with
Orina saying that there is no sufficient proof that Dycoco was not in the Philippines, and that he
was not presented as witness to testify regarding the genuineness of the documents he used to
prove that he was not in the Philippines.
The issues in this case are Whether the signature is authentic and Whether Dycoco needed
to be presented as witness.
SC held that it was upon Orina to prove that Dycoco’s signature is genuine. A
mere photocopy of the REM was presented. When the genuineness of signatures on a document is
sought to be proved or disproved through comparison of standard signatures with the questioned
signature, the original thereof must be presented. And since Orina was not able to present the
original, the signature cannot be authenticated.
SC also held that Dycoco did not need to be presented as witness since an instrument
acknowledged and authenticated by a foreign country shall be considered authentic according to
PA 2103.
DOCTRINE: Public Act No. 2103 effectively dispenses with the requirement of presenting him on
the witness stand.
Q: What is an Apostille and when do I need one?

A: An Apostille is a certificate that authenticates the origin of a public document (e.g., a birth,
marriage or death certificate, a judgment, an extract of a register or a notarial attestation).
Apostilles can only be issued for documents issued in one country party to the Apostille
Convention and that are to be used in another country which is also a party to the Convention. You
will need an Apostille if all of the following apply:
• the country where the document was issued is party to the Apostille Convention; and
• the country in which the document is to be used is party to the Apostille Convention;
and
• the law of the country where the document was issued considers it to be a public
document; and
• the country in which the document is to be used requires an Apostille in order to
recognise it as a foreign public document. An Apostille may never be used for the
recognition of a document in the country where that document was issued – Apostilles
are strictly for the use of public documents abroad.
An Apostille may not be required if the laws, regulations, or practice in force in the country
where the public document is to be used have abolished or simplified the requirement of an Apostille,
or have exempted the document from any legalisation requirement. Such simplification or exemption
may also result from a treaty or other agreement that is in force between the country where the public
document is to be used and the country that issued it.
Q: What do I do if either the country where my public document was issued or the country where I
need to use my public document is not a party to the Apostille Convention?
A: If your public document was issued or is to be used in a country where the Apostille Convention
does not apply, you should contact the Embassy or a Consulate of the country where you intend to
use the document in order to find out what your options are
Q: To which documents does the Apostille Convention apply?

A: The Convention only applies to public documents. Whether or not a document is a public
document is determined by the law of the country in which the document was issued.
The Apostille Convention does not apply to documents executed by diplomatic or consular
agents. The Convention also excludes from its scope certain administrative documents related to
commercial or customs operations.
Q: Where do I get an Apostille?

A: Each country that is party to the Convention must designate one or several authorities that are
entitled to issue Apostilles. These authorities are called Competent Authorities — only they are
permitted to issue Apostilles.
A public document can only be apostillised by the relevant Competent Authority of the country
that issued the document. While the Permanent Bureau (Secretariat) of the Hague Conference
provides a broad range of services to support Contracting States in the effective implementation and
practical operation of the Apostille Convention, it does not issue any Apostilles, does not maintain
any register of Apostilles and does not keep any copies of Apostilles.
Q: What does an Apostille contain?

A: An Apostille must:
• be identified as an Apostille; and
• include the short version of the French title of the Convention (Convention de La Haye
du 5 octobre 1961); and
• include a box with the 10 numbered standard informational items.
An Apostille may also provide additional information. For example, an Apostille may:
• provide extra information about the public document to which it relates;
• recall the limited effect of an Apostille (i.e., that it only certifies the origin of the public
document to which it relates);
• provide a web-address (URL) of a register where the origin of the Apostille may be
verified; or
• specify that the Apostille is not to be used in the country that issued it
Q: How are Apostilles affixed to public documents?

A: An Apostille must be placed directly on the public document itself or on a separate attached page
(called an allonge). Apostilles may be affixed by various means, including rubber stamps, self-
adhesive stickers, impressed seals, etc.
Q: What are the effects of an Apostille?

A: An Apostille only certifies the origin of the public document to which it relates: it certifies the
authenticity of the signature or seal of the person or authority that signed or sealed the public
document and the capacity in which this was done. An Apostille does not certify the content of the
public document to which it relates. Apostilles are not grants of authority and do not give any
additional weight to the content of underlying documents. An Apostille may never be used for the
recognition of a document in the country where that document was issued — Apostilles are strictly
for use of public documents abroad. It is up to the country where the Apostille is to be used to decide
how much weight to give to the underlying public document.
Q: Can Apostilles be rejected in the country where they are to be used?

A: Apostilles issued in accordance with the requirements of the Convention must be recognised in
the country where they are to be used.
Apostilles may only be rejected if and when:
• their origin cannot be verified (i.e., if and when the particulars on the Apostille do not
correspond with those in the register kept by the Competent Authority that allegedly
issued the Apostille); or
• their formal elements differ radically from the Model Certificate annexed to the
Convention.
Failure to affix an Apostille to the public document in a particular manner is not a basis for
refusing the Apostille. The mere fact that an Apostille has been affixed by a method that differs from
the method(s) employed by the country where it is to be used is not a reason for the rejection of the
Apostille. Additional text on an Apostille outside the box with the 10 numbered standard
informational items is not a basis for rejection of an Apostille. ‘Apostille Certificates’ issued by
countries that are not party to the Convention must be rejected in all other States as being contrary
to the Convention.
ACT NO. 2711

AN ACT AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CHAPTER 11
NOTARIES PUBLIC
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE
TITLE OF CHAPTER
SECTION 231. TITLE OF THE CHAPTER – TITLE OF THE CHAPTER SHALL BE

KNOWN AS THE NOTARIAL LAW.
ARTICLE I
APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 232. APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. – JUDGES OF COURT

OF FIRST INSTANCE IN THE RESPECTIVE PROVINCES MAY APPOINT AS MANY
NOTARIES PUBLIC AS THE PUBLIC GOOD REQUIRES, AND THERE SHALL BE
AT LEAST ONE FOR EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN EACH PROVINCE. NOTARIES
PUBLIC IN THE CITY OF MANILA SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OR, DURING VACATION, BY THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE ASSIGNED
TO VACATION DUTY.
SECTION 233. QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT. – TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR

APPOINTMENT AS NOTARY PUBLIC, A PERSON MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE
(PHILIPPINE ISLANDS) PHILIPPINES OR OF THE UNITED STATES AND OVER
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE. HE MUST, FURTHERMORE, BE PERSON WHO
HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW OR WHO HAS COMPLETED
AND PASSED IN THE STUDIES OF LAW IN A REPUTABLE UNIVERSITY OR
SCHOOL OF LAW, OR HAS PASSED THE EXAMINATION FOR THE OFFICE OF
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OR CLERK OR DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT, OR BE A
PERSON WHO HAS AT SOME TIME HELD THE OFFICE OF CLERK OR DEPUTY
CLERK OF COURT FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS, OR A
PERSON WHO HAD QUALIFIED FOR THE OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC UNDER
THE SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY.
IN THE CHARTERED CITIES AND IN THE CAPITALS OF THE PROVINCES,

WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE LAWYERS APPOINTED A NOTARIES
PUBLIC, NO PERSON OTHER THAN A LAWYER OR A PERSON WHO HAD
QUALIFIED TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC UNDER THE SPANISH
SOVEREIGNTY SHALL HOLD SAID OFFICE.
IN MUNICIPALITIES OR (TOWNSHIPS) MUNICIPAL, DISTRICTS

WHEREIN NO PERSON RESIDE HAVING THE QUALIFICATIONS
HEREINBEFORE SPECIFIED OR HAVING THEM; REFUSED HOLD SUCH OFFICE,
JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE MAY APPOINT OTHER PERSONS TEMPORARILY
TO EXERCISE THE OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC WHO HAVE THE REQUISITE
QUALIFICATIONS OF FITNESS AND MORALITY.
SECTION 234. DISQUALIFICATION INCIDENT TO CONVICTION OF CRIME. –

NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED NOTARY PUBLIC WHO HAS BEEN
CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IMPLYING MORAL TURPITUDE.
SECTION 235. RESTRICTION ON RIGHT OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS TO ACT AS

NOTARIES PUBLIC. – JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND CLERKS OF COURT SHALL
NOT ACT AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EXCEPT IN THE CHARACTER OF NOTARIES
PUBLIC EX OFFICIO.
SECTION 236. WHEN OATH OF OFFICE TO BE PRESERVED. – THE OATH OF

OFFICE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC IN A PROVINCE SHALL BE FILED AND
PRESERVED, TOGETHER WITH THE COMMISSION, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE. THE OATH OF
OFFICE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE CITY OF MANILA SHALL BE FILED AND
PRESERVED, WITH THE COMMISSION, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
SECTION 237. FORM OF COMMISSION FOR NOTARY PUBLIC. – THE

APPOINTMENT OF A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE IN WRITING, SIGNED BY THE
JUDGE, AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING FORM:
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES)

PROVINCE OF ____________________)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ______________________, OF THE MUNICIPALITY

OF ____________________________ IN SAID PROVINCE, WAS, ON THE
________ DAY OF _____________________, ANNO DOMINI NINETEEN
HUNDRED AND _____________ APPOINTED BY ME A NOTARY, PUBLIC,
WITHIN AND FOR THE SAID PROVINCE, FOR THE TERM ENDING ON THE
FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, ANNO DOMINI NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
________
_______________________
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST

INSTANCE OF SAID PROVINCE
SECTION 238. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT TO BE FORWARDED TO

BUREAU OF JUSTICE. – CLERKS OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE SHALL
MAKE AND FORWARD TO THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
COMMISSION AND OATH OF OFFICE OF ANY NOTARY PUBLIC ARE

RECORDED IN SAID CLERK’S OFFICE A CERTIFICATE OF SUCH APPOINTMENT
AND THE TERM OFFICE OF THE APPOINTEE. A RECORD SHALL BE KEPT OF
ALL SUCH CERTIFICATES IN THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE.
SECTION 239. TERM OF OFFICE. – THE TERM OF OFFICE OF A NOTARY

PUBLIC SHALL END AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD
BEGINNING UPON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE
APPOINTMENT IS MADE.
ARTICLE II
JURISDICTION AND POWERS
SECTION 240. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. – THE JURISDICTION OF A

NOTARY PUBLIC IN A PROVINCE SHALL BE CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE
PROVINCE. THE JURISDICTION OF A NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE CITY OF
MANILA SHALL BE CO-EXTENSIVE WITH SAID CITY. NO NOTARY SHALL
POSSESS AUTHORITY TO DO ANY NOTARIAL ACT BEYOND THE LIMITS OF HIS
JURISDICTION.
SECTION 241. POWERS OF NOTARY PUBLIC. – EVERY NOTARY PUBLIC

SHALL HAVE POWER TO ADMINISTER ALL OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS
PROVIDED FOR BY LAW, IN ALL MATTERS INCIDENT TO HIS NOTARIAL
OFFICE, AND IN THE EXECUTION OF AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS REQUIRING AN OATH, AND TO RECEIVE THE PROOF OR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ALL WRITINGS RELATING TO COMMERCE OR
NAVIGATION, SUCH AS BILLS OF SALE, BOTTOMRIES, MORTGAGES, AND
HYPOTHECATIONS OF SHIPS, VESSELS, OR BOATS, CHARTER PARTIES OF
AFFREIGHTMENTS, LETTERS OF ATTORNEY, DEEDS, MORTGAGES,
TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF LAND OR BUILDINGS, OR AN INTEREST
THEREIN, AND SUCH OTHER WRITINGS AS ARE COMMONLY PROVED OR
ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE NOTARIES; TO ACT AS A MAGISTRATE, IN THE
WRITING OF AFFIDAVITS OR DEPOSITIONS, AND TO MAKE DECLARATIONS
AND CERTIFY THE TRUTH THEREOF UNDER HIS SEAL OF OFFICE,
CONCERNING ALL MATTERS DONE BY HIM BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE.
ARTICLE III
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO
SECTION 242. OFFICERS ACTING AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO. –

EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIALLY PROVIDED, THE FOLLOWING OFFICIALS,
AND NONE OTHER, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO,
AND AS SUCH THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AS HEREIN BELOW DEFINED, ALL THE
DUTIES APPERTAINING TO THE OFFICE OF NOTARY PUBLIC:
(A) THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF ARCHIVES, PATENTS,

COPYRIGHTS, AND TRADEMARKS; THE CLERK OF THE. SUPREME
COURT, THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE CHIEF OF THE GENERAL LAND
REGISTRATION OFFICE, AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
POSTAL SAVINGS BANK DIVISION, BUREAU OF POSTS – WHEN
ACTING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MANILA.
(B) CLERKS OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF

MANILA, WHEN ACTING WITHIN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS TO
WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY PERTAIN.
(C) JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TERRITORY
OVER WHICH THEIR JURISDICTION AS JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
EXTENDS; BUT AUXILIARY JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND OTHER OF
WHO ARE BY LAW VESTED WITH THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE EX OFFICIO SHALL NOT, SOLELY BY REASON OF SUCH
AUTHORITY, BE ALSO ENTITLED TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF
NOTARIES EX OFFICIO.
(D) ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF MINDANAO AND SULU APPOINTED NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO
BY THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, WITH
JURISDICTION CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE PROVINCE WHEREIN THE
APPOINTEE IS STATIONED, AND FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS
BEGINNING UPON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF THE YEAR IN
WHICH THE APPOINTMENT IS MADE.
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) HEREOF

MAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CHIEF OR CLERK OF COURT, BE EXERCISED BY
AN ASSISTANT CHIEF, ACTING CHIEF, OR DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
PERTAINING TO THE OFFICE IN QUESTION.
SECTION 243. NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO REQUIRED TO USE REGISTER. –

NO PERSON SHALL DO ANY ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF NOTARY PUBLIC EX
OFFICIO IN CASES WHERE FULL NOTARIAL AUTHENTICATION IS REQUIRED
UNLESS HE SHALL HAVE THE PRESCRIBED NOTARIAL REGISTER; BUT THE
NOTARIAL ACTS OF AN ASSISTANT CHIEF, ACTING CHIEF, OR DEPUTY CLERK
SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE SAME REGISTER AS WOULD BE USED BY HIS
PRINCIPAL.
ARTICLE IV
NOTARIAL SEAL
SECTION 244. SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC. – EVERY PERSON APPOINTED TO

THE POSITION OF NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL HAVE A SEAL OF OFFICE, TO BE
PROCURED AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, WHICH SHALL BE AFFIXED TO PAPERS
OFFICIALLY SIGNED BY HIM. IT SHALL BE OF METAL AND SHALL HAVE THE
NAME OF THE PROVINCE AND THE WORDS (“PHILIPPINE ISLANDS”)
“PHILIPPINES” AND HIS OWN-NAME ENGRAVED ON THE MARGIN
THEREOF, AND THE WORDS “NOTARY, PUBLIC” ACROSS THE CENTER. AN
IMPRESSION OF SUCH SEAL DIRECTLY ON THE PAPER OR PARCHMENT ON
WHICH THE WRITING IS HAD SHALL BE AS VALID AS IF MADE ON WAX OR
WAFER.
IN THE CASE OF THE CHIEF OF THE GENERAL LAND REGISTRATION

OFFICE OR OTHER CLERK OF COURT ACTING AS NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO,
IT SHALL SUFFICE TO USE THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE COURT TO WHICH THE
OFFICER IN QUESTION PERTAINS OTHER OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP OR USE A SEAL,
UNLESS ESPECIALLY SO PRESCRIBED, BY LAW.
ARTICLE V
NOTARIAL REGISTER
SECTION 245. NOTARIAL REGISTER. – EVERY NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL KEEP

A REGISTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE NOTARIAL REGISTER, WHEREIN RECORD
SHALL BE MADE OF ALL HIS OFFICIAL ACTS AS NOTARY; AND HE SHALL
SUPPLY A CERTIFIED COPY OF SUCH RECORD, OR ANY PART THEREOF, TO
ANY PERSON APPLYING FOR IT AND PAYING THE LEGAL FEES THEREFOR.
SUCH REGISTER SHALL BE KEPT IN BOOKS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO ANY NOTARY PUBLIC UPON REQUEST AND UPON
PAYMENT OF THE ACTUAL COST THEREOF, BUT OFFICERS EXERCISING THE
FUNCTIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO SHALL BE SUPPLIED WITH THE
REGISTER AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. THE REGISTER SHALL BE DULY
PAGED, AND ON THE FIRST PAGE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SHALL CERTIFY
THE NUMBER OF PAGES OF WHICH THE BOOK CONSIST.
SECTION 246. MATTERS TO BE ENTERED THEREIN – THE NOTARY PUBLIC

SHALL ENTER IN SUCH REGISTER, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, THE
NATURE OF EACH INSTRUMENT EXECUTED, SWORN TO, OR
ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE HIM, THE PERSON EXECUTING, SWEARING TO, OR
ACKNOWLEDGING THE INSTRUMENT, THE WITNESSES, IF ANY, TO THE
SIGNATURE, THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION, OATH, OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF THE INSTRUMENT, THE FEES COLLECTED BY HINT FOR HIS SERVICES AS
NOTARY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND; WHEN THE INSTRUMENT IS A
CONTRACT, HE SHALL KEEP A CORRECT COPY THEREOF AS PART OF HIS
RECORDS, AND SHALL LIKEWISE ENTER IN SAID RECORDS A BRIEF
DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE THEREOF, AND SHALL GIVE TO EACH
ENTRY A CONSECUTIVE NUMBER, BEGINNING WITH NUMBER ONE IN EACH
CALENDAR YEAR. THE NOTARY SHALL GIVE TO EACH INSTRUMENT
EXECUTED, SWORN TO, OR ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE HIM A NUMBER
CORRESPONDING TO THE ONE IN HIS REGISTER, AND SHALL ALSO STATE ON
THE INSTRUMENT THE PAGE OR PAGES OF HIS REGISTER ON WHICH THE
SAME IS RECORDED. NO BLANK LINE SHALL BE LEFT BETWEEN ENTRIES.
WHEN A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL PROTEST ANY DRAFT, BILL OF

EXCHANGE, OR PROMISSORY NOTE, HE SHALL MAKE A FULL AND TRUE
RECORD IN HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER OF ALL HIS PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION
THERETO, AND SHALL NOTE THEREIN WHETHER THE DEMAND OR THE SUM
OF MONEY THEREIN MENTIONED WAS MADE, OF WHOM, WHEN, AND
WHERE; WHETHER HE PRESENTED SUCH DRAFT, BILL, OR NOTE; WHETHER
NOTICES WERE GIVEN, TO WHOM, AND IN WHAT MANNER; WHERE THE
SAME WAS MADE, AND WHEN, AND TO WHOM, AND WHERE DIRECTED;
AND OF EVERY OTHER FACT TOUCHING THE SAME.
AT THE END OF EACH WEEK THE NOTARY SHALL CERTIFY IN HIS

REGISTER THE NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS EXECUTED, SWORN TO,
ACKNOWLEDGED, OR PROTESTED BEFORE HIM; OR IF NONE SUCH,
CERTIFICATE SHALL SHOW THIS FACT.
A CERTIFIED COPY OF EACH MONTH’S ENTRIES AS DESCRIBED IN THIS

SECTION AND A CERTIFIED COPY OF ANY INSTRUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE THEM SHALL WITHIN THE FIRST TEN DAYS OF THE MONTH NEXT
FOLLOWING BE FORWARDED BY THE NOTARIES PUBLIC TO THE CLERK OF
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE AND SHALL BE FILED
UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH OFFICER: PROVIDED, THAT IF THERE
IS NO ENTRY TO CERTIFY FOR THE MONTH, THE NOTARY SHALL FORWARD
A STATEMENT TO THIS EFFECT IN LIEU OF THE CERTIFIED COPIES HEREIN
REQUIRED.
SECTION 247. DISPOSITION OF NOTARIAL REGISTER. – IMMEDIATELY

UPON HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER BEING FILLED, AND ALSO WITHIN FIFTEEN
DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS COMMISSION, UNLESS REAPPOINTED,
THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL FORWARD HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER TO THE
CLERK OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE OR OF THE
CITY OF MANILA, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHEREIN HE EXERCISES HIS OFFICE,
WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME AND REPORT THEREON TO THE JUDGE OF
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE. IF THE JUDGE FINDS THAT NO
IRREGULARITY HAS BEEN COMMITTED IN THE KEEPING OF THE REGISTER,
HE SHALL FORWARD THE SAME TO THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF
ARCHIVES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, AND TRADEMARKS. IN CASE THE JUDGE
FINDS THAT IRREGULARITIES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THE KEEPING OF
THE REGISTER, HE SHALL REFER THE MATTER TO THE FISCAL OF THE
PROVINCE – AND IN THE CITY OF MANILA, TO THE FISCAL OF THE CITY –
FOR ACTION AND THE SENDING OF THE REGISTER TO THE CHIEF OF THE
DIVISION OF ARCHIVES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, AND TRADEMARKS SHALL
BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF THE CASE AGAINST THE NOTARY
PUBLIC.
ARTICLE VI
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF JUDGES OVER NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 248. SUPERVISION OF JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE OVER

NOTARIES PUBLIC. – THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN
EACH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SHALL AT ALL TIMES EXERCISE SUPERVISION OVER
THE NOTARIES PUBLIC WITHIN HIS DISTRICT AND SHALL KEEP HIMSELF
INFORMED OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES BY
PERSONAL INSPECTION WHEREVER POSSIBLE, OR FROM REPORTS WHICH HE
MAY REQUIRE FROM THEM, OR FROM ANY OTHER AVAILABLE SOURCE.
IN THE CITY OF MANILA SUCH SUPERVISION SHALL BE EXERCISED BY

ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE (NINTH)
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (CITY OF MANILA) TO BE THEREUNTO
ASSIGNED BY THE JUDGES OF THE NINE BRANCHES OF SAID COURT.
SECTION 249. GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF COMMISSION. – THE

FOLLOWING DERELICTIONS OF DUTY ON THE PART OF A NOTARY PUBLIC,
SHALL, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE PROPER JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE, BE
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE REVOCATION OF HIS COMMISSION:
(A) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO KEEP A NOTARIAL REGISTER.
(B) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO MAKE THE PROPER ENTRY OR

ENTRIES IN HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER TOUCHING HIS NOTARIAL
ACTS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW.
(C) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO SEND THE COPY OF THE ENTRIES
TO THE PROPER CLERK OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE WITHIN THE
FIRST TEN DAYS OF THE MONTH NEXT FOLLOWING.
(D) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO AFFIX TO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF HIS COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY
LAW.
(E) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO FORWARD HIS NOTARIAL

REGISTER, WHEN FILLED, TO THE PROPER CLERK OF COURT.
(F) THE FAILURE OF THE NOTARY TO MAKE THE PROPER NOTATION

REGARDING CEDULA CERTIFICATES.
(G) THE FAILURE OF A NOTARY TO MAKE REPORT; WITHIN A

REASONABLE TIME, TO THE PROPER JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY SUCH JUDGE.
(H) ANY OTHER DERELICTION OR ACT WHICH SHALL APPEAR TO THE

JUDGE TO CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE FOR REMOVAL.
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SECTION 250. AFFIXING DATE OF EXPIRATION OF COMMISSION. –

NOTARIES PUBLIC SHALL AFFIX TO ALL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TAKEN AND
CERTIFIED BY THEM, ACCORDING TO LAW, A STATEMENT OF THE DATE ON
WHICH THEIR COMMISSIONS EXPIRE.
SECTION 251. REQUIREMENT AS TO NOTATION OF PAYMENT OF (CEDULA)

RESIDENCE TAX. – EVERY CONTRACT, DEED, OR OTHER DOCUMENT
ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL HAVE CERTIFIED
THEREON THAT THE PARTIES THERETO HAVE PRESENTED THEIR PROPER
(CEDULA) RESIDENCE CERTIFICATES OR ARE EXEMPT FROM THE (CEDULA)
RESIDENCE TAX, AND THERE SHALL BE ENTERED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC AS
A PART OF SUCH CERTIFICATION THE NUMBER, PLACE OF ISSUE, AND DATE
OF EACH (CEDULA) RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE AS AFORESAID.
SECTION 252. COMPENSATION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. – NO FEE,

COMPENSATION, OR REWARD OF ANY SORT, EXCEPT SUCH AS IS EXPRESSLY
PRESCRIBED AND ALLOWED BY LAW, SHALL BE COLLECTED OR RECEIVED
FOR ANY SERVICE RENDERED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC. SUCH MONEYS
COLLECTED BY NOTARIES PUBLIC PROPER SHALL BELONG TO THEM
PERSONALLY. OFFICERS ACTING AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO SHALL
CHARGE FOR THEIR SERVICES THE FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND ACCOUNT
THEREFOR AS FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDS.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292, AS AMENDED

INSTITUTING THE “ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987”
SEC. 41. OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS. - THE
FOLLOWING OFFICERS HAVE GENERAL AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS:
PRESIDENT; VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS AND SECRETARIES OF BOTH
HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS; MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY; SECRETARIES OF
DEPARTMENTS; PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS AND LIEUTENANT-GOVERNORS;
CITY MAYORS; MUNICIPAL MAYORS; BUREAU DIRECTORS; REGIONAL
DIRECTORS; CLERK OF COURTS; REGISTRARS OF DEEDS; OTHER CIVILIAN
OFFICERS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT AND
ARE SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS;
ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS; PAO LAWYERS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY; AND NOTARIES PUBLIC.
SEC. 42. DUTY TO ADMINISTER OATHS. - OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO

ADMINISTER OATHS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC,
MUNICIPAL JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT, ARE NOT OBLIGED TO
ADMINISTER OATHS OR EXECUTE CERTIFICATES SAVE IN MATTERS OF
OFFICIAL BUSINESS OR IN RELATION TO THEIR FUNCTIONS AS SUCH; AND
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC, THE OFFICER PERFORMING THE
SERVICE IN THOSE MATTERS SHALL CHARGE NO FEE, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8553
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF
1991
ARTICLE VI
COMMUNITY TAX
SECTION 156. COMMUNITY TAX. - CITIES OR MUNICIPALITIES MAY LEVY A

COMMUNITY TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ARTICLE.
SECTION 157. INDIVIDUALS LIABLE TO COMMUNITY TAX. - EVERY

INHABITANT OF THE PHILIPPINES EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE OR OVER
WHO HAS BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED ON A WAGE OR SALARY BASIS FOR
AT LEAST THIRTY (30) CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS DURING ANY
CALENDAR YEAR, OR WHO IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION, OR
WHO OWNS REAL PROPERTY WITH AN AGGREGATE ASSESSED VALUE OF
ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) OR MORE, OR WHO IS REQUIRED BY LAW
TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL ADDITIONAL TAX
OF FIVE PESOS (P5.00) AND AN ANNUAL ADDITIONAL TAX OF ONE PESO
(P1.00) FOR EVERY ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) OF INCOME
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER FROM BUSINESS, EXERCISE OF PROFESSION OR
FROM PROPERTY WHICH IN NO CASE SHALL EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00).
IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE ADDITIONAL TAX HEREIN

IMPOSED SHALL BE BASED UPON THE TOTAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THEM
AND THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OR EARNINGS DERIVED BY THEM.
SECTION 158. JURIDICAL PERSONS LIABLE TO COMMUNITY TAX. - EVERY

CORPORATION NO MATTER HOW CREATED OR ORGANIZED, WHETHER
DOMESTIC OR RESIDENT FOREIGN, ENGAGED IN OR DOING BUSINESS IN THE
PHILIPPINES SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL COMMUNITY TAX OF FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (P500.00) AND AN ANNUAL ADDITIONAL TAX, WHICH, IN NO CASE,
SHALL EXCEED TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:
(1) FOR EVERY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) WORTH OF REAL

PROPERTY IN THE PHILIPPINES OWNED BY IT DURING THE
PRECEDING YEAR BASED ON THE VALUATION USED FOR THE
PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAX UNDER EXISTING LAWS, FOUND
IN THE ASSESSMENT ROLLS OF THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY WHERE
THE REAL PROPERTY IS SITUATED - TWO PESOS (P2.00); AND
(2) FOR EVERY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) OF GROSS RECEIPTS

OR EARNINGS DERIVED BY IT FROM ITS BUSINESS IN THE
PHILIPPINES DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR - TWO PESOS (P2.00).
THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY A CORPORATION FROM ANOTHER

CORPORATION HOWEVER SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX, BE
CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR EARNINGS OF SAID
CORPORATION.
SECTION 159. EXEMPTIONS. - THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPT FROM THE

COMMUNITY TAX:
(1) DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES; AND

(2) TRANSIENT VISITORS WHEN THEIR STAY IN THE PHILIPPINES DOES

NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MONTHS.
SECTION 160. PLACE OF PAYMENT. - THE COMMUNITY TAX SHALL BE PAID

IN THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, OR IN THE PLACE WHERE
THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE JURIDICAL ENTITY IS LOCATED.
SECTION 161. TIME FOR PAYMENT; PENALTIES FOR DELINQUENCY. -
(A) THE COMMUNITY TAX SHALL ACCRUE ON THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF
JANUARY OF EACH YEAR WHICH SHALL BE PAID NOT LATER THAN
THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY OF EACH YEAR. IF A PERSON REACHES
THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OR OTHERWISE LOSES THE
BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF JUNE, HE
SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY TAX ON THE DAY HE
REACHES SUCH AGE OR UPON THE DAY THE EXEMPTION ENDS.
HOWEVER, IF A PERSON REACHES THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN (18)
YEARS OR LOSES THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION ON OR BEFORE THE
LAST DAY OF MARCH, HE SHALL HAVE TWENTY (20) DAYS TO PAY
THE COMMUNITY TAX WITHOUT BECOMING DELINQUENT.
PERSONS WHO COME TO RESIDE IN THE PHILIPPINES OR REACH THE AGE OF

EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS ON OR AFTER THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF JULY OF ANY YEAR,
OR WHO CEASE TO BELONG TO AN EXEMPT CLASS OR AFTER THE SAME DATE,
SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY TAX FOR THAT YEAR.
(B) CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHED AND ORGANIZED ON OR BEFORE THE

LAST DAY OF JUNE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY TAX FOR
THAT YEAR. BUT CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHED AND ORGANIZED
ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF MARCH SHALL HAVE TWENTY (20)
DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO PAY THE COMMUNITY TAX WITHOUT
BECOMING DELINQUENT. CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHED AND
ORGANIZED ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF JULY SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY TAX FOR THAT YEAR.
IF THE TAX IS NOT PAID WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED ABOVE, THERE
SHALL BE ADDED TO THE UNPAID AMOUNT AN INTEREST OF TWENTY-FOUR
PERCENT (24%) PER ANNUM FROM THE DUE DATE UNTIL IT IS PAID.
SECTION 162. COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE. - A COMMUNITY TAX

CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED TO EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION UPON
PAYMENT OF THE COMMUNITY TAX. A COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE MAY
ALSO BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION NOT SUBJECT TO THE
COMMUNITY TAX UPON PAYMENT OF ONE PESO (P1.00).
SECTION 163. PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE ON

CERTAIN OCCASIONS. -
(A) WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY TAX

ACKNOWLEDGES ANY DOCUMENT BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC,
TAKES THE OATH OF OFFICE UPON ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT TO
ANY POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE; RECEIVES ANY
LICENSE, CERTIFICATE. OR PERMIT FROM ANY PUBLIC AUTHORITY;
PAYS ANY TAX OR FREE; RECEIVES ANY MONEY FROM ANY PUBLIC
FUND; TRANSACTS OTHER OFFICIAL BUSINESS; OR RECEIVES ANY
SALARY OR WAGE FROM ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION WITH
WHOM SUCH TRANSACTION IS MADE OR BUSINESS DONE OR FROM
WHOM ANY SALARY OR WAGE IS RECEIVED TO REQUIRE SUCH
INDIVIDUAL TO EXHIBIT THE COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE.
THE PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE SHALL NOT BE

REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGISTRATION OF A VOTER.
(B) WHEN, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICERS, ANY CORPORATION

SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY TAX RECEIVES ANY LICENSE,
CERTIFICATE, OR PERMIT FROM ANY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, PAYS ANY
TAX OR FEE, RECEIVES MONEY FROM PUBLIC FUNDS, OR TRANSACTS
OTHER OFFICIAL BUSINESS, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PUBLIC
OFFICIAL WITH WHOM SUCH TRANSACTION IS MADE OR BUSINESS
DONE, TO REQUIRE SUCH CORPORATION TO EXHIBIT THE
COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE.
(C) THE COMMUNITY TAX CERTIFICATE REQUIRED IN THE TWO

PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS SHALL BE THE ONE ISSUED FOR THE
CURRENT YEAR, EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY UNTIL
THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF APRIL EACH YEAR, IN WHICH CASE, THE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR SHALL SUFFICE.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1158

A DECREE TO CONSOLIDATE AND CODIFY ALL THE INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES
SEC. 201. EFFECT OF FAILURE OF STAMP TAXABLE DOCUMENT. — AN
INSTRUMENT, DOCUMENT, OR PAPER WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE
STAMPED AND WHICH HAS BEEN SIGNED, ISSUED, ACCEPTED, OR
TRANSFERRED WITHOUT BEING DULY STAMPED, SHALL NOT BE RECORDED,
NOR SHALL IT OR ANY COPY THEREOF OR ANY RECORD OF TRANSFER OF
THE SAME BE ADMITTED OR USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY COURT UNTIL THE
REQUISITE STAMPS SHALL HAVE BEEN AFFIXED THERETO AND CANCELLED.
NO NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO

ADMINISTER OATHS SHALL ADD HIS JURAT OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO ANY
DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX UNLESS THE PROPER
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS ARE AFFIXED THERETO AND CANCELLED.
A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
RESOLUTION
ACTING ON THE COMPLIANCE DATED 05 JULY 2004 AND ON THE

PROPOSED RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE OF 2004 SUBMITTED BY THE
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY, DRAFTING AND FORMULATION OF THE
RULES GOVERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES PUBLIC AND THE
PERFORMANCE AND EXERCISE OF THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS, OF THE
COMMITTEES ON REVISION OF THE RULES OF COURT AND ON LEGAL
EDUCATION AND BAR MATTERS, THE COURT RESOLVED TO APPROVE
THE PROPOSED RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE OF 2004, WITH
MODIFICATIONS, THUS:
A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
RULE I
IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION 1. TITLE. - THESE RULES SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE 2004 RULES

ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES. - THESE RULES SHALL BE APPLIED AND CONSTRUED TO

ADVANCE THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:
(A) TO PROMOTE, SERVE, AND PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST;
(B) TO SIMPLIFY, CLARIFY, AND MODERNIZE THE RULES GOVERNING

NOTARIES PUBLIC; AND
(C) TO FOSTER ETHICAL CONDUCT AMONG NOTARIES PUBLIC.
SEC. 3. INTERPRETATION. - UNLESS THE CONTEXT OF THESE RULES

OTHERWISE INDICATES, WORDS IN THE SINGULAR INCLUDE THE PLURAL,
AND WORDS IN THE PLURAL INCLUDE THE SINGULAR.
SAPPAYANI v. GASMEN
September 1, 2015 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Notary Public
PETITIONER: Fire Officer I Darwin S. Sappayani
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Renato G. Gasmen
SUMMARY: Sappayani, a fire officer, filed a complaint against Atty. Renato Gasmen for allegedly
notarizing a SPA purportedly signed by him authorizing NGC through one Romeo Maravillas and
an Application for Loan and Promissory Note with AMWSLAI. By virtue of the SPA and notarized
documents, AMWSLAI released to Maravilla a loan amounting to P157,301.43. Sappayani denied
executing the documents. He claims that his signature on the SPA was forged as he did not know
Maravillas and that it was physically impossible for him to personally appear before Atty. Gasmen
and execute the documents. Atty. Gasmen claimed that before the SPA and loan application were
notarized, the proceeds were already released to NGC by AMWSLAI, thus, dispensing with the
need for notarization. Moreover, he insisted that the notarization of said documents was merely
done on a ministerial basis, with proper safeguards, and that it cannot be expected of him to require
the personal appearance of every loan applicant considering the hundreds of loan applications
brought to him for signing. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IBP
Commissioner's Recommendation and found Atty. Gasmen guilty for violating the Notarial Rules,
ROC, Canon 1 and Canon 10. The issue in this case is Whether the IBP correctly found Atty.
Gasmen liable for violation of the Notarial Rules and the CPR and that he should be held
administratively liable for notarizing the spurious documents? The SC affirmed the decision of the
IBP, but modified the penalty. Atty. Gasmen did not deny notarizing the documents without the
presence of Sappayani and indirectly admitted doing the same with other similar documents and
affiants. The failure of Atty. Gasmen to observe the utmost care in the performance of his duties
caused not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document,⁠ but also undermined
the integrity of a notary public and tainted the function of notarization.⁠
DOCTRINE: In the discharge of his powers and duties, the notary public’s certification is one
impressed with public interest, accuracy and fidelity⁠ such that he owes it to the public to notarize
only when the person who signs the document is the same person who executed it and personally
appeared before him to attest to his knowledge of the contents stated therein. Thus, the Court has
repeatedly emphasized the necessity of an affiant’s personal appearance and makes the failure
to observe such rule punishable.
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO
October 10, 2017 | Velasco, Jr., J. | Jurats
PETITIONER: Leila De Lima
RESPONDENTS: Judge Juanita Guerrero, et. al.
SUMMARY: Congress conducted inquiry in aid of legislation. The same led to filing of
informations before the RTC of Muntinlupa. De Lima believed that the Ombudsman solely has
jurisdiction to investigate, she filed a Rule 65 petition before the CA, challenging the DOJ’s
jurisdiction. 3 informations were accordingly filed before RTC Muntinlupa, one was raffled before
sala of respondent judge. De Lima filed an MTQ raising lack of jurisdiction, duplicity, and that it
does not constitute an offense. Respondent Judge did not act upon the MTQ and instead issued
warrants of arrest. Hence the present petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65.
DOCTRINE: Falsification of jurats: Verification not proper; De Lima did not personally sign the
verification and certification before the notary public contrary to the attestation that the same is
subscribed and sworn before the notary public. Irregular notarization merely reduced the
probative value of the document to that one of a private instrument, however in Rule 65, pleading
must be verified; irregular verification would equate to being unsigned. No justification offered,
merits outright dismissal.
Compliance with hierarchy of courts: Does not fall within the exceptions laid down by case
law. The case is not of first impression, nor transcendentally important. The mere fact of De Lima
being a senator would not exonerate her from complying with the hierarchy of courts.
Petition is premature: Rule 65 requires that there be no appeal nor speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law; here there are adeqauate remedies, such as waiting for MTQ
resolution, proceeding to trial, MR on the adverse resolution, if ever.
Forum-shopping: There is forum shopping. The present case and the one below are
substantially the same. The prayers are generally the same, and that judgment in one would
preclude or render moot the other.
RTC has jurisdiction: RA 9165 is an exception to RA 10660 particularly when the former states
that RTC has the authority to exclusively hear and try cases falling under RA 9165; Information
sufficiently indicts De Lima the crime of illegal drug trading; co-conspirator need not know all the
incidents of the alleged crime.
No grave abuse of discretion: There is no positive duty by the judge to resolve an MTQ before
determining probable cause for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. The Rules provide no
such duty. Speedy issuance is not grave abuse. The Judge personally determined probable cause
since reliance in the prosecutor’s certification is sufficient as it is attached with other evidence on
record.
LUTESTICA v. BERNABE
24 August 2010 | Per Curiam | Duties of a Notary Public
PETITIONER: Luzviminda R. Lustestica
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe
SUMMARY: Atty. Bernabe’s notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years, for his failure to properly perform
his duties as notary public when he notarized a document in the absence of one of the affiants. This
is a second case for disbarment against Atty. Bernabe for notarizing a falsified or forged Deed of
Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors, Benvenuto H. Lustestica
(complainant’s father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of whom were already dead at
the time of execution of the said document. The issue is Whether respondent is guilty of violating
his oath as a notary public and as a lawyer. The Court held that the respondent should be made
liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public
Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
respondent was grossly negligent in discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain
the identities of the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most basic function that a
notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties presentation of their residence certificates or any
other document to prove their identities.
DOCTRINE: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with
substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
RULE II
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. - “ACKNOWLEDGMENT” REFERS TO AN

ACT IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL ON A SINGLE OCCASION:
(A) APPEARS IN PERSON BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND PRESENTS

AN INTEGRALLY COMPLETE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT;
(B) IS ATTESTED TO BE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC

OR IDENTIFIED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC THROUGH COMPETENT
EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE RULES; AND
(C) REPRESENTS TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE

INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY AFFIXED BY HIM
FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT,
DECLARES THAT HE HAS EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT AS HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED, AND, IF
HE ACTS IN A PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY, THAT HE
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN IN THAT CAPACITY.
SEC. 2. AFFIRMATION OR OATH. - THE TERM “AFFIRMATION” OR “OATH”

REFERS TO AN ACT IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL ON A SINGLE OCCASION:
(A) APPEARS IN PERSON BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC;
(B) IS PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR IDENTIFIED BY

THE NOTARY PUBLIC THROUGH COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF
IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE RULES; AND
(C) AVOWS UNDER PENALTY OF LAW TO THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE

CONTENTS OF THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT.
SEC. 3. COMMISSION. - “COMMISSION” REFERS TO THE GRANT OF

AUTHORITY TO PERFORM NOTARIAL ACTS AND TO THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE
OF THE AUTHORITY.
SEC. 4. COPY CERTIFICATION. - “COPY CERTIFICATION” REFERS TO A

NOTARIAL ACT IN WHICH A NOTARY PUBLIC:
(A) IS PRESENTED WITH AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT THAT IS

NEITHER A VITAL RECORD, A PUBLIC RECORD, NOR PUBLICLY
RECORDABLE;
(B) COPIES OR SUPERVISES THE COPYING OF THE INSTRUMENT OR

DOCUMENT;
(C) COMPARES THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT WITH THE COPY;
AND
(D) DETERMINES THAT THE COPY IS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE.
SEC. 5. NOTARIAL REGISTER. - “NOTARIAL REGISTER” REFERS TO A

PERMANENTLY BOUND BOOK WITH NUMBERED PAGES CONTAINING A
CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF NOTARIAL ACTS PERFORMED BY A NOTARY
PUBLIC.
SEC. 6. JURAT. - “JURAT” REFERS TO AN ACT IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL ON

A SINGLE OCCASION:

AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT;

IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE RULES;
SIGNS THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
NOTARY; AND
(C) TAKES AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC AS

TO SUCH INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT.
SEC. 7. NOTARIAL ACT AND NOTARIZATION. - “NOTARIAL ACT” AND

“NOTARIZATION” REFER TO ANY ACT THAT A NOTARY PUBLIC IS
EMPOWERED TO PERFORM UNDER THESE RULES.
SEC. 8. NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE. - “NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE” REFERS TO

THE PART OF, OR ATTACHMENT TO, A NOTARIZED INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT THAT IS COMPLETED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC, BEARS THE
NOTARY'S SIGNATURE AND SEAL, AND STATES THE FACTS ATTESTED TO BY
THE NOTARY PUBLIC IN A PARTICULAR NOTARIZATION AS PROVIDED FOR
BY THESE RULES.
SEC. 9. NOTARY PUBLIC AND NOTARY. - “NOTARY PUBLIC” AND

“NOTARY” REFER TO ANY PERSON COMMISSIONED TO PERFORM OFFICIAL
ACTS UNDER THESE RULES.
SEC. 10. PRINCIPAL. - “PRINCIPAL” REFERS TO A PERSON APPEARING

BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC WHOSE ACT IS THE SUBJECT OF
NOTARIZATION.
SEC. 11. REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS. - THE TERM “REGULAR

PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS” REFERS TO A STATIONARY OFFICE IN THE
CITY OR PROVINCE WHEREIN THE NOTARY PUBLIC RENDERS LEGAL AND
NOTARIAL SERVICES.
SEC. 12. COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY.- THE PHRASE "COMPETENT

EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY" REFERS TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL BASED ON:
(A) AT LEAST ONE CURRENT IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT ISSUED BY

AN OFFICIAL AGENCY, BEARING THE PHOTOGRAPH AND
SIGNATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PASSPORT, DRIVER'S LICENSE, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION ID, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CLEARANCE, POLICE CLEARANCE, POSTAL ID, VOTER'S ID,

BARANGAY CERTIFICATION, GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND
INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) E-CARD, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
(SSS) CARD, PHILHEALTH CARD, SENIOR CITIZEN CARD, OVERSEAS
WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
SEAMAN'S BOOK, ALIEN CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION/IMMIGRANT CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT OFFICE 10, CERTIFICATION FROM THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR THE WELFARE OF DISABLED PERSONS (NCWDP),
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT (DSWD)
CERTIFICATION, OR (AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC, FEB.
19, 2008).
(B) THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS NOT PRIVY

TO THE INSTRUMENT, DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION WHO IS
PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND WHO
PERSONALLY KNOWS THE INDIVIDUAL, OR OF TWO CREDIBLE
WITNESSES NEITHER OF WHOM IS PRIVY TO THE INSTRUMENT,
DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION WHO EACH PERSONALLY KNOWS
THE INDIVIDUAL AND SHOWS TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC
DOCUMENTARY IDENTIFICATION.
Q: What are competent pieces of evidence of identity?

A: The phrase “competent evidence of identity” refers to an identification of an individual based on:
(1) At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual; or,
(2) The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document,
or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally
knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the
instrument, document, or transaction who each personally knows the individual and
shows the notary public documentary identification.
Examples of competent evidence of identity include, but ae not limited to:
(1) passport,
(2) driver's license,
(3) Professional Regulation Commission ID,
(4) National Bureau of Investigation clearance,
(5) police clearance,
(6) postal ID,
(7) voter's ID,
(8) Barangay certification,
(9) Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card,
(10) Social Security System (SSS) card,
(11) Philhealth card,
(12) senior citizen card,
(13) Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID,
(14) OFW ID,
(15) seaman's book,
(16) alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration,
(17) government office ID,
(18) certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons (NCWDP),
(19) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification
Competent evidence of identity is needed only when the principal requesting that the notary
public perform the notarial act is not personally known to the notary public; if the notary public
personally knows the principal, the notary must say so in the notarized document, instead of
providing for the details of the principal’s competent evidence of identity.
IRINGAN v. GUMANGAN
16 August 2017 | Leonardo De-Castro, J. | Competent evidence of identity, Notarial Registry,
and effects on written instrument
PETITIONER: Carmelo Iringan
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Clayton B. Gumangan
SUMMARY: Sps. Renato and Cannen Iringan filed an illegal detainer and ejectment with damages
case against Carmelo Iringan before the MTCC of Tabuk, Kalinga. According to the facts culled
from the lower courts, Sps. Iringan owned a parcel of land in Tabuk, Kalinga. The certificate of title
of the subject land is named after Renato (Carmelo’s brother). Later on, Renato and Carmelo both
agreed to enter into a contract of lease which was notarized by Atty. Gumangan. During the
notarization process there is no allegation as to whether proof of identities by the parties were
asked and presented. As the contract of lease expired, Sps. Iringan demanded Carmelo to vacate
the premises but the demands remain unheeded. This prompted the Spouses To file the said civil
case before the courts. The MTCC rendered a decision in favor of the Sps. Iringan saying that the
contract of lease is validly executed and has already expired. The Court did not agree with
Carmelo’s allegations that the contract is spurious and he did not took his oath before Atty.
Gumangan. RTC affirmed the decision in toto. Carmelo then filed a disbarment case before the
Office of the Bar Confidant alleging that Atty. Gumangan failed to ascertain the identity of the
parties and he failed to comply with the requirements mandated by the Rules on Notarial practice.
The IBP commission and board of governors dismissed the disbarment complaint but
recommended that his notarial commission be revoked and be prohibited from being
commissioned for 2 years.
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and found Atty. Gumangan guilty for his
failure to comply with the following rules:
First, During the process of notarization of the contract of lease there was no proof that Atty.
Gumangan ascertained the identity of the parties (namely Renato and Carmelo). Although Renato
belatedly gave a CTC, such document is not a credible proof of identity as enunciated in previous
jurisprudence. Furthermore, Carmelo did not provide any proof of identity.
Second, Atty. Gumangan did not submit to the RTC Clerk of Court his Notarial Report and a
duplicate original of the Contract of Lease dated December 30, 2005 between Renato and Carmelo
In conclusion the court said that said infirmities in notarization do not affect the validity of
the instrument but would just merely render the document as a private instrument.
DOCTRINE: On the importance of the requirement of competent evidence of identity of the
parties, the rules explicitly prohibited the notary public who did not know the parties, from
notarizing an instrument or document.
The Rules provide that competent evidence on identity refers to the identification of an
individual based on the following:
(A) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual; or
(B) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is

privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the
individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification
(C) Lastly, as to the effects of notarial procedures, it would just render the document a
private instrument if the notary failed to comply with the rules
HEIRS OF ZAULDA v. ZAULDA
March 17, 2014 | Mendoza, J. | Relaxation of Procedural Rules/Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice
PETITIONER: HEIRS OF AMADA A. ZAULDA, namely: ELESEO A. ZAULDA and RODOLFO
A. ZAULDA
RESPONDENTS: ISAAC Z. ZAULDA
SUMMARY: This case stemmed from a disputed property (land) between the Heirs of Zaulda (
Eleseo and Rodolfo) against Isaac Zaulda. Both parties claim to be the actual possessor of the land.
The heirs based their argument that they got their property through a deed of extrajudicial
partition from the late Spouses Zaulda which they inherited and evidenced by tax declarations that
they have been in open and continuous possession of the land. While Isaac claims that he is the
predecessor in interest of Erene, allegedly the actual possessor of the land. That such land was
donated to the Municipality of Libacao, Aklan. The former tax declarations were cancelled. Hence,
they issued a new one in favor of the Municipality. Isaac through force and intimidation occupied
the land and built a nipa hut.
MCTC sided with the heirs and ordered Isaac to vacate the premises (Lot 1,3 and 6), but the
latter refused to do so. On appeal to the RTC, it partially reversed the decision of the MCTC that
Lot 1 and 3 should belong to Isaac.
Rodolfo passed away, so only Zaulda (lone surviving heir) filed for a petition for review
before the CA. CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time and for lack of competent
evidence on affiant’s identity on the attached verification and certification against forum shopping.
ISSUE: Whether CA erred in dismissing the case for allegedly being filed out of time and that
there was lack of competent evidence with regard to the identity of the affiant on the attached
verification and certification of non-forum shopping? YES. The Motion for Extension of Time to
File Petition for Review, which was filed through registered mail on August 24, 2010, was filed on
time. It was physically in the appellate court’s possession long before the CA issued its Resolution
on February 11, 2011, dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time. The record
shows that the CA received the motion for extension of time to file petition for review on
September 13, 2010; the CA Division received the motion on September 14, 2010; and the ponente’s
office received it on January 5, 2011.
Contrary to the perception of the CA, attachment of a photocopy of the identification card in
the document is not required by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Even A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC,
amending Section 12 thereof, is silent on it.
DOCTRINE: Where strong considerations of substantial justice were manifest in the petition, the
stringent application of technical rules could be relaxed in the exercise of equity jurisdiction. It
found that the circumstances obtaining in that case merited the liberal application of the rule absent
any intention to cause delay.
It has been consistently held that verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional,
requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that noncompliance therewith does
not render the pleading fatally defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the
allegations are true and correct and not a product of the imagination or a matter of speculation,
and that the pleading is filed in good faith.
HEIRS OF SARILI v. LAGROSA
January 15, 2014 | J. Perlas-Bernabe | Defective notarial acknowledgement of SPA
PETITIONERS: The Heirs of Victorino Sarili, namely: Isabel A. Sarili, Melencia S. Maximo, Alberto
A. Sarili, Imelda S. Hidalgo, all herein represented by Celso A. Sarili,
RESPONDENTS: Pedro F. Lagrosa, represented in this act by his Attorney-in-Fact, Lourdes Labios
Mojica
SUMMARY: On 2000, Lagrosa filed a complaint against Spouses Sarili and the Register of Deeds
of Caloocan when he discovered a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated 1978. Lagrosa, a resident
of California, claims to have been the owner of the parcel of land since 1974 and has been paying
the real estate taxes. Spouses Sarili maintained that they were innocent purchasers of value because
they bought the property from Ramon Rodriguez, who possessed a SPA (subject SPA), which was
supposedly authorized by Lagrosa and his wife. They also claim that they took no part in the 1987
Deed of Absolute Sale, and that the real Deed of Absolute Sale was the one executed in 1992 by
Ramon in favor of Spouses Sarili. The RTC ruled that Lagrosa’s signature in the subject SPA was
the exact replica of his signature in the 1992 Deed of Absolute Sale and thus binding. The CA
overturned the decision and stated the signatures of the two did not match and thus the sales were
void. The issue is Whether the SPA of Ramon was valid and thus properly conveyed the propery
of Lagrosa to Spouses Sarili. The Court ruled in the negative and affirmed the CA decision.. The
Court ruled that the strength of the buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell
depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a SPA duly
notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already constitutes sufficient
inquiry. If a SPA appears to have flaws in its notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the
document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document
and into the circumstances of its execution. The subject SPA, however, readily indicates flaws in
its notarial acknowledgment since Lagrosa’s community tax certificate (CTC) number was not
indicated thereon. Further, records show that the notary public, Atty. Ramon S. Untalan, failed to
justify why he did not require the presentation of respondent’s CTC or any other competent proof
of the identity of the person who appeared before him to acknowledge the subject SPA as
respondent’s free and voluntary act and deed. Despite this irregularity, however, Sps. Sarili failed
to show that they conducted an investigation beyond the subject SPA, and into the circumstances
of its execution. Hence, Sps. Sarili cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value.
According to the Civil Code, if the sale is made through an agent, the authority of the latter should
have been in writing. Since the SPA was not proven to be duly executed, the sale must be deemed
void.
DOCTRINE: If a Special Power of Attorney is provided as proof of the capacity of the seller’s agent
to sell the property on the owner’s behalf. Then mere inspection of the face of the public document
would constitute one to be an innocent purchaser for value. However, if there appears to be flaws
in the SPA’s notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer
must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its
execution.
IN RE: DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A, ETC. AGAINST
ATTY. ROBELITO B. DIUYAN
April 2, 2018 | Del Castillo, J. | Notarial Law
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan
SUMMARY: The OMB-Mindanao furnished the Court a copy of its September 26, 2012 Decision in
which the OMB finds it unsettling that the Deed of Partition submitted before the DAR was
notarized by Atty. Robellito B. Diuyan on 23 July 2003, when one of the signatories therein,
Alejandro F. Camilo, had earlier died on 23 August 2001. In a Resolution dated July 24, 2013, this
Court treated the September 26, 2012 Decision in OMB and the Deed of Partition as an
administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan and required the latter to
file a comment thereon. In a letter dated October 30, 2013, and by way of comment, respondent,
Diuyan, admitted notarizing the Deed of Partition in his capacity as District Public Attorney of the
Public Attorney's Office in Mati City and all of Davao Oriental. He claimed that the signature as
Notary Public in that Deed of Partition subject matter of the complaint was indeed his and that he
was still connected with the Public Attorney's Office as District Public Attorney at that time. In a
Report and Recommendation dated September 24, 2014, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(CBD) found respondent, Diuyan, guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While it
found no deceit or malice on the part of Diuyan, and even considered the fact that respondent was
a former public official with no previous record of misconduct, as well as the fact that the affiants
in the subject Deed of Partition were farmers who did not have any IDs and only had Community
Tax Certificates (CTCs) to present and prove their identities, the IBP-CBD nonetheless found him
grossly negligent in the performance of his functions. The issue in this case is W/N Diuyan should
be held administratively liable for notarizing a Deed of Partition on the basis of affiant’s CTCs
only? The SC said no. A lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation his duties as Notary-Public
when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition to the
same, as in the case at bench... respondent did not violate any of his duties as Notary Public when
he notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003. Thus, it was incorrect for the IBP to have applied
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in holding respondent liable for notarizing the Deed of
Partition. To reiterate, the Deed was notarized on July 23, 2003. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
were not yet in effect at that time.
DOCTRINE: A lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation of his duties as Notary Public when the
law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition, to the same, as in
the case at bench.
PENA v. PATERNO
June 10, 2013 | Per Curiam | Revocation of notarial commission
PETITIONER: Anita C. Pena
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Christina C. Paterno
SUMMARY: Pena gave her TCT to Atty. Paterno for the purpose of preparing the documents for
the loan which Pena would apply for from a bank. From time to time, Pena inquired about the
application of the loan but Atty. Pena said that she was still preparing the documents. However,
when Pena visited her property, she discovered that her apartment was already demolished and a
four residential houses were built instead. The property was sold to Kribuilt Trader Company and
Atty. Paterno was the Notary Public before the sale was acknowledged. Pena claims that her
signature was forged. Pena thus filed an administrative case Atty. Paterno. Atty. Paterno on the
other hand claims that it was Pena who negotiated the sale and the TCT was never entrusted to
her.
The issue is Whether the notarial commission of Atty. Paterno shall be revoked – YES. Atty.
Paterno’s failure to fulfill her duty as notary public to submit her notarial register for the month of
November 1986 and a copy of the said Deed of Sale that was notarized by her on the same month
is ground for the revocation of notarial commission.
DOCTRINE: A ground for revocation of a notary public's commission is failure of the notary to
send the copy of the entries to the proper clerk of the Court of First Instance (RTC) within the first
ten days of the month next following or the failure of the notary to forward his notarial register,
when filled, to the proper clerk of court.
SEC. 13. OFFICIAL SEAL OR SEAL. - “OFFICIAL SEAL” OR “SEAL” REFERS TO

A DEVICE FOR AFFIXING A MARK, IMAGE OR IMPRESSION ON ALL PAPERS
OFFICIALLY SIGNED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC CONFORMING THE REQUISITES
PRESCRIBED BY THESE RULES.
SEC. 14. SIGNATURE WITNESSING. - THE TERM “SIGNATURE WITNESSING”

REFERS TO A NOTARIAL ACT IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL ON A SINGLE
OCCASION:

AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT;
IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE RULES; AND
(C) SIGNS THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE

NOTARY PUBLIC.
SEC. 15. COURT. - “COURT” REFERS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

PHILIPPINES.
SEC. 16. PETITIONER. - “PETITIONER” REFERS TO A PERSON WHO APPLIES

FOR A NOTARIAL COMMISSION.
SEC. 17. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. - “OFFICE OF THE COURT

ADMINISTRATOR” REFERS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE SUPREME COURT.
SEC. 18. EXECUTIVE JUDGE. - “EXECUTIVE JUDGE” REFERS TO THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF A CITY OR
PROVINCE WHO ISSUES A NOTARIAL COMMISSION.
SEC. 19. VENDOR. - “VENDOR” UNDER THESE RULES REFERS TO A SELLER

OF A NOTARIAL SEAL AND SHALL INCLUDE A WHOLESALER OR RETAILER.
SEC. 20. MANUFACTURER. - “MANUFACTURER” UNDER THESE RULES

REFERS TO ONE WHO PRODUCES A NOTARIAL SEAL AND SHALL INCLUDE
AN ENGRAVER AND SEAL MAKER.
RULE III
COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. QUALIFICATIONS. - A NOTARIAL COMMISSION MAY BE ISSUED

BY AN EXECUTIVE JUDGE TO ANY QUALIFIED PERSON WHO SUBMITS A
PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RULES.
TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR COMMISSIONING AS NOTARY PUBLIC, THE

PETITIONER:
(1) MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES;
(2) MUST BE OVER TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS OF AGE;
(3) MUST BE A RESIDENT IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE (1)

YEAR AND MAINTAINS A REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS IN
THE CITY OR PROVINCE WHERE THE COMMISSION IS TO BE ISSUED;
(4) MUST BE A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR IN GOOD STANDING

WITH CLEARANCES FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT OF
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES; AND
(5) MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE OF ANY
CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.
SEC. 2. FORM OF THE PETITION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. - EVERY

PETITION FOR A NOTARIAL COMMISSION SHALL BE IN WRITING, VERIFIED,
AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
(A) A STATEMENT CONTAINING THE PETITIONER'S PERSONAL

QUALIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE PETITIONER'S DATE OF BIRTH,
RESIDENCE, TELEPHONE NUMBER, PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT,
ROLL OF ATTORNEY'S NUMBER AND IBP MEMBERSHIP NUMBER;
(B) CERTIFICATION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER OF THE PETITIONER

BY AT LEAST TWO (2) EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE LOCAL CHAPTER
OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES WHERE HE IS
APPLYING FOR COMMISSION;
(C) PROOF OF PAYMENT FOR THE FILING OF THE PETITION AS REQUIRED

BY THESE RULES; AND
(D) THREE (3) PASSPORT-SIZE COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS WITH LIGHT

BACKGROUND TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE
APPLICATION. THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOULD NOT BE RETOUCHED.
THE PETITIONER SHALL SIGN HIS NAME AT THE BOTTOM PART OF
THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION FEE. - EVERY PETITIONER FOR A NOTARIAL

COMMISSION SHALL PAY THE APPLICATION FEE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE
RULES OF COURT.
SEC. 4. SUMMARY HEARING ON THE PETITION. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE

SHALL CONDUCT A SUMMARY HEARING ON THE PETITION AND SHALL
GRANT THE SAME IF:
(A) THE PETITION IS SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE;
(B) THE PETITIONER PROVES THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE

PETITION; AND
(C) THE PETITIONER ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE THAT HE HAS READ AND FULLY UNDERSTOOD
THESE RULES.
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL FORTHWITH ISSUE A COMMISSION

AND A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL
IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.
SEC. 5. NOTICE OF SUMMARY HEARING. -
(A) THE NOTICE OF SUMMARY HEARING SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A

NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY OR PROVINCE
WHERE THE HEARING SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND POSTED IN A
CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE OFFICES OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
AND OF THE CLERK OF COURT. THE COST OF THE PUBLICATION
SHALL BE BORNE BY THE PETITIONER. THE NOTICE MAY INCLUDE
MORE THAN ONE PETITIONER.
(B) THE NOTICE SHALL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING FORM:
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SUMMARY HEARING ON THE PETITION

FOR NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF (NAME OF PETITIONER) SHALL BE HELD ON
(DATE) AT (PLACE) AT (TIME). ANY PERSON WHO HAS ANY CAUSE OR
REASON TO OBJECT TO THE GRANT OF THE PETITION MAY FILE A VERIFIED
WRITTEN OPPOSITION THERETO, RECEIVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED BEFORE
THE DATE OF THE SUMMARY HEARING.
_____________________
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
SEC. 6. OPPOSITION TO PETITION. - ANY PERSON WHO HAS ANY CAUSE OR

REASON TO OBJECT TO THE GRANT OF THE PETITION MAY FILE A VERIFIED
WRITTEN OPPOSITION THERETO. THE OPPOSITION MUST BE RECEIVED BY
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SUMMARY HEARING.
SEC. 7. FORM OF NOTARIAL COMMISSION. - THE COMMISSIONING OF A

NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE IN A FORMAL ORDER SIGNED BY THE EXECUTIVE
JUDGE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING FORM:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT (NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC) OF (REGULAR PLACE

OF WORK OR BUSINESS) IN (CITY OR PROVINCE) WAS ON THIS (DATE) DAY
OF (MONTH) TWO THOUSAND AND (YEAR) COMMISSIONED BY THE
UNDERSIGNED AS A NOTARY PUBLIC, WITHIN AND FOR THE SAID
JURISDICTION, FOR A TERM ENDING THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
(YEAR)
________________________
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
SEC. 8. PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO

PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL. - THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO
PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3)
MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE, UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE EXECUTIVE
JUDGE.
A MARK, IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF THE SEAL THAT MAY BE

PURCHASED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC PURSUANT TO THE CERTIFICATE
SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO
USE.
SEC. 9. FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A

NOTARIAL SEAL. - THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A
NOTARIAL SEAL SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY BE IN THE FOLLOWING FORM:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL
THIS IS TO AUTHORIZE (NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC) OF (CITY OR PROVINCE)

WHO WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS A NOTARY PUBLIC,
WITHIN AND FOR THE SAID JURISDICTION, FOR A TERM ENDING, THE
THIRTY-FIRST OF DECEMBER (YEAR) TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL.
ISSUED THIS (DAY) OF (MONTH) (YEAR).

________________________
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
SEC. 10. OFFICIAL SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC. - EVERY PERSON

COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL HAVE ONLY ONE OFFICIAL SEAL
OF OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RULES.
SEC. 11. JURISDICTION AND TERM. - A PERSON COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY

PUBLIC MAY PERFORM NOTARIAL ACTS IN ANY PLACE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONING COURT FOR A PERIOD
OF TWO (2) YEARS COMMENCING THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY OF THE YEAR
IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONING IS MADE, UNLESS EARLIER REVOKED OR
THE NOTARY PUBLIC HAS RESIGNED UNDER THESE RULES AND THE RULES
OF COURT.
SEC. 12. REGISTER OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL

KEEP AND MAINTAIN A REGISTER OF NOTARIES PUBLIC IN HIS
JURISDICTION WHICH SHALL CONTAIN, AMONG OTHERS, THE DATES OF
ISSUANCE OR REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF NOTARIAL COMMISSIONS,
AND THE RESIGNATION OR DEATH OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. THE EXECUTIVE
JUDGE SHALL FURNISH THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
INFORMATION AND DATA RECORDED IN THE REGISTER OF NOTARIES
PUBLIC. THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR SHALL KEEP A
PERMANENT, COMPLETE AND UPDATED DATABASE OF SUCH RECORDS.
SEC. 13. RENEWAL OF COMMISSION. - A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY FILE A

WRITTEN APPLICATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE FOR THE RENEWAL OF
HIS COMMISSION WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
THEREOF. A MARK, IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF THE SEAL OF THE NOTARY
PUBLIC SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION.
FAILURE TO FILE SAID APPLICATION WILL RESULT IN THE DELETION

OF THE NAME OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE REGISTER OF NOTARIES
PUBLIC.
THE NOTARY PUBLIC THUS REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF

NOTARIES PUBLIC MAY ONLY BE REINSTATED THEREIN AFTER HE IS ISSUED
A NEW COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RULES.
SEC. 14. ACTION ON APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF COMMISSION. - THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL, UPON PAYMENT OF THE APPLICATION FEE
MENTIONED IN SECTION 3 ABOVE OF THIS RULE, ACT ON AN APPLICATION
FOR THE RENEWAL OF A COMMISSION WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM
RECEIPT THEREOF. IF THE APPLICATION IS DENIED, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
SHALL STATE THE REASONS THEREFOR.
SUPREME COURT MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 75-04 DATED 25 NOVEMBER

2004
RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE (A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC)
THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT HAS BEEN CALLED TO SOME
PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 RULES ON
NOTARIAL PRACTICE, AMONG WHICH ARE THE PROVISIONS WHICH
CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH OR CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED AS YET SUCH
AS THE USE OF NEW DRY SEALS AND SEAL IMAGE. THESE PROBLEMS HAVE
BEEN DEALT WITH IN A RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 24, 2004 1 ISSUED BY
THE COURT EN BANC, WHICH IS QUOTED HEREUNDER:
"A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC. RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE. — THE
COURT RESOLVED TO DECLARE THAT
(A) NOTARIES PUBLIC WHO HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED PRIOR TO 1

AUGUST 2004 CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR WORK UNTIL THE
EXPIRATION OF THEIR COMMISSION;
(B) INCUMBENT NOTARIES PUBLIC SHOULD FOLLOW THE NEW RULES

THAT CAN BE COMPLIED WITH; AND
(C) A CONTRARIO, INCUMBENT NOTARIES PUBLIC NEED NOT COMPLY

WITH THE RULES THAT CANNOT YET BE ENFORCED SUCH AS THE
USE OF NEW DRY SEALS AND SEAL IMAGE AND NEW FORMS OF
NOTARIAL REGISTERS.
THE COURT FURTHER RESOLVED TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF THE

COURT ADMINISTRATOR TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE ALL STEPS TO FACILITATE
THE EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARY PRACTICE
IN COORDINATION WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
THE COURT MOREOVER RESOLVED TO NOTE THE (A) LETTER DATED

16 AUGUST 2004 OF ATTYS. EUSEBIO V. TAN AND ROMULO A. ESPALDON,
JR. OF ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA& CRUZ LAW OFFICES AND
(B) LETTER DATED 17 AUGUST 2004 OF ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,
PRESIDENT, IBP, SULTAN KUDARAT CHAPTER, POBLACION, ISULAN,
SULTAN KUDARAT, BOTH REQUESTING ADVISE AND/OR CLARIFICATION
RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE."
IT APPEARS THAT THE ABOVE EN BANC RESOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN

FULLY DISSEMINATED, HENCE, THE CONTINUING CLARIFICATORY LETTERS
FROM AFFECTED PARTIES. THE COURT THUS FINDS THE NECESSITY TO
MORE FULLY CIRCULARIZE AND PUBLICIZE THE SAID EN BANC
RESOLUTION. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR IS
INSTRUCTED TO CIRCULARIZE THE SAID RESOLUTION TO ALL JUDGES,
ESPECIALLY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGES; THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES TO DO THE SAME TO ALL LAWYERS; AND THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICE TO MAKE PARALLEL EFFORTS TO DISSEMINATE THE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC.
SUBMISSION OF COMPLIANCE HEREWITH SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO

THE COURT, THROUGH THE CLERK OF COURT, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM NOTICE.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 27-2007

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT
YOU ARE HEREBY REMINDED OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC

DATED JULY 6, 2004 IN A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
"2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE" WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON
AUGUST 1, 2004. SECTION 1 OF RULE IX THEREOF PROVIDES THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY EVIDENCING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
OFFICIAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE ISSUED BY
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE UPON REQUEST IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE

FOLLOWING FORM:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT
I, (NAME, TITLE, JURISDICTION OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE), CERTIFY THAT

(NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC), THE PERSON NAMED IN THE SEAL AND
SIGNATURE ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT, IS A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND
FOR THE (CITY/MUNICIPALITY/PROVINCE) OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS SUCH AT THE TIME OF THE
DOCUMENT'S NOTARIZATION.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE AFFIXED BELOW MY SIGNATURE AND

SEAL OF THIS OFFICE THIS (DATE) DAY OF (MONTH) (YEAR)
____________________
(OFFICIAL SIGNATURE)
(SEAL OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE)
YOU ARE THEREFORE ENJOINED TO STRICTLY OBSERVE THE ABOVE

RULE. THE PRACTICE OF CLERKS OF COURT SIGNING THE ABOVE
MENTIONED CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY UNTIL
FURTHER ORDERS FROM THIS COURT.
BAR MATTER NO. 2493

EN BANC
NOTICE
SIRS/MESDAMES :
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE COURT EN BANC ISSUED A

RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 24, 2012, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
"B.M. NO. 2493 (IN RE: LETTER OF JUDGE RAMON B. BARONA, RTC,
BRANCH 13, BASCO, BATANES, INQUIRING ABOUT THE RE-APPOINTMENT
OF TWO [2] NON-LAWYERS AS NOTARY PUBLIC). — THE COURT
RESOLVED, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, TO:
(A) GRANT JUDGE RAMON B. BARONA, RTC, BRANCH 13, BASCO,

BATANES, THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMISSIONS TO NON-MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR AS AN
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
AS PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH IN A.M. NO. 05-8-491-RTC, TO WIT:
(i) ONLY PARAGRAPH (4), SECTION 1, RULE III OF THE

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE SHALL BE
WAIVED; AND
(ii) THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE

COMPLIED WITH, TO WIT:
(1) THE APPLICANT MUST AT LEAST BE A

HOLDER OF A BACHELOR OF LAWS DEGREE
AND MUST PRESENT A CERTIFICATION OF
COMPLETION FROM THE SCHOOL WHERE
HE GRADUATED FROM; AND
(2) THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
ISSUED BY AT LEAST TWO (2) LOCAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS TO SHOW THAT THE
APPLICANT POSSESSES THE REQUISITE
QUALIFICATIONS OF FITNESS AND
MORALITY; AND
(B) REQUIRE JUDGE BARONA TO SUBMIT, WITHIN FIFTEEN (15)

DAYS FROM NOTICE HEREOF, (I) THE NAMES OF THE NON-LAWYERS
TO BE COMMISSIONED AS NOTARIES PUBLIC AND (II) PROOF OF
THEIR QUALIFICATION AS NOTARIES PUBLIC." (ADV143)
Q: What are the qualifications to be a Notary Public in the Philippines?

A: To be eligible for commissioning as a Notary Public, the Petitioner (C22RRBM):
(1) Must be a CITIZEN of the Philippines;
(2) Must be OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE;
(3) Must be a RESIDENT IN THE PHILIPPINES for at least 1 year;
(4) Must maintain a REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS in the CITY OR
PROVINCE where the commissioning is to be issued;
(5) Must be a member of the PHILIPPINE BAR in good standing with clearances for the
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT of the Supreme Court and the INTEGRATED
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES; and,
(6) Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving MORAL
TURPITUDE
Q: Are Notarial Commissions issued to non-members of the bar PRIOR to the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice deemed REVOKED with the effectivity of said Rules?
A: No. Said notarial commissions are valid until their effectivity date, counted from the issuance
thereof or its last renewal. Thereafter, they must comply with all the requirements set forth.
Q: May non-members of the bar be appointed as Notaries Public?

A: GENERAL RULE — Yes. EXCEPTION —
The Executive Judge presiding over RTC Br. 13, Basco, Batanes has been authorized by the Supreme
Court to issue Notarial Commissions to non-lawyers subject to the following:
(1) They must still comply with the requirements set forth in Rule III, Section 1 of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, EXCEPT paragraph (4), Section 1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice; and
(2) The following additional requirements are complied with, to wit:
(a) The applicant must at least be a holder of a Bachelor of Laws degree and must
present a certification of completion from the school where he graduated
from; and
(b) The applicant must submit a certificate of good moral character issued by at
least two (2) local executive officials to show that the applicant possesses the
requisite qualifications of fitness and morality
Q: What are the steps to be commissioned as a Notary Public?

A: The following are the steps to be commissioned as a Notary Public:

(1) The petitioner shall file a WRITTEN AND VERIFIED PETITION FOR NOTARIAL
COMMISSIONING with the Executive Judge of the RTC of the city or province where
the commissioning is to be issued, which shall include the following:
(a) A statement containing the petitioner’s personal qualifications, including:
(i) Date of Birth
(ii) Residence
(iii) Contact Number
(iv) Professional Tax Receipt
(v) Roll of Attorney’s Number
(vi) IBP Membership Number
(b) Certification of Good Moral Character of the Petitioner by at least TWO
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS of the local chapter of the IBP where he is applying
for commission
(c) Proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by the Rules
(d) Three passport-size colorized PHOTOGRAPHS with light background taken
WITHIN 30 DAYS of the application. It should not be retouched. The
petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY
IN RE: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT AS NOTARY PUBLIC
Case No. ________
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Petitioner.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT AS NOTARY PUBLIC
Petitioner Juan Dela Cruz respectfully states:
1. I am of legal age, a citizen of the Philippines, and with office address at [insert].
2. I am a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations given in
2009 and having been admitted to the practice of law in 2010. A photocopy of my Certification of
Membership in the Philippine Bar is attached as Annex A.
3. I have paid my professional tax for year 2018 as evidenced by Professional Tax
Receipt (“PTR”) No. 12345 issued by the City of Makati on 12 January 1028. A photocopy of PTR
No. 12345 is attached as Annex B.
4. I am a member in good standing of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”),

Makati Chapter, and have paid my current IBP dues as evidenced by IBP Official Receipt No. 12345
issued in Pasig City on 10 January 2018. A photocopy of IBO Receipt No. 12345 is attached as
Annex C.
5. I possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for the office of
Notary Public. A photocopy of my IBP Certification of Good Standing is attached as Annex D.
6. I have not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. A photocopy of
my Certification of Good Standing as a lawyer issued by the Office of the Bar Confidant of the
Supreme Court is attached as Annex E.
7. I hereby attach as Annex F a separate sheet containing three (3) passport-size,

colored photographs of myself taken within thirty (30) days from the date of this petition.
8. I also attach as Annex G a separate sheet of paper containing three (3) specimens of
my official signature.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court ISSUE and order
APPOINTING Petitioner Juan Dela Cruz as Notary Public for and in Makati City, Philippines for
the years 2018 to 2019, with commission to expire on 31 December 2019.
Respectfully submitted.
Makati City, March __, 2018.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Petitioner
[insert required details for pleadings]
[INSTERT VERIFICATION]
(2) The Executive Judge shall SCHEDULE the petition for summary hearing.
(3) The Executive Judge shall cause a NOTICE OF SUMMARY HEARING to be
PUBLISHED in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the
hearing shall be conducted and POSTED in a conspicuous place in the office of the
Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court.
(4) Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file
a VERIFIED WRITTEN OPPOSITION thereto before the date of the summary hearing.
(5) The Executive Judge shall conduct a SUMMARY HEARING on the petition and shall
grant the same if:
(a) The petition is SUFFICIENT IN FORM and SUBSTANCE;
(b) The petitioner PROVES the allegations contained in the petition; and,
(c) The petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Judge that he
has READ and FULLY UNDERSTOOD the Notarial Rules.
(6) The Executive Judge shall issue a COMMISSION and a CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NOTARIAL SEAL in favor of the Petitioner
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 110-2014

TO: THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURTS, THE OFFICE
OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT: BAR MATTER NO. 2604 (RE: CLARIFICATION RELATIVE

TO SECTIONS 2 AND 13, RULE III OF THE 2004 RULES ON
NOTARIAL PRACTICE)
IN THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED DECEMBER 11,

2012 IN THE ABOVE-CITED ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, THE COURT
RESOLVED THE CLARIFICATION SOUGHT BY ATTY. NOREEN GRACE SALISE-
GONZAGA RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL OF NOTARIAL
COMMISSION, THE FULL CONTEXT OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW, TO
WIT:
IN A LETTER DATED 4 SEPTEMBER 2012, ATTY. NOREEN GRACE SALISE-

GONZAGA SEEKS A CLARIFICATION ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWAL
OF NOTARIAL COMMISSION, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 13 OF RULE III OF THE
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE. SHE AVERS THAT THE CLERK OF
COURT IN HER JUDICIAL REGION “REQUIRES US TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE III, SECTION 2 ALL OVER AGAIN, PLUS THE
REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 13.”
WHEREFORE, FOR RENEWAL OF NOTARIAL COMMISSION,

SPECIFICALLY UNDER SECTION 13, RULE III OF THE 2004 RULES ON
NOTARIAL PRACTICE, ASIDE FROM PAYMENT OF THE APPLICATION FEE, A
NOTARY PUBLIC NEEDS ONLY TO FILE A WRITTEN APPLICATION WITH THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE WITHIN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION, ATTACHING THERETO CLEARANCES FROM
THE FOLLOWING:
(1) EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT WHO WILL

ISSUE THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION;
(2) OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT;
(3) LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

WHERE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING NOTARIAL COMMISSION; AND
(4) NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)
ANY PRIOR CIRCULAR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COURT

ADMINISTRATOR ON THIS MATTER WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE
FOREGOING IS HEREBY SUPERSEDED.
Q: What are the requirements for renewal of the Notarial Commission?

A: The Notary Public need not comply with the requirements set forth in Rule III, Section 2 of the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and need only comply with the following:
(1) Payment of the application fee,
(2) A written application filed with the Executive Judge within forty-five (45) days before
the expiration of the notarial commission, attaching thereto clearances from the
following:
(a) Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court who will issue the notarial
commission;
(b) Office of the Bar Confidant;
(c) Local Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where the applicant is
seeking notarial commission; and
(d) National Bureau of Investigation. (Emphasis supplied)
LINGAN v. CALUBAQUIB
June 30, 2014 | Leonen, J. | Notarial Law
PETITIONER: Victor Lingan
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga
SUMMARY: The Court found guilty and suspended Respondents Atty. Calubaquib and Atty.
Baliga for allowing their secretaries to notarize in their stead, violating Sections 245 and 246 of the
Notarial Law. After this, the CHR issued a resolution likewise suspending Atty. Baliga from his
position as Regional Director/Atty. VI. Complainant Lingan then alleged that Atty. Baliga
continued practicing law despite his suspension, as he was discharging his functions as the
Commission of Human Rights Regional Director. Atty. Baliga filed a motion with the CHR which
reconsidered his suspension and instead admonished him for violating the conditions of his
commission as a notary public.
Atty. Baliga believes that his suspension from the practice of law did not include his
suspension from public office and that as a CHR RD, he performed generally managerial functions.
CHR argued that the penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate and
distinct from any penalty that may be imposed upon him as a public official for the same acts.
Complainant Lingan on the other hand argued that performing the functions of a “lawyer-
manager” under Cayetano v. Monsod constituted the practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift order of suspension to be granted – NO, the
Court finds that Atty. Baliga violated the Court’s order of suspension, hence the Court suspends
him further from the practice of law for six months.
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law.
The powers and functions of the CHR RD are characteristics of the legal profession. Example: Oaths
and affirmations are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public - officers
who are necessarily members of the bar. The exercise of the powers and functions of a CHR RD
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the CHR RD must be an attorney – a member of the bar in good
standing and authorized to practice law.
DOCTRINE: When the CHR RD loses his authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the
position he or she is holding.
RULE IV
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 1. POWERS. - (A) A NOTARY PUBLIC IS EMPOWERED TO PERFORM

THE FOLLOWING NOTARIAL ACTS:
(1) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS;
(2) OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS;
(3) JURATS;
(4) SIGNATURE WITNESSINGS;
(5) COPY CERTIFICATIONS; AND
(6) ANY OTHER ACT AUTHORIZED BY THESE RULES.
(B) A NOTARY PUBLIC IS AUTHORIZED TO CERTIFY THE AFFIXING OF A

SIGNATURE BY THUMB OR OTHER MARK ON AN INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT PRESENTED FOR NOTARIZATION IF:
(1) THE THUMB OR OTHER MARK IS AFFIXED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE

NOTARY PUBLIC AND OF TWO (2) DISINTERESTED AND
UNAFFECTED WITNESSES TO THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT;
(2) BOTH WITNESSES SIGN THEIR OWN NAMES IN ADDITION TO THE

THUMB OR OTHER MARK;
(3) THE NOTARY PUBLIC WRITES BELOW THE THUMB OR OTHER MARK:
"THUMB OR OTHER MARK AFFIXED BY (NAME OF SIGNATORY BY
MARK) IN THE PRESENCE OF (NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
WITNESSES) AND UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC"; AND
(4) THE NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARIZES THE SIGNATURE BY THUMB OR

OTHER MARK THROUGH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT, JURAT, OR
SIGNATURE WITNESSING.
(C) A NOTARY PUBLIC IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF A PERSON

WHO IS PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO SIGN OR MAKE A MARK ON AN
INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT IF:
(1) THE NOTARY PUBLIC IS DIRECTED BY THE PERSON UNABLE TO SIGN

OR MAKE A MARK TO SIGN ON HIS BEHALF;
(2) THE SIGNATURE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC IS AFFIXED IN THE

PRESENCE OF TWO DISINTERESTED AND UNAFFECTED WITNESSES
TO THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT;
(3) BOTH WITNESSES SIGN THEIR OWN NAMES ;
(4) THE NOTARY PUBLIC WRITES BELOW HIS SIGNATURE: “SIGNATURE

AFFIXED BY NOTARY IN PRESENCE OF (NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
PERSON AND TWO [2] WITNESSES)”; AND
(5) THE NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARIZES HIS SIGNATURE BY

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR JURAT.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS. - (A) A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL NOT PERFORM A

NOTARIAL ACT OUTSIDE HIS REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ON CERTAIN EXCEPTIONAL OCCASIONS OR
SITUATIONS, A NOTARIAL ACT MAY BE PERFORMED AT THE REQUEST OF
THE PARTIES IN THE FOLLOWING SITES LOCATED WITHIN HIS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION:
(1) PUBLIC OFFICES, CONVENTION HALLS, AND SIMILAR PLACES

WHERE OATHS OF OFFICE MAY BE ADMINISTERED;
(2) PUBLIC FUNCTION AREAS IN HOTELS AND SIMILAR PLACES FOR THE
SIGNING OF INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS REQUIRING
NOTARIZATION;
(3) HOSPITALS AND OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS WHERE A PARTY

TO AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT IS CONFINED FOR TREATMENT;
AND
(4) ANY PLACE WHERE A PARTY TO AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT

REQUIRING NOTARIZATION IS UNDER DETENTION.
(B) A PERSON SHALL NOT PERFORM A NOTARIAL ACT IF THE PERSON
INVOLVED AS SIGNATORY TO THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT -
(1) IS NOT IN THE NOTARY'S PRESENCE PERSONALLY AT THE TIME OF

THE NOTARIZATION; AND
(2) IS NOT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR

OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC THROUGH
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE RULES.
SEC. 3. DISQUALIFICATIONS. - A NOTARY PUBLIC IS DISQUALIFIED FROM

PERFORMING A NOTARIAL ACT IF HE:
(A) IS A PARTY TO THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT THAT IS TO BE

NOTARIZED;
(B) WILL RECEIVE, AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT, ANY

COMMISSION, FEE, ADVANTAGE, RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST, CASH,
PROPERTY, OR OTHER CONSIDERATION, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY
THESE RULES AND BY LAW; OR
(C) IS A SPOUSE, COMMON-LAW PARTNER, ANCESTOR, DESCENDANT,

OR RELATIVE BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY OF THE PRINCIPAL
WITHIN THE FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE.
SEC. 4. REFUSAL TO NOTARIZE. - A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL NOT PERFORM

ANY NOTARIAL ACT DESCRIBED IN THESE RULES FOR ANY PERSON
REQUESTING SUCH AN ACT EVEN IF HE TENDERS THE APPROPRIATE FEE
SPECIFIED BY THESE RULES IF:
(A) THE NOTARY KNOWS OR HAS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE
NOTARIAL ACT OR TRANSACTION IS UNLAWFUL OR IMMORAL;
(B) THE SIGNATORY SHOWS A DEMEANOR WHICH ENGENDERS IN THE

MIND OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE
FORMER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
TRANSACTION REQUIRING A NOTARIAL ACT; AND
(C) IN THE NOTARY'S JUDGMENT, THE SIGNATORY IS NOT ACTING OF

HIS OR HER OWN FREE WILL.
SEC. 5. FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATE. - A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL

NOT:
(A) EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE CONTAINING INFORMATION KNOWN OR

BELIEVED BY THE NOTARY TO BE FALSE.
(B) AFFIX AN OFFICIAL SIGNATURE OR SEAL ON A NOTARIAL

CERTIFICATE THAT IS INCOMPLETE.
SEC. 6. IMPROPER INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS. - A NOTARY PUBLIC

SHALL NOT NOTARIZE:
(A) A BLANK OR INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT; OR
(B) AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE

NOTARIAL CERTIFICATION.
Q: What are the rules regarding a Notary Public’s regular place of work or business?
A: GENERAL RULE: It must be STATIONARY and WITHIN the city or province where in the
Notary Public renders legal and Notarial Services.
EXCEPTIONS: A Notarial Act may be performed AT THE REQUEST of the parties in the following
sites located WITHIN HIS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:
(1) Public Offices, Convention Halls, and similar places WHERE OATHS OF OFFICE
MAY BE ADMINISTERED;
(2) Public Function Areas in Hotels and similar places for the SIGNING OF
INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS REQUIRING NOTARIZATION;
(3) Hospitals and other medical institutions where a PARTY TO AN INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT IS CONFINED FOR TREATMENT;
(4) Any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is
UNDER DETENTION.
ALMAZAN SR. v. SUERTE-FELIPE

September 17, 2014| Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Notarizing outside territorial jurisdiction;
Administrative Code Sec. 240
PETITIONER: Felipe B Almazan Sr.
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe
SUMMARY: Atty. Suerte Felipe notarized the acknowledgement of a document (Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva) presented before the RTC of
Marikina despite not having been registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina. Thus,
Almazan Sr. (client, fellow lawyer) charged Atty. Suerte-Felipe for malpractice and gross
negligence. IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Suerte-Felipe guilty for violating the
Notarial Law and the lawyer’s oath, reasoning that he could not notarize the acknowledgment of
the subject document inMarikina City as it was outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction. In
the acknowledgment of the subject document, it was categorically stated that Atty. Suerte-Felipe
is a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province ofRizal, of which he was not, hence,
violating the Notarial Law. Moreover, he likewise violated the lawyer’s oath, specifically its
mandate for lawyers, to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Issue: should Atty. Suerte-Felipe be
held administratively liable—Yes. Atty. Suerte-Felipe himself admitted that he was commissioned
as notary public only in the City of Pasig and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and
Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999, could not notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment
in the City of Marikina. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the
issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.
DOCTRINE: Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, as
amended, of which Section 240, Article II states:
Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. – The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-
extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits
of his jurisdiction.
RULE V
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. IMPOSITION AND WAIVER OF FEES. - FOR PERFORMING A

NOTARIAL ACT, A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY CHARGE THE MAXIMUM FEE AS
PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT UNLESS HE WAIVES THE FEE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART.
SEC. 2. TRAVEL FEES AND EXPENSES. - A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY CHARGE
TRAVEL FEES AND EXPENSES SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE NOTARIAL
FEES PRESCRIBED IN THE PRECEDING SECTION WHEN TRAVELING TO
PERFORM A NOTARIAL ACT IF THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND THE PERSON
REQUESTING THE NOTARIAL ACT AGREE PRIOR TO THE TRAVEL.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITED FEES. – NO FEE OR COMPENSATION OF ANY KIND,

EXCEPT THOSE EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED AND ALLOWED HEREIN, SHALL BE
COLLECTED OR RECEIVED FOR ANY NOTARIAL SERVICE.
SEC. 4. PAYMENT OR REFUND OF FEES. - A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL NOT

REQUIRE PAYMENT OF ANY FEES SPECIFIED HEREIN PRIOR TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF A NOTARIAL ACT UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED UPON.
ANY TRAVEL FEES AND EXPENSES PAID TO A NOTARY PUBLIC PRIOR

TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A NOTARIAL ACT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REFUND
IF THE NOTARY PUBLIC HAD ALREADY TRAVELED BUT FAILED TO
COMPLETE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE NOTARIAL ACT FOR REASONS
BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART.
SEC. 5. NOTICE OF FEES. - A NOTARY PUBLIC WHO CHARGES A FEE FOR

NOTARIAL SERVICES SHALL ISSUE A RECEIPT REGISTERED WITH THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND KEEP A JOURNAL OF NOTARIAL FEES.
HE SHALL ENTER IN THE JOURNAL ALL FEES CHARGED FOR SERVICES
RENDERED.
A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN HIS

OFFICE A COMPLETE SCHEDULE OF CHARGEABLE NOTARIAL FEES.
Q: When is a Notary Public disqualified from performing a Notarial Act?

A: A Notary Public is disqualified from performing a Notarial Act if:
(1) He is a PARTY to the instrument or document that is to be notarized;
(2) He will RECEIVE, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right,
title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, EXCEPT
(a) Maximum fees as prescribed by the SC, unless he waives the fee in whole or
in part;
(b) Travel fees and expenses when traveling to perform a Notarial Act if the
Notary Public and the person requesting the Notarial Act agree prior to the
travel
(3) Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant or other relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE
YLAYA v. GACOTT
January 30, 2013 | Brion, J. | Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
PETITIONER: Fe A. Ylaya
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott
SUMMARY: Ylaya filed a disbarment case against Atty. Gacott. It was alleged that Atty. Gacott
briefly represented the complainant and her late husband in the expropriation case as intervenors
for being the new registered owners of the property. Ylaya alleged that the respondent convinced
them to sign a "preparatory deed of sale" for the sale of the property, but he left blank the space for
the name of the buyer and for the amount of consideration. Atty. Gacott then fraudulently –
without their knowledge and consent, and contrary to their understanding – converted the
"preparatory deed of sale" into a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001, selling the subject
property to Reynold So and Sylvia Carlos So for ₱200,000.00. Atty. Gacott denied all the allegations
in the complaint. He claimed that the sale was their voluntary transaction and that he "simply
ratified the document." He also claimed that Reynold and Laurentino had originally jointly
purchased the properties from Cirilo Arellano on July 10, 2000. The IBP found Atty. Gacott guilty
of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct), Canon 16 ("A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client
that may come into his possession), and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice). The IBP Board adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but increased penalty
of suspension from 6 months to 2 years. ISSUE: Whether the evidence presented supports a finding
that the respondent is administratively liable for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. NO, because
the Court found nothing constituting clear evidence of the respondent’s specific acts of fraud and
deceit. After examining the whole record of the case, we agree with the respondent and find the
evidence insufficient to prove the charge that he violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. Specifically, (1) the
evidence against the respondent fails to show the alleged fraudulent and deceitful acts he has taken
to mislead the complainant and her husband into signing a "preparatory deed of sale" and the
conversion into a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 4, 2001 in favor of Reynold; and (2) no
prohibition exists against the notarization of a document in which any of the parties interested is
the notary’s relative within the 4th civil degree, by affinity or consanguinity, at that time the
respondent notarized the documents.
DOCTRINE: No prohibition exists against the notarization of a document in which any of the
parties interested is the notary’s relative within the 4th civil degree, by affinity or consanguinity,
at that time the respondent notarized the documents.
JANDOQUILE v. REVILLA
April 10, 2013 | Villarama, Jr. J. | Disqualifications from Notarizing
PETITIONER (Complainant): Bernard N. Jandoquile
RESPONDENT: Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.
SUMMARY: Atty. Revilla notarized a complaint-affidavit where two of the affiants were his
relatives within the fourth degree by affinity. He also did not ask for their identification cards. This
is now a case for disbarment against him. The first issue in the case are Whether Revilla violated
Sec 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court ruled in the affirmative. The facts
are not disputed as Atty. Revilla himself admits them. He is in clear violation of Sec. 3(c), Rule IV
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which disqualifies a notary public from performing the
notarial act if he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. The second issue is Whether Atty.
Revilla erred in not asking for the identification cards of the affiants. The Court ruled in the
negative saying that he did not violate the 2004 RONP because he had personal knowledge of the
affiants, although he should have stated the same in the complaint-affidavit. The third issue is
Whether a violation of Sec 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice constitute grounds
for disbarment. The Court ruled in the negative. Atty. Revilla’s actions do not warrant his
disbarment. He did not commit any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or gross immoral
conduct or any other serious ground for disbarment under Sec 27, Rule 138 of the ROC. Atty.
Revilla is reprimanded and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for three
months.
DOCTRINE: Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
RULE VI
NOTARIAL REGISTER
SECTION 1. FORM OF NOTARIAL REGISTER. - (A) A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL
KEEP, MAINTAIN, PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR LAWFUL INSPECTION AS
PROVIDED IN THESE RULES, A CHRONOLOGICAL OFFICIAL NOTARIAL
REGISTER OF NOTARIAL ACTS CONSISTING OF A PERMANENTLY BOUND
BOOK WITH NUMBERED PAGES.
THE REGISTER SHALL BE KEPT IN BOOKS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE

SOLICITOR GENERAL TO ANY NOTARY PUBLIC UPON REQUEST AND UPON
PAYMENT OF THE COST THEREOF. THE REGISTER SHALL BE DULY PAGED,
AND ON THE FIRST PAGE, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SHALL CERTIFY THE
NUMBER OF PAGES OF WHICH THE BOOK CONSISTS.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION, A MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING MAY BE ENTERED INTO BY THE OFFICE
OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR.
(B) A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL KEEP ONLY ONE ACTIVE NOTARIAL REGISTER
AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
SEC. 2. ENTRIES IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER. - (A) FOR EVERY NOTARIAL

ACT, THE NOTARY SHALL RECORD IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER AT THE TIME
OF NOTARIZATION THE FOLLOWING:
(1) THE ENTRY NUMBER AND PAGE NUMBER;
(2) THE DATE AND TIME OF DAY OF THE NOTARIAL ACT;
(3) THE TYPE OF NOTARIAL ACT;
(4) THE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT, DOCUMENT OR

PROCEEDING;
(5) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PRINCIPAL;
(6) THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY AS DEFINED BY THESE

RULES IF THE SIGNATORY IS NOT PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE
NOTARY;
(7) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH CREDIBLE WITNESS SWEARING

TO OR AFFIRMING THE PERSON'S IDENTITY;
(8) THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE NOTARIAL ACT;
(9) THE ADDRESS WHERE THE NOTARIZATION WAS PERFORMED IF NOT

IN THE NOTARY'S REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS; AND
(10) ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THE NOTARY PUBLIC MAY DEEM OF

SIGNIFICANCE OR RELEVANCE.
(B) A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL RECORD IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER THE

REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR NOT COMPLETING A NOTARIAL ACT.
(C) A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL RECORD IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER THE

CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY REQUEST TO INSPECT OR COPY AN ENTRY IN THE
NOTARIAL REGISTER, INCLUDING THE REQUESTER'S NAME, ADDRESS,
SIGNATURE, THUMBMARK OR OTHER RECOGNIZED IDENTIFIER, AND
EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY. THE REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO ALLOW

INSPECTION OR COPYING OF A JOURNAL ENTRY SHALL ALSO BE RECORDED.
(D) WHEN THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT IS A CONTRACT, THE NOTARY

PUBLIC SHALL KEEP AN ORIGINAL COPY THEREOF AS PART OF HIS RECORDS
AND ENTER IN SAID RECORDS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE
THEREOF AND SHALL GIVE TO EACH ENTRY A CONSECUTIVE NUMBER,
BEGINNING WITH NUMBER ONE IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR. HE SHALL ALSO
RETAIN A DUPLICATE ORIGINAL COPY FOR THE CLERK OF COURT.
(E) THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL GIVE TO EACH INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT

EXECUTED, SWORN TO, OR ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE HIM A NUMBER
CORRESPONDING TO THE ONE IN HIS REGISTER, AND SHALL ALSO STATE ON
THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT THE PAGE/S OF HIS REGISTER ON WHICH
THE SAME IS RECORDED. NO BLANK LINE SHALL BE LEFT BETWEEN ENTRIES.
(F) IN CASE OF A PROTEST OF ANY DRAFT, BILL OF EXCHANGE OR

PROMISSORY NOTE, THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL MAKE A FULL AND TRUE
RECORD OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION THERETO AND SHALL NOTE
THEREIN WHETHER THE DEMAND FOR THE SUM OF MONEY WAS MADE, BY
WHOM, WHEN, AND WHERE; WHETHER HE PRESENTED SUCH DRAFT, BILL
OR NOTE; WHETHER NOTICES WERE GIVEN, TO WHOM AND IN WHAT
MANNER; WHERE THE SAME WAS MADE, WHEN AND TO WHOM AND
WHERE DIRECTED; AND OF EVERY OTHER FACT TOUCHING THE SAME.
(G) AT THE END OF EACH WEEK, THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL CERTIFY IN HIS
NOTARIAL REGISTER THE NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS
EXECUTED, SWORN TO, ACKNOWLEDGED, OR PROTESTED BEFORE HIM; OR
IF NONE, THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL SHOW THIS FACT.
(H) A CERTIFIED COPY OF EACH MONTH'S ENTRIES AND A DUPLICATE

ORIGINAL COPY OF ANY INSTRUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE THE
NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL, WITHIN THE FIRST TEN (10) DAYS OF THE MONTH
FOLLOWING, BE FORWARDED TO THE CLERK OF COURT AND SHALL BE
UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH OFFICER. IF THERE IS NO ENTRY TO
CERTIFY FOR THE MONTH, THE NOTARY SHALL FORWARD A STATEMENT TO
THIS EFFECT IN LIEU OF CERTIFIED COPIES HEREIN REQUIRED.
SEC. 3. SIGNATURES AND THUMBMARKS. - AT THE TIME OF

NOTARIZATION, THE NOTARY'S NOTARIAL REGISTER SHALL BE SIGNED OR
A THUMB OR OTHER MARK AFFIXED BY EACH:
(A) PRINCIPAL;
(B) CREDIBLE WITNESS SWEARING OR AFFIRMING TO THE IDENTITY OF

A PRINCIPAL; AND
(C) WITNESS TO A SIGNATURE BY THUMB OR OTHER MARK, OR TO A

SIGNING BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC ON BEHALF OF A PERSON
PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO SIGN.
SEC. 4. INSPECTION, COPYING AND DISPOSAL. - (A) IN THE NOTARY'S

PRESENCE, ANY PERSON MAY INSPECT AN ENTRY IN THE NOTARIAL
REGISTER, DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, PROVIDED;
(1) THE PERSON'S IDENTITY IS PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THE NOTARY
PUBLIC OR PROVEN THROUGH COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
AS DEFINED IN THESE RULES;
(2) THE PERSON AFFIXES A SIGNATURE AND THUMB OR OTHER MARK

OR OTHER RECOGNIZED IDENTIFIER, IN THE NOTARIAL REGISTER IN
A SEPARATE, DATED ENTRY;
(3) THE PERSON SPECIFIES THE MONTH, YEAR, TYPE OF INSTRUMENT

OR DOCUMENT, AND NAME OF THE PRINCIPAL IN THE NOTARIAL
ACT OR ACTS SOUGHT; AND
(4) THE PERSON IS SHOWN ONLY THE ENTRY OR ENTRIES SPECIFIED BY

HIM.
(B) THE NOTARIAL REGISTER MAY BE EXAMINED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT

OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION OR BY VIRTUE OF
A COURT ORDER.
(C) IF THE NOTARY PUBLIC HAS A REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT

A PERSON HAS A CRIMINAL INTENT OR WRONGFUL MOTIVE IN REQUESTING
INFORMATION FROM THE NOTARIAL REGISTER, THE NOTARY SHALL DENY
ACCESS TO ANY ENTRY OR ENTRIES THEREIN.
SEC. 5. LOSS, DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF NOTARIAL REGISTER. - (A) IN

CASE THE NOTARIAL REGISTER IS STOLEN, LOST, DESTROYED, DAMAGED,
OR OTHERWISE RENDERED UNUSABLE OR ILLEGIBLE AS A RECORD OF
NOTARIAL ACTS, THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER
INFORMING THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE CASE
OF THEFT OR VANDALISM, NOTIFY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE BY ANY MEANS
PROVIDING A PROPER RECEIPT OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, INCLUDING
REGISTERED MAIL AND ALSO PROVIDE A COPY OR NUMBER OF ANY
PERTINENT POLICE REPORT.
(B) UPON REVOCATION OR EXPIRATION OF A NOTARIAL COMMISSION, OR

DEATH OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC, THE NOTARIAL REGISTER AND NOTARIAL
RECORDS SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE DELIVERED TO THE OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES. - THE NOTARY PUBLIC

SHALL SUPPLY A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIAL RECORD, OR ANY
PART THEREOF, TO ANY PERSON APPLYING FOR SUCH COPY UPON
PAYMENT OF THE LEGAL FEES.
A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC, SC EN BANC RESOLUTION DATED 15 AUGUST 2006, 2004

RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOTARIAL
BOOKS, 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE, A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC, SC
EN BANC RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 15, 2006
RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
SIRS/MESDAMES:
QUOTED HEREUNDER, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, IS A RESOLUTION

OF THIS COURT DATED AUG 15 2006.
“A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC.- RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE.

— THE COURT RESOLVED TO
(A) APPROVE THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL RELATIVE TO PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF
NOTARIAL BOOKS, TO WIT:
(1) NOTARIES PUBLIC WHO RENDER LEGAL AND NOTARIAL SERVICES

WITHIN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION SHALL SECURE
THEIR NOTARIAL REGISTERS FROM THE PROPERTY DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OF THE OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA).
(2) NOTARIES PUBLIC IN OTHER JUDICIAL REGIONS SHALL SECURE

THEIR NOTARIAL REGISTERS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT (OCC) OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) OF THE CITY
OR PROVINCE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
WHO ISSUED THEIR RESPECTIVE NOTARIAL COMMISSIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY MAY ALSO SECURE NOTARIAL REGISTERS FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR.
(3) NOTARIAL REGISTERS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT P1,200.00 EACH.

SAID AMOUNT SHALL COVER ONLY THE COSTS OF PRINTING AND
BINDING OF THE NOTARIAL REGISTERS EXCLUSIVE OF SHIPPING
CHARGES WHEN SOLD IN THE PROVINCES. PAYMENTS SHALL BE
MADE EITHER TO THE CASH DIVISION, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
OFFICE, OCA, OR TO THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER IN THE OCC OF THE RTC, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
(a) THE AMOUNT COLLECTED SHALL BE RECEIPTED AND

DEPOSITED TO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT OF THE
FIDUCIARY FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE “NOTARIAL
REGISTER FUND” (NRF).
(b) THE CASH DIVISION, FMO, OCA, SHALL MAINTAIN

WITH THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES A
SEPARATE SPECIAL ACCOUNT OF THE FIDUCIARY FUND
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE NRF. A SEPARATE CASHBOOK
SHALL ALSO BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED FOR THE FUND.
WITHDRAWALS OF DEPOSITS SHALL BE MADE ONLY
UPON AUTHORIZATION OR APPROVAL BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
(c) THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND THE FINANCIAL

OFFICE OF THE OCA SHALL BE THE AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORIES FOR THIS FUND.
(4) IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT UNAVAILABILITY OF NOTARIAL

REGISTERS, NOTARIES PUBLIC SHALL BE ALLOWED TO USE THE
TEMPORARY FORM ATTACHED HERETO. THE NOTARY PUBLIC
CONCERNED SHALL FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST TO USE THE
IMPROVISED FORM WITH THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE THAT ISSUED HIS
COMMISSION. A COPY OF HIS CURRENT COMMISSION SHALL BE
ATTACHED TO SUCH REQUEST.
THE NOTARIES PUBLIC WHO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO USE SUCH FORMS
SHALL HAVE THEM BOOK-BOUND AND INITIALED ON EACH AND EVERY PAGE BY
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE REQUEST WAS FILED. EACH BOUND
COPY SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 106 PAGES AND SHALL BE TREATED AND
USED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE NEW NOTARIAL BOOK.
EACH REQUEST SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE BOUND COPY. SHOULD THE

BOUND COPY BE USED UP BEFORE THE NEW NOTARIAL BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE,
THE NOTARY PUBLIC CONCERNED MAY REQUEST ANEW FOR THE USE OF BOUND
TEMPORARY FORMS. THE USE OF BOUND TEMPORARY FORMS SHALL END WHEN
THE NEW NOTARIAL BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE BUT, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST, THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE MAY ALLOW THE NOTARY PUBLIC TO USE UP THE BOUND
TEMPORARY FORMS.
(5) THE OCA SHALL, WITHIN THE FIRST TEN (10) DAYS OF THE FIRST
MONTH OF EVERY QUARTER REMIT TO THE OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO 10% OF THE
GROSS COLLECTIONS DURING THE PRECEDING QUARTER AS THE
SHARE OF THE OSG IN THE SALE OF THE NOTARIAL REGISTERS.
(6) THE PRINTED CERTIFICATION OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR AS

TO THE NUMBER OF PAGES OF EACH NOTARIAL REGISTER SHALL BE
COUNTERSIGNED BY THE FOLLOWING:
(a) IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, THE

OFFICIAL OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR TO SO COUNTERSIGN; AND
(b) IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER JUDICIAL REGIONS, THE

CLERK OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
THE CITY OR PROVINCE WHERE SUCH BOOK HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FOR COST.
(7) THE SUPREME COURT PRINTING OFFICE SHALL PRINT THE

NOTARIAL REGISTERS. IN THE EVENT THE PRINTING OFFICE
CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCA, AND SUBJECT TO
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9184 (GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REFORM
ACT), ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND
EXISTING SUPREME COURT ISSUANCES ON PROCUREMENT, THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR MAY CONTRACT OUT THE PRINTING OF
NOTARIAL REGISTERS TO THE FOLLOWING PRINTERS IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER:
(a) UP PRINTING SERVICES
(b) THE NATIONAL PRINTING OFFICE, OR
(c) PRIVATE PRINTING FIRM
THE OCA SHALL RESORT TO THE THIRD OPTION ONLY IF THE FIRST TWO
PRINTERS CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURT.
AFTER THE APPROVAL BY THE COURT OF THESE GUIDELINES, THE OCA

SHALL DISSEMINATE THE SAME THROUGH A CIRCULAR.
(B) DENY FOR LACK OF MERIT THE MOTION FILED BY CHIEF PUBLIC
ATTORNEY PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA, PRAYING FOR A
RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 31, 2006 WHICH

DENIED HER REQUEST FOR THE EXEMPTION OF PAO LAWYERS FROM THE
PAYMENT OF THE FEES FOR NOTARIAL COMMISSION AND FOR THE
EXEMPTION OF THEIR CLIENTS FROM THE PAYMENT OF FILING FEES;
(C) NOTE THE LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2005 OF MR. PRESCILLANO Y.

AGUINIAS, JR.;
(D) CONFIRM THE OPINIONS OF THEN COURT ADMINISTRATOR

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. AND DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR JOSE P.
PEREZ THAT THE COURT DOES NOT RENDER ADVISORY OPINIONS;
(E) INFORM MR. AGUNIAS, JR. THAT NEITHER DOES THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON REVISION OF RULES GOVERNING NOTARIES PUBLIC RENDER ADVISORY
OPINIONS;
(F) AUTHORIZE THE CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURTS TO NOTARIZE NOT ONLY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BUT ALSO PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (I) ALL NOTARIAL FEES CHARGED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7(O) OF RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
AND, WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
NOTARIAL FEE THAT THE SUPREME COURT MAY PRESCRIBE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1, RULE V OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE, SHALL BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE JUDICIARY AND (II) THEY
CERTIFY IN THE NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THERE ARE NO NOTARIES
PUBLIC WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT;
(G) DIRECT THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR TO ISSUE A CIRCULAR FOR THE

PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE ABOVE AUTHORITY; AND
(H) ADOPT A CONSOLIDATED AND UNIFORM RATE OF FEES FOR NOTARIAL

SERVICES.”
Q: Define: Notarial Register, Registry of Notaries Public, and Notarial Report

A: The Notarial Register is the book upon which the Notary Public makes entries of the notarial acts
performed by him.
The Registry of Notaries Public is a list prepared by the Executive Judge of the RTC where the
names and other relevant details of commissioned Notaries Public may be found.
A Notarial Report is one submitted by the Notaries Public to the Executive Judge of the
commissioning RTC within 10 days from the start of the year.
Q: Where may Notaries Public procure Notarial Registries?

A: Notarial Registries may be procured from the following:
(1) If commissioned within the National Capital Judicial Region — Property Division of
the Office of the Court Administrator
(2) If commissioned outside NCJR — Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC which issued
the notarial commission or Property Division of the OCA.
RULE VII
SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. OFFICIAL SIGNATURE. – IN NOTARIZING A PAPER
INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT, A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL:
(A) SIGN BY HAND ON THE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE ONLY THE NAME

INDICATED AND AS APPEARING ON THE NOTARY'S COMMISSION;
(B) NOT SIGN USING A FACSIMILE STAMP OR PRINTING DEVICE; AND
(C) AFFIX HIS OFFICIAL SIGNATURE ONLY AT THE TIME THE NOTARIAL
ACT IS PERFORMED.
SEC. 2. OFFICIAL SEAL. - (A) EVERY PERSON COMMISSIONED AS NOTARY

PUBLIC SHALL HAVE A SEAL OF OFFICE, TO BE PROCURED AT HIS OWN
EXPENSE, WHICH SHALL NOT BE POSSESSED OR OWNED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON. IT SHALL BE OF METAL, CIRCULAR IN SHAPE, TWO INCHES IN
DIAMETER, AND SHALL HAVE THE NAME OF THE CITY OR PROVINCE AND
THE WORD “PHILIPPINES” AND HIS OWN NAME ON THE MARGIN AND THE
ROLL OF ATTORNEY'S NUMBER ON THE FACE THEREOF, WITH THE WORDS
"NOTARY PUBLIC" ACROSS THE CENTER. A MARK, IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF
SUCH SEAL SHALL BE MADE DIRECTLY ON THE PAPER OR PARCHMENT ON
WHICH THE WRITING APPEARS.
(B) THE OFFICIAL SEAL SHALL BE AFFIXED ONLY AT THE TIME THE
NOTARIAL ACT IS PERFORMED AND SHALL BE CLEARLY IMPRESSED BY THE
NOTARY PUBLIC ON EVERY PAGE OF THE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT
NOTARIZED.
(C) WHEN NOT IN USE, THE OFFICIAL SEAL SHALL BE KEPT SAFE AND
SECURE AND SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR THE
PERSON DULY AUTHORIZED BY HIM.
(D) WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF A NOTARY PUBLIC
IS STOLEN, LOST, DAMAGED OR OTHER OTHERWISE RENDERED
UNSERVICEABLE IN AFFIXING A LEGIBLE IMAGE, THE NOTARY PUBLIC,
AFTER INFORMING THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, SHALL
NOTIFY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE IN WRITING, PROVIDING PROPER RECEIPT
OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT, INCLUDING REGISTERED MAIL, AND IN THE EVENT
OF A CRIME COMMITTED, PROVIDE A COPY OR ENTRY NUMBER OF THE
APPROPRIATE POLICE RECORD. UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE, IF FOUND
IN ORDER BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE, THE LATTER SHALL ORDER THE
NOTARY PUBLIC TO CAUSE NOTICE OF SUCH LOSS OR DAMAGE TO BE
PUBLISHED, ONCE A WEEK FOR THREE (3) CONSECUTIVE WEEKS, IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY OR PROVINCE WHERE
THE NOTARY PUBLIC IS COMMISSIONED. THEREAFTER, THE EXECUTIVE
JUDGE SHALL ISSUE TO THE NOTARY PUBLIC A NEW CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL.
(E) WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OR RESIGNATION OF THE
NOTARY PUBLIC, OR THE REVOCATION OR EXPIRATION OF A NOTARIAL
COMMISSION, THE OFFICIAL SEAL SHALL BE SURRENDERED TO THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE AND SHALL BE DESTROYED OR DEFACED IN PUBLIC
DURING OFFICE HOURS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE MISSING, LOST OR
DAMAGED SEAL IS LATER FOUND OR SURRENDERED, IT SHALL BE
DELIVERED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC TO THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE TO BE
DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION. FAILURE TO EFFECT
SUCH SURRENDER SHALL CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT. IN THE
EVENT OF DEATH OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC, THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF
THE OFFICIAL SEAL SHALL HAVE THE DUTY TO SURRENDER IT TO THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
SEC. 3. SEAL IMAGE. - THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL AFFIX A SINGLE, CLEAR,
LEGIBLE, PERMANENT, AND PHOTOGRAPHICALLY REPRODUCIBLE MARK,
IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF THE OFFICIAL SEAL BESIDE HIS SIGNATURE ON
THE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE OF A PAPER INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT.
SEC. 4. OBTAINING AND PROVIDING SEAL. - (A) A VENDOR OR

MANUFACTURER OF NOTARIAL SEALS MAY NOT SELL SAID PRODUCT
WITHOUT A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
(B) UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION AND AFTER PAYMENT OF THE

APPLICATION FEE, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE MAY ISSUE AN AUTHORIZATION
TO SELL TO A VENDOR OR MANUFACTURER OF NOTARIAL SEALS AFTER
VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE LATTER'S QUALIFICATIONS.
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL CHARGE AN AUTHORIZATION FEE IN THE
AMOUNT OF PHP 4,000 FOR THE VENDOR AND PHP 8,000 FOR THE
MANUFACTURER. IF A MANUFACTURER IS ALSO A VENDOR, HE SHALL
ONLY PAY THE MANUFACTURER'S AUTHORIZATION FEE.
(C) THE AUTHORIZATION SHALL BE IN EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR (4)

YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE AND MAY BE RENEWED BY THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE FOR A SIMILAR PERIOD UPON PAYMENT OF THE
AUTHORIZATION FEE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.
(D) A VENDOR OR MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT SELL A SEAL TO A BUYER

EXCEPT UPON SUBMISSION OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMISSION AND
THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL
ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE. A NOTARY PUBLIC OBTAINING A NEW
SEAL AS A RESULT OF CHANGE OF NAME SHALL PRESENT TO THE VENDOR
OR MANUFACTURER A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE
CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
(E) ONLY ONE SEAL MAY BE SOLD BY A VENDOR OR MANUFACTURER FOR

EACH CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL.
(F) AFTER THE SALE, THE VENDOR OR MANUFACTURER SHALL AFFIX A

MARK, IMAGE OR IMPRESSION OF THE SEAL TO THE CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL AND SUBMIT THE
COMPLETED CERTIFICATE TO THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE. COPIES OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL AND
THE BUYER'S COMMISSION SHALL BE KEPT IN THE FILES OF THE VENDOR OR
MANUFACTURER FOR FOUR (4) YEARS AFTER THE SALE.
(G) A NOTARY PUBLIC OBTAINING A NEW SEAL AS A RESULT OF CHANGE OF

NAME SHALL PRESENT TO THE VENDOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER
CONFIRMING THE CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
Q: What does a Notarial Seal look like?

A:
RULE VIII
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES
SECTION 1. FORM OF NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE. - THE NOTARIAL FORM

USED FOR ANY NOTARIAL INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT SHALL CONFORM
TO ALL THE REQUISITES PRESCRIBED HEREIN, THE RULES OF COURT AND
ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF ISSUANCES BY THE SUPREME COURT AND IN
APPLICABLE LAWS.
SEC. 2. CONTENTS OF THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE NOTARIAL

CERTIFICATE. – THE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE SHALL INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING:
(A) THE NAME OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC AS EXACTLY INDICATED IN THE

COMMISSION;
(B) THE SERIAL NUMBER OF THE COMMISSION OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC;
(C) THE WORDS "NOTARY PUBLIC" AND THE PROVINCE OR CITY WHERE
THE NOTARY PUBLIC IS COMMISSIONED, THE EXPIRATION DATE OF
THE COMMISSION, THE OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC;
AND
(D) THE ROLL OF ATTORNEY'S NUMBER, THE PROFESSIONAL TAX

RECEIPT NUMBER AND THE PLACE AND DATE OF ISSUANCE
THEREOF, AND THE IBP MEMBERSHIP NUMBER.
Q: What is a Notarial Certificate?

“Notarial Certificate” refers to the part of or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that
is:
(1) Completed by the notary public
(2) Bears the notary’s signature and seal; and,
(3) States the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided
for by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
The notarial certificate shall include the following (NNoVADARIP):
• The NAME of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;
• The words “NOTARY PUBLIC”
• The VENUE where the notary public is commissioned,
• The APPOINTMENT NO. of the commission
• The EXPIRATION DATE of the commission,

• The office ADDRESS of the notary public; and
• The ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NUMBER,
• The IBP Membership No., and
• The professional tax receipt (PTR) number and the place and date of issuance thereof
Notarial acts executed by a notary public always feature the above notarial certificate.
(Signature of Notary Public)

________________________
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Notary Public for Makati City
Appointment No. 123 until Dec. 31, 2020
1 Rockwell Drive, Makati City
Roll No. 12345
IBP No. 678; issued Jan. 2, 2018; IBP Makati Chapter
PTR No. 98765; issued Jan. 3, 2018; Makati City
RULE IX
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT. - A

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY EVIDENCING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE
OFFICIAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE ISSUED BY
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE UPON REQUEST IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
FOLLOWING FORM:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT
I, (NAME, TITLE, JURISDICTION OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE), CERTIFY THAT

(NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC), THE PERSON NAMED IN THE SEAL AND
SIGNATURE ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT, IS A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND
FOR THE (CITY/MUNICIPALITY/PROVINCE) OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND AUTHORIZED TO ACT AS SUCH AT THE TIME OF THE
DOCUMENT'S NOTARIZATION.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE AFFIXED BELOW MY SIGNATURE AND

SEAL OF THIS OFFICE THIS (DATE) DAY OF (MONTH) (YEAR).
_________________
(OFFICIAL SIGNATURE)
(SEAL OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE)
RULE X
CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. CHANGE OF NAME AND ADDRESS. -
WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE CHANGE OF NAME OF THE

NOTARY PUBLIC BY COURT ORDER OR BY MARRIAGE, OR AFTER CEASING TO
MAINTAIN THE REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS, THE NOTARY
PUBLIC SHALL SUBMIT A SIGNED AND DATED NOTICE OF SUCH FACT TO THE
EXECUTIVE JUDGE.
THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL NOT NOTARIZE UNTIL:
(A) HE RECEIVES FROM THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE A CONFIRMATION OF

THE NEW NAME OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND/OR CHANGE OF
REGULAR PLACE OF WORK OR BUSINESS; AND
(B) A NEW SEAL BEARING THE NEW NAME HAS BEEN OBTAINED.
THE FOREGOING NOTWITHSTANDING, UNTIL THE

AFOREMENTIONED STEPS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THE NOTARY PUBLIC
MAY CONTINUE TO USE THE FORMER NAME OR REGULAR PLACE OF WORK
OR BUSINESS IN PERFORMING NOTARIAL ACTS FOR THREE (3) MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE CHANGE, WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED ONCE FOR
VALID AND JUST CAUSE BY THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE FOR ANOTHER PERIOD
NOT EXCEEDING THREE (3) MONTHS.
SEC. 2. RESIGNATION. - A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY RESIGN HIS COMMISSION

BY PERSONALLY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN, DATED AND SIGNED FORMAL
NOTICE TO THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE TOGETHER WITH HIS NOTARIAL SEAL,
NOTARIAL REGISTER AND RECORDS. EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE
INDICATED IN THE NOTICE, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE TO PERFORM
NOTARIAL ACTS. IN THE EVENT OF HIS INCAPACITY TO PERSONALLY
APPEAR, THE SUBMISSION OF THE NOTICE MAY BE PERFORMED BY HIS DULY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF RESIGNATION. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL

IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE CLERK OF COURT TO POST IN A CONSPICUOUS
PLACE IN THE OFFICES OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE AND OF THE CLERK OF
COURT THE NAMES OF NOTARIES PUBLIC WHO HAVE RESIGNED THEIR
NOTARIAL COMMISSIONS AND THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THEIR
RESIGNATION.
RULE XI
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY
SANCTIONS
SECTION 1. REVOCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS. - (A) THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL REVOKE A NOTARIAL COMMISSION FOR ANY
GROUND ON WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMISSION MAY BE
DENIED.
(B) IN ADDITION, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE MAY REVOKE THE COMMISSION

OF, OR IMPOSE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS UPON, ANY
NOTARY PUBLIC WHO:
(1) FAILS TO KEEP A NOTARIAL REGISTER;
(2) FAILS TO MAKE THE PROPER ENTRY OR ENTRIES IN HIS NOTARIAL

REGISTER CONCERNING HIS NOTARIAL ACTS;
(3) FAILS TO SEND THE COPY OF THE ENTRIES TO THE EXECUTIVE

JUDGE WITHIN THE FIRST TEN (10) DAYS OF THE MONTH
FOLLOWING;
(4) FAILS TO AFFIX TO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE DATE OF EXPIRATION

OF HIS COMMISSION;
(5) FAILS TO SUBMIT HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER, WHEN FILLED, TO THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE;
(6) FAILS TO MAKE HIS REPORT, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, TO THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
DUTIES, AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE JUDGE;
(7) FAILS TO REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF A PRINCIPAL AT THE TIME OF

THE NOTARIAL ACT;
(8) FAILS TO IDENTIFY A PRINCIPAL ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL

KNOWLEDGE OR COMPETENT EVIDENCE;
(9) EXECUTES A FALSE OR INCOMPLETE CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION

5, RULE IV;
(10) KNOWINGLY PERFORMS OR FAILS TO PERFORM ANY OTHER ACT

PROHIBITED OR MANDATED BY THESE RULES; AND
(11) COMMITS ANY OTHER DERELICTION OR ACT WHICH IN THE

JUDGMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE CONSTITUTES GOOD CAUSE
FOR REVOCATION OF COMMISSION OR IMPOSITION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION.
(C) UPON VERIFIED COMPLAINT BY AN INTERESTED, AFFECTED OR

AGGRIEVED PERSON, THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FILE A
VERIFIED ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT. IF THE ANSWER OF THE NOTARY
PUBLIC IS NOT SATISFACTORY, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT A
SUMMARY HEARING. IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE NOT
PROVEN, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE DISMISSED. IF THE CHARGES ARE DULY
ESTABLISHED, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL IMPOSE THE APPROPRIATE
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS. IN EITHER CASE, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY
MAY APPEAL THE DECISION TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW.
PENDING THE APPEAL, AN ORDER IMPOSING DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
(D) THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE MAY MOTU PROPRIO INITIATE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A NOTARY PUBLIC, SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES
PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (C) ABOVE AND IMPOSE THE APPROPRIATE
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B).
SEC. 2. SUPERVISION AND MONITORING OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. - THE

EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL AT ALL TIMES EXERCISE SUPERVISION OVER
NOTARIES PUBLIC AND SHALL CLOSELY MONITOR THEIR ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF REVOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

SANCTIONS. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE
CLERK OF COURT TO POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE OFFICES OF
THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE AND OF THE CLERK OF COURT THE NAMES OF
NOTARIES PUBLIC WHO HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY SANCTIONED OR
WHOSE NOTARIAL COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REVOKED.
SEC. 4. DEATH OF NOTARY PUBLIC. - IF A NOTARY PUBLIC DIES BEFORE

FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS IN SECTION 4(E), RULE VI AND SECTION
2(E), RULE VII, THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE, UPON BEING NOTIFIED OF SUCH
DEATH, SHALL FORTHWITH CAUSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THESE SECTIONS.
RULE XII
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. PUNISHABLE ACTS. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE SHALL CAUSE

THE PROSECUTION OF ANY PERSON WHO:
(A) KNOWINGLY ACTS OR OTHERWISE IMPERSONATES A NOTARY

PUBLIC;
(B) KNOWINGLY OBTAINS, CONCEALS, DEFACES, OR DESTROYS THE

SEAL, NOTARIAL REGISTER, OR OFFICIAL RECORDS OF A NOTARY
PUBLIC; AND
(C) KNOWINGLY SOLICITS, COERCES, OR IN ANY WAY INFLUENCES A

NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMMIT OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.
SEC 2. REPORTS TO THE SUPREME COURT. - THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE

CONCERNED SHALL SUBMIT SEMESTRAL REPORTS TO THE SUPREME COURT
ON DISCIPLINE AND PROSECUTION OF NOTARIES PUBLIC.
Q: What are the grounds for the revocation of a Notarial Commission?

A: The grounds for revocation are:
(1) By the Executive Judge upon the same grounds for denial of a petition for
commissioning;
(2) By the Executive Judge motu proprio, or upon a Verified Complaint by an interested
or aggrieved person, upon the following grounds:
(a) Failure to keep NOTARIAL REGISTER
(b) Failure to make the proper ENTRY OR ENTRIES in his notarial register
concerning his Notarial Acts
(c) Failure to SEND A COPY of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first
10 days of the month following;
(d) Failure to affix to acknowledgements the DATE OF EXPIRATION OF HIS
COMMISSION;
(e) Failure to SUBMIT HIS NOTARIAL REGISTER when filled to the Executive
Judge
(f) Failure to make his REPORT, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge
concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the Judge
(g) Failure to require the PRESENCE OF A PRINCIPAL at the time of the
Notarial Act
(h) Failure to IDENTIFY THE PRINCIPAL on the basis of personal knowledge
or competent evidence of identity
(i) Execution of a FALSE OR INCOMPLETE certificate
(j) Performance of an ACT PROHIBITED by the Rules, or OMISSION of an act
MANDATED by the Rules
(k) Commission of any other DERELICTION OR ACT which in the judgment of
the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or
imposition of administrative sanction
Q: What are the punishable acts under the Notarial Rules?

A: The following are punishable acts for which the Executive Judge may cause prosecution thereof:
(1) A person who knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a Notary Public;
(2) A person who knowingly obtains , conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial
register, or official records of a Notary Public; and,
(3) Knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a Notary Public to commit
official misconduct
SPS. GACUYA v. SOLBITA

March 8, 2016 | Per Curiam | Unauthorized Notarization; Expired Commission
PETITIONER: Spouses Eduardo G. Gacuya and Caridad Rosario Gacuya
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Reyman A. Solbita
SUMMARY: Sps. Gacuya requested for Atty. Solbita’s legal assistance for the purpose of drafting
and notarizing a deed of sale of a parcel of lands. The buyers of the land were Sps. Gonzales. Atty.
Solbita’s Notarial Commission had already expired therefore he suggested that he will antedate
the notarization of the deed of sale as he was still in the process of renewing for the year 2006. Sps.
Gonzales did not agree in order to avoid penalties or surcharges by the BIR for late payment of
capital gains tax. The document was subsequently notarized despite the expired notarial
commission. The property was completely transferred in Sps. Gonzales’ favor. However later on,
Sps. Gacuya offered to return back the money to Sps. Gonzales because there was another buyer
who was willing to buy the subject property at a higher price. Sps. Gonzales did not want to do so,
saying that the sale was already consummated. Sps. Gacuya filed an action for declaration of
nullity of documents, recovery of ownership and title with tender of payment, consignation and
damages before the RTC. They further asked Atty. Solbita to testify against Sps. Gonzales but the
lawyer refused. The court then dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Sps. Gacuya
then filed a petition for disbarment for alleged untruthful statement of facts in the subject deed of
sale and for notarizing the same despite an expired notarial commission. By way of defense, Atty.
Solbita claimed that he informed the parties of his expired notarial commission. The IBPCBD
found Atty. Solbita administratively liable for notarizing a deed of sale despite his expired notarial
commission. Their findings was adopted by the IBP-Board of Governors. The issue is Whether
Atty. Solbita may be held administratively liable – YES because he is guilty of violating the notarial
law by making an unauthorized notarization despite an expired notarial commission. In the instant
case, Atty. Solbita's guilt for violating the notarial law is undisputed as he readily admitted that he
had actually made the unauthorized notarization despite an expired notarial commission. Where
the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has
no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For
one, performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey
the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law.
DOCTRINE: A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts,
administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment
executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For this reason, notaries public
must observe with the 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.
RULE XIII
REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. REPEAL. - ALL RULES AND PARTS OF RULES, INCLUDING
ISSUANCES OF THE SUPREME COURT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, ARE
HEREBY REPEALED OR ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED.
SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. - THESE RULES SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST
DAY OF AUGUST 2004, AND SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF
GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES WHICH PROVIDES
SUFFICIENTLY WIDE CIRCULATION.
MALVAR v. BALEROS
March 8, 2017 | Reyes, J. | Notarial Register; Administrative Liability
PETITIONER: Dr. Basilio Malvar
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Cora Jane Baleros
SUMMARY: Dr. Malvar filed administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Baleros, which
sprang forth from a separate criminal case for falsification of a public document. Dr. Malvar is
assailing that Atty. Baleros notarized a document of an “Application for Certification of Alienable
and Disposable Land” without his presence. This was because Dr. Malvar never visited Atty.
Baleros’ office in La Union during this time as he was attending to patients in Manila. The issue is
Whether Atty. Baleros is administratively liable for her alleged act of notarizing the document
without his presence. The SC held that Atty. Baleros is administratively liable. Since the document
was a jurat, the rules indicate that either physical presence or the notary public’s personal
knowledge of the principal. Since neither of the conditions were met, Atty. Baleros is liable under
Sec. 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules. Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, the notarial
register of Atty. Baleros does not include such document, thus violating Sec. 2, Rule VI of the 2004
Notarial Rules. Lastly, Atty. Baleros gave the excuse that it was her staff who usually fills the
notarial register, which is another offense in itself violating both the Notarial Rules and the Code
of Professional Conduct. The SC decided that disbarment was too harsh of a punishment for Atty.
Baleros, so she was simply suspended as a notary public and as a lawyer.
DOCTRINE: A lawyer who fails to uphold his or her notarial duties is administratively liable.
SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR I-90, 26 FEBRUARY 1990

POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS
(METC), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES (MTCC),
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (MTC), MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURTS (MCTC) SHARI’A COURTS AND THE INTEGRATED BAR
OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)
SUBJECT: POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES

AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT AS
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO.
FOR THE INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE OF ALL CONCERNED, QUOTED

HEREUNDER IS THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED
DECEMBER 19, 1989, IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 89-11-1303 MTC,
"RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE POWER OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT JUDGES AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT AS
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO";
"ACTING ON A QUERY REGARDING THE POWER OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL

COURT JUDGES AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT IN
THE CAPACITY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1989
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, THE COURT RESOLVED TO ISSUE A

CLARIFICATION ON THE MATTER.
"MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC) AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL

COURT (MCTC) JUDGES ARE EMPOWERED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO UNDER SECTION 76 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
296, AS AMENDED [OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1948]
AND SECTION 242 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. BUT THE
COURT HEREBY LAYS DOWN THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS ON THE
SCOPE OF THIS POWER:
"MTC AND MCTC JUDGES MAY ACT AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO IN

THE NOTARIZATION OF DOCUMENTS CONNECTED ONLY WITH THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES [BORNE V. MAYO, ADM. MATTER NO.
1765-CFI, OCTOBER 17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; PENERA V. DALOCANOG, ADM.
MATTER NO. 2113-MJ, APRIL 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] THEY MAY NOT, AS
NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO, UNDERTAKE THE PREPARATION AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, CONTRACTS AND OTHER ACTS OF
CONVEYANCES WHICH BEAR NO DIRECT RELATION TO THE PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR FUNCTIONS AS JUDGES. THE 1989 CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT NOT ONLY
ENJOINS JUDGES TO REGULATE THEIR EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES IN ORDER TO
MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THEIR JUDICIAL DUTIES, BUT ALSO
PROHIBITS THEM FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW [CANON 5
AND RULE 5.07].
"HOWEVER, THE COURT TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT

THAT THERE ARE STILL MUNICIPALITIES WHICH HAVE NEITHER LAWYERS
NOR NOTARIES PUBLIC, RULES THAT MTC AND MCTC JUDGES ASSIGNED
TO MUNICIPALITIES OR CIRCUITS WITH NO LAWYERS OR NOTARIES PUBLIC
MAY, IN THE CAPACITY AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO, PERFORM ANY
ACT WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF A REGULAR NOTARY PUBLIC: PROVIDED,
THAT: [1] ALL NOTARIAL FEES CHARGED BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND TURNED OVER TO THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER
(LAPENA, JR. VS. MARCOS, ADM. MATTER NO. 1969-MJ, JUNE 29, 1982, 114
SCRA 572); AND [2] CERTIFICATION BE MADE IN THE NOTARIZED
DOCUMENTS ATTESTING TO THE LACK OF ANY LAWYER OR NOTARY PUBLIC
IN SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR CIRCUIT."
OCA CIRCULAR 156-2006

TO: ALL CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: AUTHORITY TO NOTARIZE DOCUMENTS
FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE, THE COURT EN BANC

HAD ISSUED A RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 5, 2006 IN A.M. 02-8-13-SC
(RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE), WHICH RESOLVED AMONG
OTHERS, TO WIT:
“X X X
(F) AUTHORIZE THE CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURTS TO NOTARIZE NOT ONLY DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BUT ALSO PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (I) ALL NOTARIAL FEES CHARGED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7(O) OF RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
AND, WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE DOCUMENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
NOTARIAL FEE THAT THE SUPREME COURT MAY PRESCRIBE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1, RULE V OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL
PRACTICE, SHALL BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE JUDICIARY AND (II) THEY
CERTIFY IN THE NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THERE ARE NO NOTARIES
PUBLIC WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT;
X X X.”
NOVEMBER 16, 2006.
GERONIMO C. FUENTES v. JUDGE BUNO

July 28, 2008 | Leonardo-De Castro, J. | SC Circular 1-90
PETITIONER: Geronimo C. Fuentes
RESPONDENTS: Judge Romualdo G. Buno
SUMMARY: Gregorio Fuentes filed a complaint against Judge Buno charging him with abuse of
discretion and authority and graft and corruption. Gregorio Fuentes alleged that he is one of the 9
heirs of Bernardo Fuentes and that Judge Buno prepared and notarized an Extra-Judicial Partition
with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale. The vendors being Eulalia Credo (widow), Alejandro
Fuentes (on his own behalf and his brothers and sisters) and the vendee, one Ma. Indira A. Auxtero.
Gregorio stated that the Special Power of Attorney he executed merely appointed Alejandro to be
able to mortgage the land. According to the complaint, respondent judge notarized the document
ex-officio, thereby abusing his discretion and graft and corruption. Judge Buno responded stating
that he cannot be charged since in a municipality where a notary is unavailable, a municipal judge
is allowed to notarize documents or deeds as ex-officio notary public. He presented two
certifications: (1) a Clerk of Court of Talibon Bohol who certified that according ot their records, not
petition for commission and/or renewal of commission as notary public was granted by the said
court for calendar year 1996 and no appointment as notary public was issued for that year; and (2)
the other, from Mayor Juanario A. Item of Talibon, Bohol who also certified that no notary public
was staying and residing in the Municipality of Talibon, Bohol during the year 1996. The OCA
recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The issue is Whether
Judge Buno is administratively liable for notarizing the document – YES. While it may be true
that no notary public was available or residing within respondent judge’s territorial jurisdiction, as
shown by the certifications issued by the RTC Clerk of Court and the Municipal Mayor of Talibon,
Bohol, SC Circular No. 1-90 specifically requires that a certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer
or notary public in the said municipality or circuit be made in the notarized document. Here, no
such certification was made in the Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Deed of Sale.
Respondent judge also failed to indicate in his answer as to Whether any notarial fee was charged
for that transaction, and if so, whether the same was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer of
Talibon, Bohol. Clearly, then, respondent judge, who was the sitting judge of the MCTC, Talibon-
Getafe, Bohol, failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions prescribed by SC Circular No. 1-90,
even if he could have acted as notary public ex-officio in the absence of any lawyer or notary public
in the municipality or circuit to which he was assigned. Whether respondent judge truly acted in
good faith when he prepared and acknowledged the subject document is beside the point since he
failed to strictly observe the requirements of SC Circular No. 1-90.
DOCTRINE: SC Circular No. 1-90 specifically requires that a certification attesting to the lack of
any lawyer or notary public in the said municipality or circuit be made in the notarized document.
RULE IV, SEC. 6(A) OF THE RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE OF 2004
PROVIDES:
SECTION 6. IMPROPER INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS. A NOTARY
PUBLIC SHALL NOT NOTARIZE:
(A) A BLANK OR INCOMPLETE INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT; OR

(B) AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE

NOTARIAL CERTIFICATION.
TUPAL v. ROJO
February 24, 2014 | Leonen, J. | MTC Judge Notarizing Documents
PETITIONER: Rex M. Tupal
RESPONDENTS: Judge Remegio V. Rojo
SUMMARY: Tupal filed a complaint with the OCA against Judge Rojo for violating the Code of
Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law. Tupal alleges that Judge Rojo notarizes
affidavits of cohabitation, which is a violation of Circular No. 1-90. Rojo denies the charges and
argues that such is common practice among courts in Bacolod.
The OCA issued a report finding Rojo guilty of the charges stating that nothing in the
Guidelines authorizes judges to notarize affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they
will solemnize.
The issue is whether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for
gross ignorance of law. The Court found Rojo guilty. Municipal trial court and municipal circuit
trial court judges may act as notaries public. However, they may do so only in their ex officio
capacities. They may notarize documents, contracts, and other conveyances only in the exercise of
their official functions and duties. They may also act as notaries public ex officio only if lawyers or
notaries public are lacking in their courts’ territorial jurisdiction. They must certify as to the lack of
lawyers or notaries public when notarizing documents ex officio.
DOCTRINE: Municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges may act as notaries
public. However, they may do so only in their ex officio capacities. They may also act as notaries
public ex officio only if lawyers or notaries public are lacking in their courts’ territorial jurisdiction.
GABON v. MERKA
December 14, 2011 | Per Curiam | Notaries public ex-officio
COMPLAINANT: Arthur M. Gabon
RESPONDENT: Rebecca P. Merka, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Liloan, Southern Leyte
SUMMARY: Gabon charged Merka with grave misconduct for (a) writing 8 demand letters in 1993
in behalf of Saint Ignatius Loyola Credit Cooperative, Inc., Simeon C. Maamoy, Jr., Restituta
Claridad using the MTC’s official letterhead and signing the same letters in her official capacity as
the Clerk of Court and for (b) administering oaths in 5 affidavits and a kasunduan in 1995 and 2000
that had no relation with her official duties. OCA directed Merka to comment and she admitted the
charge of using the MTC’s letterhead and signing the demand letters in her official capacity, but she
used the defense that she acted in good faith to aid in declogging the court’s dockets. In his reply,
Gabon said that Merka acted like the counsel of a private party in writing the demand letters and
that her authority to administer oaths extended only to cases filed or pending in her assigned court.
The OCA found Merka guilty of simple misconduct and that she also violated PD No. 26. She was
given a penalty of suspension of 1 month and 1 day for simple misconduct and a fine of 500 for PD
No. 26. The issue is Whether Merka is guilty of the charges against her. The SC ruled in the
affirmative, although they modified the findings and recommendation of the OCA. The SC said that
all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty, and
uprightness. Merka’s use of the court’s letterhead and of her official designation in the 8 demand
letters shows that she took advantage of her office and position to advance the interests of private
individuals, since she was acting as “counsel” and collecting agent for the 3 persons. Moreover, she
violated PD No. 26. In addition, she also administered oaths in documents involving official
business, in violation of Section 41, as amended by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6733, and Section
242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation with Sections G, M, and N, Chapter VIII of the
Manual for Clerks of Court. Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex oficio;
they may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of
their official functions. In their ex-officio capacity, clerks of court should not take part in the
execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their official functions.
DOCTRINE: Clerks of Court are notaries public ex oficio; they may notarize documents or
administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. In their
ex-officio capacity, clerks of court should not take part in the execution of private documents bearing
no relation at all to their official functions.
TIGNO v. AQUINO
November 25, 2004 | Tinga, J. | Notarial Acts
PETITIONER: Zenaida B. Tigno, Imelda B. Tigno, and Armi B. Tigno
RESPONDENTS: Spouses Estafino Aquino and Florentino Aquino and the CA
SUMMARY: Spouses Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages against
Bustria (seller) of a fishpond in Dasci, Pangasinan (Civil Case No. A-2157). The property was not
registered. The conveyance was covered by a Deed of Sale. They entered into a compromise
agreement whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale, and the Aquinos agreed to
grant to Bustria the right to repurchase the same property after the lapse of 7 years which was
approved and incorporated in the compromise agreement. Tigno, in substitution of Bustria (died),
attempted to repurchase the property by filing a Motion for Consignation by depositing P200,000
which was denied by the RTC (previously CFI). Tigno filed a Motion for Writ of Execution which
was also denied. Then Tigno filed an action for revival of judgment of Civil Case No. A-2157 so that
it can be enforced. Sps Aquino filed an answer alleging that Bustria sold his right to repurchase
property to them in a deed of sale dated October 17, 1985. It presented de Francia and Judge Cario
who notarized the same. As evidence, Sps Aquino offered the deed of sale executed by Bustria. This
was objected by Tigno on the ground that it was false. RTC refused to admit the Deed of Sale. Then,
RTC ruled in favor of Tigno to execute Civil Case No. A-2157. CA reversed saying that a notarized
document carried in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution and
that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to contradict the
same. Issue is Whether the Deed of Sale should have been admitted as evidence?
The SC held that it was not, because the Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties
of Judge Cario, and there was no reason for him to notarize it.
The document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment. Under Section 127
of the Land Registration Act, which has been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree No.
1529, the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a notary public. Also, the Court
explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cario may notarize only documents
connected with the exercise of their official duties. The Deed of Sale was not connected with any
official duties of Judge Cario, and there was no reason for him to notarize it. While there are possible
grounds for leniency in connection with this matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 permits
notaries public ex officio to perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public
provided that certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer
or notary public in such municipality or circuit. It is only when there are no lawyers or notaries
public that the exception applies.
DOCTRINE: Municipal court judges such as Cario may notarize only documents connected with
the exercise of their official duties. The Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties of
Judge Cario, and there was no reason for him to notarize it. While there are possible grounds for
leniency in connection with this matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 permits notaries
public ex officio to perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public provided that
certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public
in such municipality or circuit. It is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public that the
exception applies.
Q: What are the rules on notarization by MTC, MeTC, and MCTC judges?
A: GENERAL RULE — MTC, MeTC, and MCTC Judges may only notarize documents in furtherance
of their duties and functions.
EXCEPTION — In municipalities where there are no lawyers, or there are lawyers but are not
commissioned Notaries Public, the MTC Judge may perform notarial acts, even those not related to
their functions, subject to the following:
(1) All notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the
municipal treasurer; and
(2) A certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer
or notary public in such municipality or circuit.
Q: May Clerks of Court notarize ALL kinds of documents, i.e. even those not related to their
functions?
A: Yes, subject to the following:
(1) All notarial fees charged in accordance with Section 7(o) of Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, and, with respect to private documents, in accordance with the notarial fee that
the Supreme Court may prescribe in compliance with Section 1, Rule V of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, shall be for the account of the Judiciary and
(2) They certify in the notarized documents that there are NO NOTARIES PUBLIC within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
B. Importance of Notarization
1. Notarized documents as public instruments
1989 REVISED RULES OF EVIDENCE
RULE 132
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
SECTION 19. CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS. — FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR
PRESENTATION EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTS ARE EITHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE:
(A) THE WRITTEN OFFICIAL ACTS, OR RECORDS OF THE OFFICIAL ACTS

OF THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY, OFFICIAL BODIES AND TRIBUNALS,
AND PUBLIC OFFICERS, WHETHER OF THE PHILIPPINES, OR OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY;
(B) DOCUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC EXCEPT

LAST WILLS AND TESTAMENTS; AND
(C) PUBLIC RECORDS, KEPT IN THE PHILIPPINES, OF PRIVATE

DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY LAW TO THE ENTERED THEREIN.
ALL OTHER WRITINGS ARE PRIVATE. (20A)
SECTION 20. PROOF OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. — BEFORE ANY PRIVATE

DOCUMENT OFFERED AS AUTHENTIC IS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, ITS DUE
EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY MUST BE PROVED EITHER:
(A) BY ANYONE WHO SAW THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED OR WRITTEN; OR
(B) BY EVIDENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE SIGNATURE OR

HANDWRITING OF THE MAKER.
ANY OTHER PRIVATE DOCUMENT NEED ONLY BE IDENTIFIED AS

THAT WHICH IT IS CLAIMED TO BE. (21A)
SECTION 21. WHEN EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
NOT NECESSARY. — WHERE A PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS MORE THAN THIRTY
YEARS OLD, IS PRODUCED FROM THE CUSTODY IN WHICH IT WOULD
NATURALLY BE FOUND IF GENUINE, AND IS UNBLEMISHED BY ANY
ALTERATIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUSPICION, NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF
ITS AUTHENTICITY NEED BE GIVEN. (22A)
SECTION 22. HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED. — THE

HANDWRITING OF A PERSON MAY BE PROVED BY ANY WITNESS WHO
BELIEVES IT TO BE THE HANDWRITING OF SUCH PERSON BECAUSE HE HAS
SEEN THE PERSON WRITE, OR HAS SEEN WRITING PURPORTING TO BE HIS
UPON WHICH THE WITNESS HAS ACTED OR BEEN CHARGED, AND HAS THUS
ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF THE HANDWRITING OF SUCH PERSON.
EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE HANDWRITING MAY ALSO BE GIVEN BY A
COMPARISON, MADE BY THE WITNESS OR THE COURT, WITH WRITINGS
ADMITTED OR TREATED AS GENUINE BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE
EVIDENCE IS OFFERED, OR PROVED TO BE GENUINE TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE JUDGE. (23A)
SECTION 23. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE. — DOCUMENTS

CONSISTING OF ENTRIES IN PUBLIC RECORDS MADE IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF A DUTY BY A PUBLIC OFFICER ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS
THEREIN STATED. ALL OTHER PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE EVIDENCE, EVEN
AGAINST A THIRD PERSON, OF THE FACT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THEIR
EXECUTION AND OF THE DATE OF THE LATTER. (24A)
SECTION 30. PROOF OF NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS. — 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. (31A)
DELA CRUZ v. ZABALA

November 17, 2004 | Quisumbing, J. | Notarial Law
PETITIONER: Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala
SUMMARY: Complainant, Atty Dela Cruz, 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 Owner’s copy of Original Certificate of Title in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong
and Cirila Tapales. On May 20, 1997, complainant purchased the said property from Marero and
had the title transferred to him and his wife. The next day, complainant requested a certain Mrs.
Adoracion Losloso and Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the title in the complainant’s name at the
Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City. However, they were unable to do so because the property was
already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc. On May 27, 1997, respondent Zabala
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same land, executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro
Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife. 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 before the
Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and in a disbarment against the complainant. 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. Issue: Whether Atty. Zabala was
negligent in his conduct as a notary public. – Yes. 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. His act of certifying
under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining the identities of the persons
executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary public.
DOCTRINE: By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the Notary Public proclaimed to the
world that:
(1) All the parties therein personally appeared before him;
(2) They are personally known to him (or identified by him with competent evidence
of identity)
(3) They were the same persons who executed the instruments;
(4) He inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and,
(5) They acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed
the same.
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are
the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents
and the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what
are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to.
Otherwise, their representatives names should appear in the said documents as the ones who
executed the same.
OCAMPO v. LAND BANK
July 3, 2009 | Peralta, J. | Notarized documents as public instruments
PETITIONER: Gloria Ocampo and Teresita Tan
RESPONDENTS: Land Bank of the Philippines, Urdaneta, Pangasinan Branch and Ex Officio
Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan
SUMMARY: Gloria Ocampo and her daughter, Teresita Tan, obtained a loan from the LBP worth
P10M. Quedancor guaranteed to pay LBP in case of non-payment upon maturity. Pursuant thereto,
they executed a Deed of Assignment/Contract of Pledge covering cavans of palay in favor of LBP;
and they also delivered quedans. Quedancor’s liability, however, only covered 80% of the loan.
Thus, LBP, through a letter, required for additional securities. Ocampo and Tan then constituted a
REM over two parcels of unregistered land (which was subsequently registered and LBP filed a
motion for the registration of the encumbrance as well. Also, LBP registered the mortgage).
Ocampo failed to pay the balance. Thus, LBP filed with Quedancor a claim for guarantee payment.
It also filed, with the RTC, a criminal case for estafa for disposing the cavans of palay covered by
the quedans. With regard to the 20%, LBP petitioned for extrajudicial foreclosure of the REM.
Ocampo and Tan filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity and Damages with Application for
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against the LBP and the Sheriff, who set the sale of the mortgaged
properties at a public auction. Ocampo and Tan claimed that the REM is a forgery because LBP did
not inform them that the properties would be used to secure the payment of a P2M loan, which
they allegedly did not apply for. She also claimed that she already paid in full the quedan loan.
RTC ruled in favor of Ocampo and Tan. The CA reversed this. The issue in this case is Whether the
deed of REM is valid. Yes. The SC is not a trier of facts but this case falls under the exceptions. She
admitted during the direct examination that is was her signature and that the blank document was
actually a document with statements although not all blanks are filled. Also, a perusal of the Deed
of REM, shows that in the acknowledgement portion, their names, resident certificate information
and the name of the notary public. (doctrine) Ocampo denied that she appeared before a notary
public. Later on, she said she does not remember this. However, Dasig, an officer of the bank, said
that Ocampo was present before the notary public when the document was being notarized.
DOCTRINE: It is well settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public
document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the
facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. In addition,
one who denies the due execution of a deed where one's signature appears has the burden of
proving that contrary to the recital in the jurat, one never appeared before the notary public and
acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act. A notarized instrument is admissible in evidence
without further proof of its due execution and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents,
and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.
Q: What are public documents?

A: The following are public documents (OAR)
(A) The written OFFICIAL ACTS, OR RECORDS OF THE OFFICIAL ACTS of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(B) Documents ACKNOWLEDGED before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(C) PUBLIC RECORDS, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to
the entered therein.
Q: What does the Notary Public proclaim to the world when he affixes his Notarial seal on a
document?
A: By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the Notary Public proclaimed to the world that:
(1) All the parties therein personally appeared before him;
(2) They are personally known to him (or identified by him with competent evidence of
identity)
(3) They were the same persons who executed the instruments;
(4) He inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and,
(5) They acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed
the same.
Q: What is the effect of acknowledgment?

A: The document becomes a public document, and carries with it a disputable presumption of facts
stated and due execution which may be overcome by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
Q: What is the effect of a defective notarization?

A: General Rule: The document is valid, but must be proven as a private document. Exception: When
the law requires the contract or undertaking to be in a public instrument, in which case the defective
notarization voids both the document and the underlying contract, i.e. Notarial wills.
Q: Rules on documentary evidence
Disputable presumption of
Overcome by clear &
Public genuiness, due execution, and
Documentary evidence
convincing evidence
facts stated therein
Witness who saw the person

Anyone who saw the write
document executed or
Presumption that document is written Witness who has acquired knowledge of
fake. Prove due execution and the handwriting because has seen
authenticity by: Evidence of the genuineness of writing by person
the signature or handwriting of
the maker
Comparison with writing
admitted as genuine
Private
More than 30 years old
Proved genuine to the
Produced from the custody in satisfaction of the judge
Not necessary under the
which it would naturally be
"Ancient Document" rule
found if genuine
Unblemished by any alterations

or circumstances of suspicion
2. Validity of Contracts
a. General Rule: A defective notarization does not affect the validity of a contract
NEW CIVIL CODE
BOOK IV — OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
TITLE II — CONTRACTS
CHAPTER 3 — FORM OF CONTRACTS
ART. 1356. CONTRACTS SHALL BE OBLIGATORY, IN WHATEVER FORM THEY
MAY HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO, PROVIDED ALL THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
FOR THEIR VALIDITY ARE PRESENT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE LAW REQUIRES
THAT A CONTRACT BE IN SOME FORM IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE VALID OR
ENFORCEABLE, OR THAT A CONTRACT BE PROVED IN A CERTAIN WAY, THAT
REQUIREMENT IS ABSOLUTE AND INDISPENSABLE. IN SUCH CASES, THE
RIGHT OF THE PARTIES STATED IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CANNOT BE
EXERCISED. (1278A)
ART. 1357. IF THE LAW REQUIRES A DOCUMENT OR OTHER SPECIAL FORM,

AS IN THE ACTS AND CONTRACTS ENUMERATED IN THE FOLLOWING
ARTICLE, THE CONTRACTING PARTIES MAY COMPEL EACH OTHER TO
OBSERVE THAT FORM, ONCE THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN PERFECTED. THIS
RIGHT MAY BE EXERCISED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ACTION UPON THE
CONTRACT. (1279A)
ART. 1358. THE FOLLOWING MUST APPEAR IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT:

(1) ACTS AND CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE FOR THEIR OBJECT THE
CREATION, TRANSMISSION, MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT
OF REAL RIGHTS OVER IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; SALES OF REAL
PROPERTY OR OF AN INTEREST THEREIN A GOVERNED BY ARTICLES
1403, NO. 2, AND 1405;
(2) THE CESSION, REPUDIATION OR RENUNCIATION OF HEREDITARY

RIGHTS OR OF THOSE OF THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS;
(3) THE POWER TO ADMINISTER PROPERTY, OR ANY OTHER POWER

WHICH HAS FOR ITS OBJECT AN ACT APPEARING OR WHICH
SHOULD APPEAR IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, OR SHOULD PREJUDICE
A THIRD PERSON;
(4) THE CESSION OF ACTIONS OR RIGHTS PROCEEDING FROM AN ACT

APPEARING IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
ALL OTHER CONTRACTS WHERE THE AMOUNT INVOLVED EXCEEDS

FIVE HUNDRED PESOS MUST APPEAR IN WRITING, EVEN A PRIVATE ONE.
BUT SALES OF GOODS, CHATTELS OR THINGS IN ACTION ARE GOVERNED BY
ARTICLES, 1403, NO. 2 AND 1405. (1280A)
CHAPTER 8
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS (N)
ART. 1403. THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE, UNLESS
THEY ARE RATIFIED:
(1) THOSE ENTERED INTO IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON BY ONE

WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN NO AUTHORITY OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATION, OR WHO HAS ACTED BEYOND HIS POWERS;
(2) THOSE THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AS

SET FORTH IN THIS NUMBER. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES AN
AGREEMENT HEREAFTER MADE SHALL BE UNENFORCEABLE BY
ACTION, UNLESS THE SAME, OR SOME NOTE OR MEMORANDUM,
THEREOF, BE IN WRITING, AND SUBSCRIBED BY THE PARTY
CHARGED, OR BY HIS AGENT; EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, OF THE
AGREEMENT CANNOT BE RECEIVED WITHOUT THE WRITING, OR A
SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF ITS CONTENTS:
(a) AN AGREEMENT THAT BY ITS TERMS IS NOT TO BE

PERFORMED WITHIN A YEAR FROM THE MAKING
THEREOF;
(b) A SPECIAL PROMISE TO ANSWER FOR THE DEBT,

DEFAULT, OR MISCARRIAGE OF ANOTHER;
(c) AN AGREEMENT MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF

MARRIAGE, OTHER THAN A MUTUAL PROMISE TO
MARRY;
(d) AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS, CHATTELS

OR THINGS IN ACTION, AT A PRICE NOT LESS THAN FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS, UNLESS THE BUYER ACCEPT AND
RECEIVE PART OF SUCH GOODS AND CHATTELS, OR THE
EVIDENCES, OR SOME OF THEM, OF SUCH THINGS IN
ACTION OR PAY AT THE TIME SOME PART OF THE
PURCHASE MONEY; BUT WHEN A SALE IS MADE BY

AUCTION AND ENTRY IS MADE BY THE AUCTIONEER IN
HIS SALES BOOK, AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, OF THE
AMOUNT AND KIND OF PROPERTY SOLD, TERMS OF
SALE, PRICE, NAMES OF THE PURCHASERS AND PERSON
ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THE SALE IS MADE, IT IS A
SUFFICIENT MEMORANDUM;
(e) AN AGREEMENT OF THE LEASING FOR A LONGER

PERIOD THAN ONE YEAR, OR FOR THE SALE OF REAL
PROPERTY OR OF AN INTEREST THEREIN;
(f) A REPRESENTATION AS TO THE CREDIT OF A THIRD

PERSON.
(3) THOSE WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE INCAPABLE OF GIVING CONSENT

TO A CONTRACT.
ESTATE OF GONZALES v. HEIRS OF PEREZ

5 November 2009 | Peralta, J. | Validity of Contracts
PETITIONERS: The Estate of Pedro C. Gonzales and Heirs of Pedro C. Gonzales
RESPONDENTS: The Heirs of Marcos Perez
SUMMARY: Pedro bought a parcel of land from the Municipality of Marikina in April 1966. Pedro
sold to Perez a portion of the said lot (Lot C-3) with an area of 375m . The contract of sale was
2
embodied in a Deed of Sale which was not notarized. Pedro and Marcos died. The mayor of
Marikina executed a Deed of Absolute Transfer of Real Property over Lots A and C in favor of the
Estate of Pedro. The heirs of Gonzales executed an extrajudicial partition wherein Lot C was
subdivided into 3 lots. As a result, new titles were issued wherein the 370m -portion of Lot C-3 is
2
now denominated as Lot C-1 and the remaining 5-m of the subject lot forms a portion of another
2
lot denominated as Lot C-2. The Heirs of Perez filed an action for “Annulment and/or Rescission
of Deed of Absolute Transfer of Real Property and for Reconveyance with Damages.” RTC
dismissed the complaint. CA reversed. The Heirs of Gonzales argue that Marcos could not have
legally bought the disputed parcel of land from Pedro in September 1966 because during that time,
Pedro had not yet acquired ownership of the subject lot and assuming that Pedro actually executed
the subject of Deed of Sale, the same is not valid because it was not notarized as required under
the provisions of Articles 1403 and 1358 of the Civil Code. The issue is whether the Deed of
Absolute is valid notwithstanding the fact that it was not notarized. The Court ruled in the
affirmative. Under Article 1403 (2), the sale of real property should be in writing and subscribed
by the party charged for it to be enforceable. In this case, the Deed of Sale between Pedro and
Marcos is in writing and subscribed by Pedro and his wife Francisca; hence, it is enforceable under
the Statute of Frauds. However, not having been subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, the Deed
of Sale is not a public document and, therefore, does not comply with Article 1358 of the Civil Code.
Nonetheless, settled is the rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed under Article 1358 does
not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein. It has been uniformly held that the form required under
the said Article is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience.
A sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid
and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate
produces legal effects between the parties.
DOCTRINE: Although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect
the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or
contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy.
Q; Which contracts must appear in a public instrument FOR CONVENIENCE?
A: The following contract must be solemnized for convenience (CHARP):
(1) Cession, repudiation, or renunciation of
(a) Rights under the CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS
(b) HEREDITARY Rights
(2) ADMINISTRATION of property or any other power which has for its object an act
appearing or which should appear in a public instrument, or should prejudice third
persons
(3) Creation, transmission, modification, or extinguishment of REAL RIGHTS over
immovables, EXCEPT sales governed by Arts. 1403 (2) & 1405
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
Q: Which contracts must appear in a public document FOR ENFORCEABILITY?

A: The following acts must be in a public instrument in order to be enforceable (Laway Conscious Yung
Pabebe — Multa 500):
(1) An agreement of the LEASING for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real
property or of an interest therein;
(2) A representation as to the CREDIT of a third person.
(3) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a YEAR from the making
thereof
(4) A special PROMISE to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
(5) An agreement made in CONSIDERATION OF MARRIAGE, other than a mutual
promise to marry;
(6) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than
FIVE HUNDRED PESOS, unless executory, provided that in an auction, entry is made
by a sufficient memorandum.
Q: Which contracts must appear in a public document in order to be VALID?

A: The following must appear in a public document in order to be valid:
(1) Donation of immovable property
(2) Rescission of contract under the Maceda Law
(3) Notarial will
(4) Registration of documents under the Property Registration Decree
(5) Transfer of ownership under Arts. 1498 & 1544 of the New Civil Code
(6) Effectivity as against third persons under Arts. 1625 and 1772 of the New Civil Code
(7) Concurrence and preference of credits
b. Exceptions: The law requires notarization as a requisite for validity/efficacy of acts

i. Donation of immovable property
NEW CIVIL CODE
BOOK III — PROPERTY
TITLE III — DONATION
CHAPTER 2 — PERSONS WHO MAY GIVE OR RECEIVE A DONATION
ART. 749. IN ORDER THAT THE DONATION OF AN IMMOVABLE MAY BE
VALID, IT MUST BE MADE IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, SPECIFYING THEREIN
THE PROPERTY DONATED AND THE VALUE OF THE CHARGES WHICH THE
DONEE MUST SATISFY.
THE ACCEPTANCE MAY BE MADE IN THE SAME DEED OF DONATION

OR IN A SEPARATE PUBLIC DOCUMENT, BUT IT SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT
UNLESS IT IS DONE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE DONOR.
IF THE ACCEPTANCE IS MADE IN A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT, THE

DONOR SHALL BE NOTIFIED THEREOF IN AN AUTHENTIC FORM, AND
THIS STEP SHALL BE NOTED IN BOTH INSTRUMENTS. (633)
HEIRS OF MARIANO v. CITY OF NAGA

March 12 2018 | Tijam, J. | Donation of Immovable Property
PETITIONERS: Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen, represented by Danilo David, Mary Therese
Irene, Ma. Catalina Sophia, Jose Mario, Ma. Lenor, Macario, all surnamed Mariano and Heirs of
Erlinda Mariano-Villanueva, represented in this act by Irene Lourdes Villanueva thru her Atty-in-
fact Editha Santuyo and Benjamin Santuyo
RESPONDENTS: City of Naga
SUMMARY: 1953: The president, VP, Sec. and Sec. Gen of City Heights Subdivision wrote to Naga
Mayor Imperial, offered to construct the Naga City Hall within the subdivision’s area of 2 ha. The
City wanted 5 ha. so the Subdivision amended their offer and agreed to donate 5 ha. 1954: A Deed
of Sale was allegedly executed; by virtue of such, the city constructed therein their city hall and
other government agencies entered and built their offices there. 2003: Danilo, one of the petitioners
heirs, demanded upon City Mayor Robredo to vacate and return the property stating that the
donation did not push through since the condition on the Subdivision undertaking the
construction of the City Hall therein, was abrogated when the City awarded the construction
contract to Sabaria (bureau of public works awarded it to Sabaria, although contested by then
Mayor Imperial). ISSUE: WHETHER the deed of donation is valid – NO. Art. 749 requires that the
donation of an immovable be made in a public document for it to be valid. In this case, although
the deed of donation was notarized; such was highly defective as it was made neither by the
alleged donors and their respective spouses or by the donee but only by the subdivision’s pres,
VP, sec. and gen. manager. Mayor Imperial affixed his signature on Aug 21, 1954 or 4 days after it
was notarized; thus, he could not have acknowledged it before the notary public on Aug. 16. The
notary public could neither have certified to knowing the parties to the donation, or to their
execution of the instrument or to the voluntariness of their act. This glaring defect is fatal to the
validity of the alleged donation. A defective notarization will strip the document of its public
character and reduce it to a private instrument. Not being a public document, the Deed of Donation
is void under Art. 749.
DOCTRINE: Art. 749, CC: In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be
made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges
which the donee must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a
separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the
donor. If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in
an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
ARANGOTE v. SPS. MAGLUNOB
February 18, 2009 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Registration of transfer of shares
PETITIONER: Elvira Arangote
RESPONDENTS: Sps. Martin Maglunob and Lourdes Maglunob and Romeo Solido
SUMMARY: There was a parcel of land owned in equal shares by the siblings Pantaleon Maglunob
(Pantaleon) and Placida Maglunob-Sorrosa (Placida). Considering that Pantaleon died without
issue, his one-half share in the parcel of land he co-owned with Placida passed on to his four
siblings namely: Placida, Luis, Martin I, and Victoria, in equal shares. Martin I had children--
Esperanza, Tomas and Inocencia. Esperanza has grandnephews Martin II and Romeo, respondents
in this case. Then the surviving and legal heirs of Pantaleon and Placida agreed to have the parcel
of land commonly owned by the siblings declared for real property tax purposes in the name of
Victorino Sorrosa (Victorino), Placida's husband. Since Martin I already passed away when the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate was executed, his heirs were represented
therein by Esperanza. By virtue of the said Deed, Martin I received as inheritance a portion of the
parcel of land measuring 897 square meters. It is clear from the records that the subject property
was not Esperanza's exclusive share, but also that of the other heirs of her father, Martin I.
Esperanza executed another document, an Affidavit, in which she renounced, relinquished,
waived and quitclaimed all her rights, share, interest and participation whatsoever in the subject
property in favor of petitioner Elvira and her husband. Elvira constrcted a house in the lot and
respondents Martin II entered the subject property. Thus, a civil case was filed. Respondents
Martin II assert that Esperanza could not have validly donated the entire property to Elvira as
Esperanza is not the sole owner of the land. Court found that Esperanza could not validly donate
the entire property to Elvira as it was co-owned. As to whether there was a valid donation of the
Esperanza’s interest in the land, the court ruled in the negative. In this case, the petitioner Elvira
derived her title to the subject property from the notarized Affidavit executed by Esperanza,
wherein the latter relinquished her rights, share, interest and participation over the same in favor
of the petitioner and her husband. Esperanza's Affidavit is, in fact, a Donation. Esperanza's real
intent in executing the said Affidavit was to donate her share in the subject property to petitioner
and her husband. there are three requisites for the validity of a simple donation of a real property,
to wit: (1) it must be made in a public instrument; (2) it must be accepted, which acceptance may
be made either in the same Deed of Donation or in a separate public instrument; and (3) if the
acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified in an authentic form, and
the same must be noted in both instruments. The subsequent notarized Deed of Acceptance as well
as the notice of such acceptance, executed by the petitioner did not cure the defect. Evidently, its
execution was a mere afterthought, a belated attempt to cure what was a defective donation.
DOCTRINE: there are three requisites for the validity of a simple donation of a real property, to
wit: (1) it must be made in a public instrument; (2) it must be accepted, which acceptance may be
made either in the same Deed of Donation or in a separate public instrument; and (3) if the
acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified in an authentic form, and
the same must be noted in both instruments.
ii. Cancellation of a contract under the Maceda Law
ORBE v. FILINVEST LAND

September 6, 2017 | Leonen, J. | cancellation of contract under Maceda Law
PETITIONER: Priscilla Zafra Obre
RESPONDENTS: Filinvest Land, Inc.
SUMMARY: Obre entered into a purchase agreement with Filinvest over a 385sqm land in Rizal.
The total price was around 2.5M. from June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004, Obre paid around 600K.
Filinvest then sent a notice of cancellation on October 4, 2004 which was received by Orbe on
October 18, 2004. The notice and its accompanying jurat. Noting that "efforts . . . to seek for a
reconsideration of said cancellation . . . proved futile," and that the parcel had since been sold by
Filinvest to a certain Ruel Ymana "in evident bad faith," Orbe filed against Filinvest a complaint
for refund with damages dated November 13, 2007 before the HLURB Field Office. Orbe
emphasized that she had made payments "beginning June, 2001 up to October, 2004." She further
asserted that the October 4, 2004 Notice did not amount to an "effective cancellation by notarial
act." Filinvest asserted that that Orbe failed to make 24 monthly amortization payments on her
account, and thus, could not benefit from Section 3 of Maceda Law. According to Filinvest, the
P608,648.20 paid by Orbe from June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004 covered only the reservation fee, down
payment, and late payment charges, exclusive of the monthly amortization payments stipulated in
the Purchase Agreement. Arbiter Soriano of the HLURB Field office then ruled in favor of Orbe. It
said that since Orbe paid from June 17, 2001 to July 14, 2004, a period more than 2 years, all the
payments should be credited to the principal and she was entitled to a refund of the cash surrender
value equivalent to the total payments she made pursuant to Sec. 3. Filinvest appealed to the
HLURB Board of Commissioners which affirmed Arbiter Soriano’s decision. It disagreed with
Arbiter Soriano's conclusion that Orbe had paid two (2) years' installments. It specifically noted
rather, that the buyer's payments fell two (2) months short of the equivalent of two years of
installments. It added, however, that "[e]quity . . . should come in especially where, as here, the
payment period is relatively short and the monthly installment is relatively of substantial
amounts." Thus, it concluded that Orbe was still entitled to a 50% refund. Filinvest then appealed
to the Office of the President which sustained the decision that orbe was entitled to a 50% refund.
It disagreed with the HLURB Board of Commissioners' finding that Section 3's benefits were
available to Orbe purely as a matter of equity. It agreed instead with Arbiter Soriano's reliance on
how Orbe "ha[d] made installment payments for more than two (2) years." The CA reversed the
prior rulings of the Office of the President, of the HLURB Board of Commissioners, and of Arbiter
Soriano; and dismissed Orbe's Complaint.
Whether Obre is entitled to a refund or to any other benefit under RA 6552 (Maceda Law)—
Yes. Considering that Filinvest did not validly cancel its contract with Obre and has also sold the
lot to another person, it is proper that Filinvest be ordered to refund Obre. This case falls under Sec
4, since the installments did not amount to 2 years of installments. To be a valid cancellation under
Sec 4, 3 requisites are needed. First, the buyer must have been given a 60-day grace period but
failed to utilize it. Second, the seller must have sent a notice of cancellation or demand for rescission
by notarial act. And third, the cancellation shall take effect only after 30 days of the buyer's receipt
of the notice of cancellation. The second requisite was not complied with. Filinvest's October 4,
2004 notice indicates that Orbe failed to utilize the 60-day grace period. It also indicates that
cancellation was to take effect "thirty (30) days from [its] receipt". The notice of cancellation was
accompanied by a jurat; thereby making it appear to have been a valid notarial act but this is not
the notarial act contemplated by the Maceda Law.
A jurat is a distinct notarial act, which makes no averment concerning the authority of a
representative. Even if Filinvest's notarization by jurat and not by acknowledgement were to be
condoned, Filinvest's jurat was not even a valid jurat executed according to the requirements of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In this case, the signatory of Filinvest used a Community Tac
Certificate as competent evidence of identity but it doesn't satisfy this requirement anymore. AM
No. 02-8-13-SC rebuked the validity of a community tax certificate as competent evident of identity
since it was no longer reliable to prove identity.
There being no valid cancellation, the purchase agreement between Obre and Filinvest
"remains valid and subsisting" but since the land was already sold to Ymana, Filinvest should just
refund to Obre, the amount she paid.
DOCTRINE: To be a valid cancellation under Sec 4, 3 requisites are needed. First, the buyer must
have been given a 60-day grace period but failed to utilize it. Second, the seller must have sent a
notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act. And third, the cancellation shall
take effect only after 30 days of the buyer's receipt of the notice of cancellation
Q: What are the requisites for a valid rescission under Sec. 4 of the Maceda Law?
A: The following requisites must concur (60N30):
(1) The buyer must have been given a 60-day grace period but failed to utilize it.
(2) The seller must have sent a notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial
act.
(3) The cancellation shall take effect only after 30 days of the buyer's receipt of the notice
of cancellation
iii. Notarial will

NEW CIVIL CODE
BOOK III — PROPERTY
TITLE IV — SUCCESSION
CHAPTER 2 — TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
SUBSECTION 3 — FORMS OF WILLS
ART. 805. EVERY WILL, OTHER THAN A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL, MUST BE
SUBSCRIBED AT THE END THEREOF BY THE TESTATOR HIMSELF OR BY THE
TESTATOR'S NAME WRITTEN BY SOME OTHER PERSON IN HIS PRESENCE,
AND BY HIS EXPRESS DIRECTION, AND ATTESTED AND SUBSCRIBED BY
THREE OR MORE CREDIBLE WITNESSES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE TESTATOR
AND OF ONE ANOTHER.
THE TESTATOR OR THE PERSON REQUESTED BY HIM TO WRITE HIS

NAME AND THE INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES OF THE WILL, SHALL ALSO
SIGN, AS AFORESAID, EACH AND EVERY PAGE THEREOF, EXCEPT THE LAST,
ON THE LEFT MARGIN, AND ALL THE PAGES SHALL BE NUMBERED
CORRELATIVELY IN LETTERS PLACED ON THE UPPER PART OF EACH PAGE.
THE ATTESTATION SHALL STATE THE NUMBER OF PAGES USED UPON

WHICH THE WILL IS WRITTEN, AND THE FACT THAT THE TESTATOR SIGNED
THE WILL AND EVERY PAGE THEREOF, OR CAUSED SOME OTHER PERSON TO
WRITE HIS NAME, UNDER HIS EXPRESS DIRECTION, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES, AND THAT THE LATTER WITNESSED AND
SIGNED THE WILL AND ALL THE PAGES THEREOF IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
TESTATOR AND OF ONE ANOTHER.
IF THE ATTESTATION CLAUSE IS IN A LANGUAGE NOT KNOWN TO THE

WITNESSES, IT SHALL BE INTERPRETED TO THEM. (N)
ART. 806. EVERY WILL MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY

PUBLIC BY THE TESTATOR AND THE WITNESSES. THE NOTARY PUBLIC SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO RETAIN A COPY OF THE WILL, OR FILE ANOTHER WITH
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT. (N)
GUERRERO v. BIHIS
April 17, 2007 | Corona, J. | Notarial Will
PETITIONER: Bella A. Guerrero
RESPONDENT: Resurreccion A. Bihis
SUMMARY: Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura, mother of petitioner Guerrero and respondent Bihis,
died. Guerrero filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of the decedent.
Respondent opposed this on the grounds, one of which is that the will was not executed and
attested as required by law and its attestation clause and acknowledgment did not comply with
the requirements of the law. After Guerrero presented her evidence, Bihis filed a demurrer alleging
that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and
805. RTC denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of the Civil Code was not complied
with because the will was "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's,
residence at Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a commissioned notary public
for and in Caloocan City.
Guerrero, asserts that the fact that the notary public was acting outside his territorial
jurisdiction did not affect the validity of the notarial will.
Issue: Whether the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the instrumental witnesses
before a notary public acting outside the place of his commission satisfy the requirement under
Article 806 of the Civil Code? It did not.
Article 806 provides that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses.
One of the formalities required by law in connection with the execution of a notarial will is
that it must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. This formal
requirement is one of the indispensable requisites for the validity of a will. An acknowledgment is
the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer and declaring it to
be his act or deed. In the case of a notarial will, that competent officer is the notary public.
A notary public... is authorized to perform notarial acts, including the taking of
acknowledgments, within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the place of his commission,
he is bereft of power to perform any notarial act; he is not a notary public.
DOCTRINE: Any notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no force and effect.
AZUELA v. CA
April 12, 2006 | Tinga, J. | Notarization of a Will is a requisite for its validity
PETITIONERS: Felix Azuela
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, Geralda Aida Castillo substituted by Ernesto G. Castillo
SUMMARRY: Felix Azuela sought to admit to probate the notarial will of Eugenia E. Igsolo. The
probate petition adverted to only 2 heirs, legatees and devisees of the decedent, namely: Azuela
himself, and one Irene Lynn Igsolo, who was alleged to have resided abroad. However, this was
opposed by Geralda Castillo, who was the attorney-in-fact of “the 12 legitimate heirs” of the
decedent Eugenio. According to her, the will was forged, and imbued with several fatal defects.
She pointed out that decedents signature did not appear on the second page of the will.
Particularly, the issue relevant in this subject is that the will was not properly acknowledged. The
notary public, Petronio Y. Bautista, only wrote “Nilagdaan ko at ninotario ko ngayong 10 ng
Hunyo 10 (sic), 1981 dito sa Lungsod ng Maynila.” The issue is WHETHER the will was fatally
defective? - YES. This was not only because of the lack of number of pages and that the attestation
clause was not signed by the witnesses but also because IT WAS NOT PROPERLY
ACKNOWLEDGED before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses as required by Article
806 of the Civil Code. By no manner of contemplation can those words be construed as an
acknowledgment. An acknowledgement is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before
some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signore actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document
has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed. It might be possible to
construe the averment as a jurat, even though it does not hew to the usual language thereof. Yet
even if we consider what was affixed by the notary public as a jurat, the will would nonetheless
remain invalid, as the express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be “acknowledged,” and
not merely subscribed and sworn to. The will does not present any textual proof, much less one
under oath, that the decedent and the instrumental witnesses executed or signed the will as their
own free act or deed. The acknowledgment made in a will provides for another all-important legal
safeguard against spurious wills or those made beyond the free consent of the testator.
Focused first on the relevant topic, here are the other defects of the will:
(1) The attestation clause fails to state the number of pages of the will. There was an
incomplete attempt to comply with this requisite, a space having been allotted for
the insertion of the number of pages in the attestation clause.
(2) The attestation clause was not signed by the instrumental witnesses. While the
signatures of the instrumental witnesses appear on the left-hand margin of the will,
they do not appear at the bottom of the attestation clause which after all consists of
their averments before the notary public.
(3) The decedent, unlike the witnesses, failed to sign both pages of the will on the left
margin, her only signature appearing at the so-called logical end of the will on its
first page.
(4) The will itself is not numbered correlatively in letters on each page, but instead
numbered with Arabic numerals. (but take note that taken in isolation, errors 3 and
4 by themselves, may not be sufficient to deny probate to a will)
DOCTRINE: The express requirement of Article 806 is that the will be acknowledged, and not
merely subscribed and sworn to. The acknowledgment coerces the testator and the instrumental
witnesses to declare before an officer of the law that they had executed and subscribed to the will
as their own free act or deed.
Q: What are the formalities of a will?

A: A notarial will must conform to the following formalities (WLLA PAWS):
(1) It must be in WRITING
(2) In a LANGUAGE known to the testator
(3) Signed on the LEFT margin by the testator or the person requested by him to write his
name and the instrumental witnesses
(4) There must be an ATTESTATION clause signed by the instrumental witnesses in the
presence of the testator, and must state:
(a) The number of pages used upon which the will is written
(b) The fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused
some other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the
presence of the instrumental witnesses
(c) That the witnesses witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in
the presence of the testator and one another
(5) It must be PAGINATED correlatively in letters
(6) It must be ACKNOWLEDGED before a Notary Public by the testator and the
instrumental witnesses
(7) There must be at least three WITNESSES who attested and subscribed
(8) SUBSCRIBED at the end thereof by the testator
iv. Registration of Documents
P.D. NO. 1529

PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE
CHAPTER XII
FORMS USED IN LAND REGISTRATION AND CONVEYANCING
SECTION 112. FORMS IN CONVEYANCING. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND
REGISTRATION SHALL PREPARE CONVENIENT BLANK FORMS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO HELP FACILITATE THE PROCEEDINGS IN LAND
REGISTRATION AND SHALL TAKE CHARGE OF THE PRINTING OF LAND TITLE
FORMS.
DEEDS, CONVEYANCES, ENCUMBRANCES, DISCHARGES, POWERS OF

ATTORNEY AND OTHER VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENTS, WHETHER AFFECTING
REGISTERED OR UNREGISTERED LAND, EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW IN THE FORM OF PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS SHALL BE REGISTERABLE:
PROVIDED, THAT, EVERY SUCH INSTRUMENT SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
PERSON OR PERSONS EXECUTING THE SAME IN THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST
TWO WITNESSES WHO SHALL LIKEWISE SIGN THEREON, AND SHALL
ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE THE FREE ACT AND DEED OF THE PERSON OR
PERSONS EXECUTING THE SAME BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER
PUBLIC OFFICER AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
WHERE THE INSTRUMENT SO ACKNOWLEDGED CONSISTS OF TWO OR MORE
PAGES INCLUDING THE PAGE WHEREON ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS WRITTEN,
EACH PAGE OF THE COPY WHICH IS TO BE REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, OR IF REGISTRATION IS NOT CONTEMPLATED,
EACH PAGE OF THE COPY TO BE KEPT BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC, EXCEPT THE
PAGE WHERE THE SIGNATURES ALREADY APPEAR AT THE FOOT OF THE
INSTRUMENT, SHALL BE SIGNED ON THE LEFT MARGIN THEREOF BY THE
PERSON OR PERSONS EXECUTING THE INSTRUMENT AND THEIR WITNESSES,
AND ALL THE AGES SEALED WITH THE NOTARIAL SEAL, AND THIS FACT AS
WELL AS THE NUMBER OF PAGES SHALL BE STATED IN THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. WHERE THE INSTRUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED RELATES
TO A SALE, TRANSFER, MORTGAGE OR ENCUMBRANCE OF TWO OR MORE
PARCELS OF LAND, THE NUMBER THEREOF SHALL LIKEWISE BE SET FORTH
IN SAID ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
Q: What instruments may be registered with the Registry of Deeds?

A: Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other voluntary
instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in accordance with law in
the form of public instruments
Q: What are the requisites for registration of instruments with the Registry of Deeds?
A: The following requisites must be complied with:
(1) Signed by the person or persons executing the same;
(2) In the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon;
(3) Acknowledged before a Notary Public;
(4) The Acknowledgment shall state the number of pages;
(5) Signed on the left margin by the person/s executing it, except on the page where the
signatures appear at the foot thereof;
(6) All pages shall be sealed with the Notarial Seal;
(7) If the act evidenced by the instrument relates to two or more parcels of land, the
number thereof shall be set forth in the acknowledgement.
v. Transfer of ownership
NEW CIVIL CODE
TITLE IV — SALES
CHAPTER 4 — OBLIGATIONS OF THE VENDOR
SECTION 2 — DELIVERY OF THE THING SOLD
ART. 1498. WHEN THE SALE IS MADE THROUGH A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT,
THE EXECUTION THEREOF SHALL BE EQUIVALENT TO THE DELIVERY OF THE
THING WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT, IF FROM THE DEED THE
CONTRARY DOES NOT APPEAR OR CANNOT CLEARLY BE INFERRED.
WITH REGARD TO MOVABLE PROPERTY, ITS DELIVERY MAY ALSO BE

MADE BY THE DELIVERY OF THE KEYS OF THE PLACE OR DEPOSITORY WHERE
IT IS STORED OR KEPT. (1463A)
ART. 1544. IF THE SAME THING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD TO DIFFERENT
VENDEES, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON WHO
MAY HAVE FIRST TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF IN GOOD FAITH, IF IT
SHOULD BE MOVABLE PROPERTY.
SHOULD IT BE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL

BELONG TO THE PERSON ACQUIRING IT WHO IN GOOD FAITH FIRST
RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.
SHOULD THERE BE NO INSCRIPTION, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL

PERTAIN TO THE PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH WAS FIRST IN THE
POSSESSION; AND, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, TO THE PERSON WHO
PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED THERE IS GOOD FAITH. (1473)
DY v. COURT OF APPEALS
July 8, 1991 | Guiterrez Jr, J. | Execution of a Public Instrument is Delivery
PETITIONER/S: Perfecto Dy, Jr.
RESPONDENT/S: Court of Appeals, Gelac Trading Inc., and Antonio V. Gonzales
SUMMARY: Perfecto Dy and Wilfredo Dy are brothers. Sometime in 1979, Wilfredo Dy purchased
a truck and a farm tractor through financing extended by Libra Finance and Investment
Corporation (Libra). Both truck and tractor were mortgaged to Libra as security for the loan.
Perfecto wrote a letter to Libra to allow it to purchase the tractor and assume the mortgage of
Wilfredo. Libra agreed. The brother executed a deed of absolute sale to effect the sale. When this
sale happened, the tractor was already in possession of Libra because Wilfredo defaulted in the
payment of amortizations. Libra did not allow the immediate release of the tractor because it was
both the tractor and the truck which were mortgaged to Libra so it wanted full payment of both.
Perfecto convinced his sister to issue a check to pay for both items first. While waiting for the
check’s clearance, Wilfredo lost a case against Gelac Trading, and the latter, with the power of a
writ of execution, the sheriff levied on the tractor. Gelac When Perfecto found out that the tractor
was levied on, it filed a case for replevin. The issue is Whether Wilfredo still owned the tractor
when it was levied on by the sheriff. The SC held that no, the levy was void because it was already
owned by Perfecto at that time. The rule is settled that the chattel mortgagor continues to be the
owner of the property, and therefore, has the power to alienate the same; however, he is obliged
under pain of penal liability, to secure the written consent of the mortgagee. Article 1496 of the
Civil Code states that the ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment
it is delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501 or in any other manner
signifying an agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. Articles
1498 and 1499 are applicable in the case at bar.
DOCTRINE: Here, actual delivery of the subject tractor could not be made. However, there was
constructive delivery already upon the execution of the public instrument pursuant to Article
1498 and upon the consent or agreement of the parties when the thing sold cannot be immediately
transferred to the possession of the vendee.
TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT v. CRUZ
September 10, 2003 | Panganiban, J. | Transfer of ownership
PETITIONER: Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp, Veronica Lorenzana (President)
RESPONDENTS: Marina Cruz
SUMMARY: TEN FORTY filed a complaint for ejectment (unlawful detainer) against CRUZ. TEN
FORTY alleged that it acquired the property through a Deed of Absolute Sale from Galino, which
was acknowledged through a Kasunduan. However, TEN FORTY found out that Galino sold the
same property to CRUZ, who immediately occupied the same and was merely tolerated by TEN
FORTY. On the other hand, CRUZ countered that TEN FORTY is not qualified to own a public
land. And that the there was no sale but only a loan. That the allegations were not of the nature of
unlawful detainer, and as such it has already prescribed. The MTCC ruled in favor TEN FORTY,
but was reversed by the RTC. On appeal, the CA held that TEN FORTY failed to establish a case of
Unlawful Detainer. Hence this petition.
The issues before the court are: (1) Whether there was tolerance on the part of TEN FORTY;
(2) Whether the case was for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (3) Whether there was delivery;
and (4) Whether TEN FORTY is qualified to own public land
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cruz. As to the first issue (1) tolerance must be present
from the beginning. But in the case beforehand, the complaint does not allege any averment of facts
that would substantiate the claim of tolerance. Rather, bare allegations which contradict such
claim, only bolstering a case of Forcible Entry. (2) Although the allegations provide for unlawful
detainer, what was proven by TEN FORTY was actually a case for forcible entry, thus, was filed
beyond the 1 year period from the date of entry. For the third issue (3) the court held that the
transfer of ownership is not by contract but by delivery. The execution of a public instrument
is generally a mode of delivery, but it does not provide a conclusive presumption of delivery,
but only prima facie. In the present case, the prima facie presumption was negated because of a
legal impediment. TEN FORTY never gained control or possession of the property, rather
Galino was in possession of the property until she surrendered the same to CRUZ when it was
sold. And lastly, (4) based on Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, private corporations are
disqualified from owning public land. But they may acquire private lands. In this case, TEN
FORTY was not able to prove that the land was private at the time of purchase.
DOCTRINE: Nowhere in the Civil Code is it provided that the execution of a Deed of Sale is a
conclusive presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real estate. This Court had held that
the execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery. Such
presumption is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment
vi. Effectivity as against Third Parties

NEW CIVIL CODE
TITLE IV — SALES
CHAPTER 8 — ASSIGNMENT OF CREDITS AND OTHER INCORPOREAL
RIGHTS
ART. 1625. AN ASSIGNMENT OF A CREDIT, RIGHT OR ACTION SHALL
PRODUCE NO EFFECT AS AGAINST THIRD PERSON, UNLESS IT APPEARS IN
A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT, OR THE INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED IN THE
REGISTRY OF PROPERTY IN CASE THE ASSIGNMENT INVOLVES REAL
PROPERTY. (1526)
NEW CIVIL CODE

TITLE IX — PARTNERSHIP
CHAPTER 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
ART. 1772. EVERY CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP HAVING A CAPITAL OF
THREE THOUSAND PESOS OR MORE, IN MONEY OR PROPERTY, SHALL
APPEAR IN A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT, WHICH MUST BE RECORDED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND
THE MEMBERS THEREOF TO THIRD PERSONS. (N)
CALTEX v. CA
August 10, 1992 | Regalado, J. | Assignment of Credit as Against Third Persons
PETITIONER: Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals and Security Bank and Trust Company
SUMMARY: 280 Certificate of Time Deposits (CTDs) were issued to Angel dela Cruz by SBTC
after the latter deposited P1,120,000.00. Angel then delivered these CTDs to Caltex in order to
purchase fuel products. After losing the original CTDs, he submitted a notarized affidavit, upon
which 280 replacement CTDs were again issued. Meanwhile, Angel loaned from SBTC and
executed a Deed of Assignment of Time Deposit which stated that he surrenders to SBTC full
control of the CTDs from and after the date of the assignment and further authorizes SBTC to pre-
terminate, set off, and apply the time deposits to the payment on the loan upon maturity. Credit
Manager of Caltex alleged that the CTDs were delivered to Caltex as security and that Caltex now
wants to pre-terminate the same. SBTC rejected the demand.
When Angel’s loan matured, SBTC applied the time deposits as payment. Because of this,
Caltex demanded that SBTC should pay the aggregate value of the CTDs. RTC dismissed the
complaint. CA affirmed. W/N Caltex can recover the CTDs – NO, the assignment of the CTDs
made by Angel de la Cruz in favor of SBTC was embodied in a public instrument. SBTC complied
with the statutory requirement in Art. 1625.
Under NIL, an instrument is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in
such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder thereof, and a holder may be the payee or
indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof. Here, however, there was
no negotiation in the sense of a transfer of the legal title to the CTDs in favor of Caltex in which
situation, for obvious reasons, mere delivery of the bearer CTDs would have sufficed. The
pertinent law on this point is that where the holder has a lien on the instrument arising from
contract, he is deemed a holder for value to the extent of his lien. As such holder of collateral
security, he would be a pledgee but the requirements therefor and the effects thereof, not being
provided for by the Negotiable Instruments Law, shall be governed by the Civil Code provisions
on pledge of incorporeal rights. The mere delivery of the CTDs did not legally vest in Caltex any
right effective against and binding upon SBTC. Furthermore, Caltex, whether as purchaser,
assignee or lienholder of the CTDs, neither proved the amount of its credit or the extent of its lien
nor the execution of any public instrument which could affect or bind SBTC. Necessarily, therefore,
as between Caltex and SBTC, the latter has definitely the better right over the CTDs in question.
DOCTRINE: Art. 1625. An assignment of credit, right or action shall produce no effect as against
third persons, unless it appears in a public instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry
of Property in case the assignment involves real property.
vii. Concurrence and preference of credits

NEW CIVIL CODE
TITLE XIX — CONCURRENCE AND PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
CHAPTER 2 — CLASSIFICATION OF CREDITS
ART. 2244. WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER PROPERTY, REAL AND PERSONAL,
OF THE DEBTOR, THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS OR CREDITS SHALL BE PREFERRED
IN THE ORDER NAMED:
(1) PROPER FUNERAL EXPENSES FOR THE DEBTOR, OR CHILDREN

UNDER HIS OR HER PARENTAL AUTHORITY WHO HAVE NO
PROPERTY OF THEIR OWN, WHEN APPROVED BY THE COURT;
(2) CREDITS FOR SERVICES RENDERED THE INSOLVENT BY EMPLOYEES,

LABORERS, OR HOUSEHOLD HELPERS FOR ONE YEAR PRECEDING
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN INSOLVENCY;
(3) EXPENSES DURING THE LAST ILLNESS OF THE DEBTOR OR OF HIS OR

HER SPOUSE AND CHILDREN UNDER HIS OR HER PARENTAL
AUTHORITY, IF THEY HAVE NO PROPERTY OF THEIR OWN;
(4) COMPENSATION DUE THE LABORERS OR THEIR DEPENDENTS

UNDER LAWS PROVIDING FOR INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGES IN CASES
OF LABOR ACCIDENT, OR ILLNESS RESULTING FROM THE NATURE
OF THE EMPLOYMENT;
(5) CREDITS AND ADVANCEMENTS MADE TO THE DEBTOR FOR

SUPPORT OF HIMSELF OR HERSELF, AND FAMILY, DURING THE LAST
YEAR PRECEDING THE INSOLVENCY;
(6) SUPPORT DURING THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR

THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER;
(7) FINES AND CIVIL INDEMNIFICATION ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL

OFFENSE;
(8) LEGAL EXPENSES, AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE

ADMINISTRATION OF THE INSOLVENT'S ESTATE FOR THE COMMON
INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS, WHEN PROPERLY AUTHORIZED AND
APPROVED BY THE COURT;
(9) TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS DUE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,

OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN ARTICLES 2241, NO. 1, AND
2242, NO. 1;
(10) TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS DUE ANY PROVINCE, OTHER THAN

THOSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 2241, NO. 1, AND 2242, NO. 1;
(11) TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS DUE ANY CITY OR MUNICIPALITY, OTHER

THAN THOSE INDICATED IN ARTICLES 2241, NO. 1, AND 2242, NO.
1;
(12) DAMAGES FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A QUASI-

DELICT;
(13) GIFTS DUE TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF CHARITY OR

BENEFICENCE;
(14) CREDITS WHICH, WITHOUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, APPEAR IN (A) A

PUBLIC INSTRUMENT; OR (B) IN A FINAL JUDGMENT, IF THEY HAVE
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION. THESE CREDITS SHALL HAVE
PREFERENCE AMONG THEMSELVES IN THE ORDER OF PRIORITY OF
THE DATES OF THE INSTRUMENTS AND OF THE JUDGMENTS,
RESPECTIVELY. (1924A)
C. Notarial Acts
1. Jurat
“Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion (AISO):
(1) APPEARS in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(2) Is personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of IDENTITY
defined by the Rules;
(3) SIGNS the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and,
(4) Takes an OATH or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.
JURAT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati City, affiant exhibiting
to me her Passport issued at DFA Manila and expiring on August 24, 2020, who was identified
by me through competent evidence of identity to be the same person who presented the
foregoing instrument, signed the instrument in my presence, and who took an oath before me
as to such instrument.
Witness my hand and seal this 5th day of August 2018.
Doc. No. __; (Signature of Notary Public)

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345
2. Acknowledgement
“Acknowledgement” refers to an act which an individual on a single occasion (ACISVA):
(1) APPEARS in person before the notary public and presents an integrally COMPLETE
instrument or document
(2) Is attested to be personally known to the notary public or IDENTIFIED by the notary
public through competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules; and,
(3) Represents to the notary public that the SIGNATURE on the instrument or document
was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document
as his free and VOLUNTARY act and deed and, if he acts in a particular representative
capacity that he has the AUTHORITY to sign in that capacity.
An individual must present his or her community tax certificate 9CTC) when he or she
acknowledges a document before a notary public. Thus, the CTC number, among other details related
to such CTC, must be stated in the acknowledgement.
Documents acknowledged before notary publics (EXCEPT last wills and testaments) are
considered public documents under the Rules of Evidence, and may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgement being prima facie evidence of the due
execution of the instrument or document involved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati City, personally appeared Jane Doe, with CTC
No. 432, issued by the City of Makati on January 10, 2018, exhibiting to me his Passport issued
at DFA Manila and expiring on August 24, 2020, who was identified by me through competent
evidence of identity to be the same person who presented the foregoing instrument as his free
and voluntary act and deed.

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345
GAMIDO v. NEW BILIBID PRISONS

1 March 1995 | Davide, J. | Jurat v Acknowledgement
PETITIONER: Maximo Buenaventura Gamido
RESPONDENTS: New Bilibid Prison (NBP) officials
SUMMARY: This is a resolution where the court had required Atty. Icasiano M. Dela Rea to show
cause why he made it appear in the jurat of Gamido that Gamido had subscribed the verification
and swore to before him as notary public when Gamido did not. Atty. Icasiano readily admitted
that he executed the jurat without Gamido’s presence. He alleged that he had done so in honest
belieft that a jurat, unlike an acknowledgement, need not the presence of the affiant. The issue is
Whether Atty. Icasiano has committed grave misconduct.
The court held that he had. An acknowledgement and a jurat necessitates the presence of the
affiant. Atty. Icasiano dela rea’s claim that the presence of Gamido was not necessary for the jurat
because it is not an acknowledgment is baseless. His prior acquaintance and friendship with
Gamido provides no excuse for non-compliance. If he were faithful to his duty and if he wanted to
accommodate a friend who was inside a prison, he could have gone to Gamido’s cell since he
openly admitted that he has been in and out of the NBP and that his office is across the Municipal
Building and that he handled a number of cases involving prisoners and guards as well as
personnel.
DOCTRINE: The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly
authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgment of instruments or documents in the place
where the act is done.
In a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a
notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.
Q: How do you determine whether to use an Acknowledgment or a Jurat?

A: First, check the law. If the law so states that the Notarial act necessary is either, then follow the
law. Second, check the purpose of the Notarial act to be performed. If the act is done to convert the
document into a public instrument, then an Acknowledgment is proper NOT a Jurat. Third, check for
the nature of the act. If the act is a bilateral act, then an Acknowledgment should be used, if it is a
unilateral act, then a Jurat.
3. Oath and Affirmation

“Oath or Affirmation” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the Notary Public;
(2) Is personally known or identified by the Notary Public through competent evidence
of identity as defined by the Rules; and,
(3) Avows UNDER PENALTY OF LAW the whole truth of the contents of the instrument
or document
4. Signature Witnessing
“Signature Witnessing” refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(1) Appears in person before the Notary Public and resents an instrument or document;
(2) Is personally known to the Notary Public or identified by the Notary Public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules; and,
(3) Signs the instrument or document in the presence of the Notary Public
5. Copy Certification
“Copy Certification” refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
(1) Is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public
record, nor publicly recordable;
(2) Copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;
(3) Compares the instrument or document with the copy; and
(4) Determines that the copy is accurate and complete

COPY CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I was presented with an instrument entitled “Deed of Sale” which is
neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable; that I copied the instrument;
and that I compared the copied instrument with the original copy and I hereby certify that the
copy is accurate and complete.

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345
6. Certifying the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark

The requisites for the validity of the certification of the affixing of a signature by thumbmark or other
mark are:
(1) The thumb or other mark is affixed IN THE PRESENCE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC
AND OF TWO DISINTERESTED WITNESSES to the instrument or document;
(2) Both WITNESSES SIGN THEIR OWN NAMES in addition to the thumb or other mark;
(3) The Notary Public writes below the thumb or other mark: “THUMB OR OTHER
MAARK AFFIXED BY (NAME OF SIGNATORY BY MARK) IN THE PRESENCE OF
(NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES) AND UNDERSIGNED NOTARY
PUBLIC;” and,
(4) The Notary Public NOTARIZES the signature by thumb or other mark through an
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, JURAT, or SIGNATURE WITNESSING
7. Signing on behalf of a person physically unable to sign or make a mark

A Notary Public is allowed to sign on behalf of another otherwise incapacitated to sign on his own,
subject to the following requirements:
(1) The Notary Public is DIRECTED BY THE PERSON unable to sign or make a mark to
sign on his behalf;
(2) The signature of the Notary Public is affixed in the presence of TWO DISINTERESTED
AND UNAFFECTED WITNESSES to the instrument or document;
(3) Both WITNESSES SIGN THEIR OWN NAMES;
(4) The Notary Public writes below his signature: “SIGNATURE AFFIXED BY NOTARY
PUBLIC IN THE PRESENCE OF (NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSON AND
TWO DISINTERESTED WITNESSES);” and,
(5) The Notary Public NOTARIZES his signature by ACKNOWLEDGEMENT or JURAT.
NEVADA v. CASUGA
2012 March 20 | Velasco, Jr., J. | Signing on behalf of person physically unable to sign or make a
mark
PETITIONER: Corazon T. Nevada
RESPONDENTS: Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga
SUMMARY: Nevada filed a disbarment case against Atty. Casuga for violation of his lawyer’s
oath and the notarial law. On March 1, 2006, he entered into a contract of lease with a certain Chul
covering an office space in the Hotel. Notably, Casuga signed the lease contract over the printed
name of one EDWIN T. NEVADA and notarized the document himself. In his comment, Atty.
Casuga claimed that Nevada informally instituted him as the administrator of the Hotel in a
limited capacity but denied receiving Php90,000 from Chul. The issue in this case is WHETHER
Atty. Casuga violated the Notarial Rules. The Court ruled in the affirmative. Sec. 3(a) disqualifies
a notary public from performing a notarial act if he or she is a party to the instrument or document
that is to be notarized. According to Rule IV, Sec. 1(c) of the Notarial Rules, a notary public is
authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an
instrument or document if:
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on
his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence
of (names and addresses of person and two (2) witnesses);
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.
On the other hand, the succeeding Sec. 3(a) disqualifies a notary public from performing a
notarial act if he or she is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized. None of
the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec. 1(c), as would justify a notary signing in behalf of
a contracting party, was complied with in this case. Moreover, Casugas act of affixing his
signature above the printed name Edwin T. Nevada, without any qualification, veritably made him
a party to the contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of notarizing a deed to which he is a party
is a plain violation of the aforequoted Rule IV, Sec. 3(a) of the Notarial Rules, for which he can be
disciplinarily sanctioned
DOCTRINE: Non-compliance with the requirements stated in Rule IV, Sec. 1 (c) of the Notarial
Rules disqualifies a Notary Public from signing on behalf of a person physically unable to sign or
make a mark on an instrument or document. Atty. Casuga’s act of affixing his signature above the
printed name Edwin T. Nevada, without any qualification, veritably made him a party to the
contract of lease in question. Being considered as a party to the instrument, Atty. Casuga is
disqualified from performing a notarial act as provided for in Sec. 3(a).
II. BASIC LEGAL FORMS

A. Legal Opinion/Memorandum
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 15 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
RULE 15.05. - A LAWYER WHEN ADVISING HIS CLIENT, SHALL GIVE A

CANDID AND HONEST OPINION ON THE MERITS AND PROBABLE RESULTS OF
THE CLIENT'S CASE, NEITHER OVERSTATING NOR UNDERSTATING THE
PROSPECTS OF THE CASE.
Q: What are the characteristics of a good legal memorandum?

A: It must be CONCISE and written in SIMPLE language. It properly advises the client of the MERITS
of his case. It should already state the pieces of EVIDENCE to support the client’s claim, as well as
the material WITNESSES who should be called upon to execute an affidavit.
[Letterhead]
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Date:
For:
Re:
Your Query
You asked for our opinion regarding courses of action that may be taken, as well as the defenses
that may be raised, should Mr. Juan Dela Cruz (“Mr. Dela Cruz”) file a case against you based on
the demands set forth in Atty. Jane Doe’s letter dated 2 December 2017 (“Demand Letter”).
The claims set forth in the Demand Letter are as follows:
[insert summary of claims]
Our opinion
The courses of action which may be taken, as well as the defense that may be raised, against Mr.
Dela Cruz’s claims are discussed below. In summary, we believe that:
[insert summary of your recommendations]
Discussion
[Discuss each of your recommendations. In doing so:
• Be mindful of your audience. The legal opinion is addressed to the client who
presumably is not a lawyer. Avoid legalese. Try to explain legal concepts in simple
language.
• Cite, quote, and explain applicable laws and/or jurisprudence.
• Give a fair and objective assessment of each of your recommendations. If there really
is no way out for client and you think he should settle, tell him to settle — but explain
why.
• If there are pieces of evidence that could strengthen your client’s case, identify or
describe them.
• At this stage, you should not be acting or thinking as an advocate. You are supposed
to act/think as an impartial assessor of facts and your client’s prospects of winning a
case. The objective is to give sound advice, not to argue or persuade.
]
We trust we have addressed your concerns. Let us know if you have further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
[name]
B. Affidavit
1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 13 — FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER
PAPERS
SEC. 13. PROOF OF SERVICE. PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE SHALL CONSIST
OF A WRITTEN ADMISSION OF THE PARTY SERVED, OR THE OFFICIAL RETURN
OF THE SERVER, OR THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PARTY SERVING, CONTAINING A
FULL STATEMENT OF THE DATE, PLACE AND MANNER OF SERVICE. IF THE
SERVICE IS BY ORDINARY MAIL, PROOF THEREOF SHALL CONSIST OF AN
AFFIDAVIT OF THE PERSON MAILING OF FACTS SHOWING COMPLIANCE
WITH SECTION 7 OF THIS RULE. IF SERVICE IS MADE BY REGISTERED MAIL,
PROOF SHALL BE MADE BY SUCH AFFIDAVIT AND THE REGISTRY RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE MAILING OFFICE. THE REGISTRY RETURN CARD SHALL BE
FILED IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS RECEIPT BY THE SENDER, OR IN LIEU
THEREOF THE UNCLAIMED LETTER TOGETHER WITH THE CERTIFIED OR
SWORN COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE POSTMASTER TO THE
ADDRESSEE.
Q: What are the various modes of effecting service and how are they proven?
A: The following are the modes of effecting service:
(1) Personal service
(a) By written admission of the party served
(b) By official return of the server
(c) By an affidavit of the party serving, stating
(i) Date
(ii) Place
(iii) Manner
(2) Service by Ordinary Mail
(a) Affidavit of the person mailing stating that
(i) The documents were sealed
(ii) Addressed to the proper party
(iii) Postage has been paid
(iv) It should be returned if undelivered within 10 days
(3) Registered Mail
(a) Affidavit + Registry receipt
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING [or SERVICE]

I, [insert name of affiant], Filipino, of legal age, and after being duly sworn, depose and
state:
1. I am a messenger in the law firm X&Y. My duties include the filing and service of
pleadings and other documents.
2. On [date], I filed [or served] copies of the following pleading/paper:
[insert title of pleading]
in [insert case number] entitled [insert case title], by registered mail with [or upon]:
[insert names of firms/parties upon whom pleading was served]
by depositing copies of the said [insert title of pleading] on 7 January 2018, in the Makai Central
Post Office, as evidence by Registry Receipt(s) No(s). [insert], indicated after the name(s) of the
addressee(s), and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to sender after 10 days in
undelivered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Affidavit this 7th day of January 2018 in the
City of Makati.
[Signature of affiant]
[Name of Affiant]
JURAT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati City, affiant exhibiting to
me her Passport issued at DFA Manila and expiring on August 24, 2020, who was identified by me
through competent evidence of identity to be the same person who presented the foregoing
instrument, signed the instrument in my presence, and who took an oath before me as to such
instrument.

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345

RULE 57 — PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC. 3. AFFIDAVIT AND BOND REQUIRED. AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT

SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY WHEN IT APPEARS BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE
APPLICANT, OR OF SOME OTHER PERSON WHO PERSONALLY KNOWS THE
FACTS, THAT A SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS, THAT THE CASE IS
ONE OF THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 1 HEREOF, THAT THERE IS NO
OTHER SUFFICIENT SECURITY FOR THE CLAIM SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED BY
THE ACTION, AND THAT THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE APPLICANT, OR THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE POSSESSION OF WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER, IS AS MUCH AS THE SUM FOR WHICH THE ORDER IS GRANTED
ABOVE ALL LEGAL COUNTERCLAIMS. THE AFFIDAVIT, AND THE BOND
REQUIRED BY THE NEXT SUCCEEDING SECTION, MUST BE DULY FILED WITH
THE COURT BEFORE THE ORDER ISSUES.
Q: What are should be stated by the applicant in an Affidavit for Preliminary Attachment?
A: The following should be stated:
(1) That he personally knows the facts
(2) That there is a sufficient cause of action exists
(3) That the case is one of those mentioned in Rule 57, Section 1
CAUSE OF ACTION PREDICATE ACT
Action for recovery About to depart with intent to defraud
Action for embezzlement, fraudulent Same as cause of action
misappropriation, violation of fiduciary duty
Action to recover property unjustly or Concealed, removed, or disposed of
fraudulently taken
Action against party guilty of fraud in Same as cause of action
contracting or executing an obligation
Action against party who has removed or Same as cause of action
disposed of property with intent to defraud
Action against party who may be served with Any
summons by publication
(4) That there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the
action
(5) That the amount due to the applicant, or the value of the property sought to be
recovered is as much as the sum for which the attachment is prayed for
RULES ON SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
RULE 74 — SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
SEC. 1. EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEIRS. - IF
THE DECEDENT LEFT NO WILL AND NO DEBTS AND THE HEIRS ARE ALL OF
AGE, OR THE MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR JUDICIAL OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES DULY AUTHORIZED FOR THE PURPOSE, THE PARTIES
MAY, WITHOUT SECURING LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVIDE THE
ESTATE AMONG THEMSELVES AS THEY SEE FIT BY MEANS OF A PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, AND
SHOULD THEY DISAGREE, THEY MAY DO SO IN AN ORDINARY ACTION OF
PARTITION. IF THERE IS ONLY ONE HEIR, HE MAY ADJUDICATE TO HIMSELF
THE ENTIRE ESTATE BY MEANS OF AN AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS. THE PARTIES TO AN EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT,
WHETHER BY PUBLIC INSTRUMENT OR BY STIPULATION IN A PENDING
ACTION FOR PARTITION, OR THE SOLE HEIR WHO ADJUDICATES THE ENTIRE
ESTATE TO HIMSELF BY MEANS OF AN AFFIDAVIT SHALL FILE,
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH AND AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE FILING
OF THE PUBLIC INSTRUMENT, OR STIPULATION IN THE ACTION FOR
PARTITION, OR OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS, A BOND WITH THE SAID REGISTER OF DEEDS, IN AN AMOUNT
EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY INVOLVED AS
CERTIFIED TO UNDER OATH BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED AND
CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF ANY JUST CLAIM THAT MAY BE
FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THIS RULE. IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT THE
DECEDENT LEFT NO DEBTS IF NO CREDITOR FILES A PETITION FOR LETTERS
OF ADMINISTRATION WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE
DECEDENT.
THE FACT OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OR ADMINISTRATION

SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING SECTION; BUT NO
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT SHALL BE BINDING UPON ANY PERSON WHO
HAS NOT PARTICIPATED THEREIN OR HAD NO NOTICE THEREOF.
Q: When may the heirs execute an Extrajudicial Settlement or Self-Adjudication of the Estate?
A: When the following requisites concur:
(1) There is no will
(2) There are no debts
(3) All the heirs are of age, and/or the minors are duly represented
Q: What are the contents of an affidavit, in general?

A: An affidavit must contain the following (VenTPORSJ):
(1) Venue
(2) Title
(3) Party or Parties
(4) Oath
(5) Recital of facts
(6) Signature
(7) Jurat

AFFIDAVIT
I, John Doe, Filipino, of legal age, with address at 20 Rockwell Drive, Makati City, after being
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. [Insert recital of acts attested to or affirmed in the affidavit. Note that these facts
must be based in the affiant’s personal knowledge].
2. xxx
3. xxx
I have nothing further to say at this time.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this 25th day of September 2018 in the
City of Makati.
[Signature of affiant]
John Doe
JURAT
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati City, affiant exhibiting to
me her Passport issued at DFA Manila and expiring on August 24, 2020, who was identified by me
through competent evidence of identity to be the same person who presented the foregoing
instrument, signed the instrument in my presence, and who took an oath before me as to such
instrument.

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345
C. General and Special Powers of Attorney

NEW CIVIL CODE
TITLE X — AGENCY
CHAPTER 1 — NATURE, FORM, AND KINDS OF AGENCY
ART. 1874. WHEN A SALE OF A PIECE OF LAND OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN
IS THROUGH AN AGENT, THE AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER SHALL BE IN
WRITING; OTHERWISE, THE SALE SHALL BE VOID. (N)
ART. 1877. AN AGENCY COUCHED IN GENERAL TERMS COMPRISES ONLY

ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION, EVEN IF THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD STATE
THAT HE WITHHOLDS NO POWER OR THAT THE AGENT MAY EXECUTE
SUCH ACTS AS HE MAY CONSIDER APPROPRIATE, OR EVEN THOUGH THE
AGENCY SHOULD AUTHORIZE A GENERAL AND UNLIMITED
MANAGEMENT. (N)
ART. 1878. SPECIAL POWERS OF ATTORNEY ARE NECESSARY IN THE

FOLLOWING CASES:
(1) TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS AS ARE NOT USUALLY CONSIDERED
AS ACTS OF ADMINISTRATION;
(2) TO EFFECT NOVATIONS WHICH PUT AN END TO OBLIGATIONS

ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE AGENCY WAS
CONSTITUTED;
(3) TO COMPROMISE, TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS TO ARBITRATION, TO

RENOUNCE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT, TO WAIVE
OBJECTIONS TO THE VENUE OF AN ACTION OR TO ABANDON A
PRESCRIPTION ALREADY ACQUIRED;
(4) TO WAIVE ANY OBLIGATION GRATUITOUSLY;
(5) TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT BY WHICH THE OWNERSHIP OF

AN IMMOVABLE IS TRANSMITTED OR ACQUIRED EITHER
GRATUITOUSLY OR FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION;
(6) TO MAKE GIFTS, EXCEPT CUSTOMARY ONES FOR CHARITY OR

THOSE MADE TO EMPLOYEES IN THE BUSINESS MANAGED BY THE
AGENT;
(7) TO LOAN OR BORROW MONEY, UNLESS THE LATTER ACT BE

URGENT AND INDISPENSABLE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE
THINGS WHICH ARE UNDER ADMINISTRATION;
(8) TO LEASE ANY REAL PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR MORE

THAN ONE YEAR;
(9) TO BIND THE PRINCIPAL TO RENDER SOME SERVICE WITHOUT

COMPENSATION;
(10) TO BIND THE PRINCIPAL IN A CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP;
(11) TO OBLIGATE THE PRINCIPAL AS A GUARANTOR OR SURETY;
(12) TO CREATE OR CONVEY REAL RIGHTS OVER IMMOVABLE

PROPERTY;
(13) TO ACCEPT OR REPUDIATE AN INHERITANCE;
(14) TO RATIFY OR RECOGNIZE OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BEFORE

THE AGENCY;
(15) ANY OTHER ACT OF STRICT DOMINION. (N)
WEE v. DE CASTRO
August 20, 2008 | Chico-Nazario, J. | General and Special Powers of Attorney
PETITIONER: Leo Wee
RESPONDENTS: George De Castro (on his behalf, and as attorney-in-fact of Annie De Castro and
Felomina Uban), and Martiniana De Castro
SUMMARY: De Castro et al. rented out a 2-storey building erected on a parcel of land to Leo Wee
on a month to month basis, for Php9,000 a month. Both parties agreed that the rental payment shall
be increased to 15,000. Wee however, failed or refused to pay the corresponding increase on rent.
He only tendered 9,000 The parties failed to amicable settle in Lupon Tagamagpamayapa. Hence,
George de Castro sent a letter to Wee terminating their lease agreement, and demanded him to
vacate. Since Wee refused, George, together with his siblings and co-respondents, filed a complaint
for ejectment (unlawful detainer) before the MTC. However, although the complaint stated that it
was filed by all of the respondents (De Castro et al.) the Verification and the Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping were signed by George alone. He then subsequently attached to his position
paper the SPAs executed by his sisters, authorizing to institute the ejectment case. Wee countered
that there was no agreement between the parties to increase the monthly rentals, and the increase
was exorbitant. He also argued that George lacked the authority to sign the Verification and
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. The MTC dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with
prior Barangary conciliation requirement. RTC affirmed the dismissal. The CA reversed and
ordered Wee to vacate the premises and pay the unpaid rent.
The SC held that since the contract of lease did not state a period, and the rentals are being
paid monthly, the period of lease is deemed terminated each month. Hence, De Castro et al. have
every right to demand the ejectment of Wee at the end of the month, for the contract having expired
by operation of law. The lessor’s right to rescind the contract of lease for non-payment of increased
rental is already recognised in Chua v. Victorio.
On the argument that George cannot maintain an action for ejectment w/o adjoining all his
co-owners, Art. 487 of the CC is explicit: Any one of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment. Moreover, Respondents Annie, and Felomina (sisters of George), executed a Special
Power of Attorney, giving Goerge the authority to initiate the civil case (see Doctrine). Even
then, the Court views the SPAs as mere surplusage since the lack thereof does not in anyway affect
the validity of the action for ejectment.
DOCTRINE #1: A power of attorney is an instrument in writing by which one person, as principal,
appoints another as his agent and confers upon him the authority to perform certain specified acts
or kinds of acts on behalf of the principal. The written authorization itself is the power of attorney,
and this is clearly indicated by the fact that it has also been called a “letter of attorney.”
This also disposes of Wee’s contention that George lacked the authority to sign the
Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
DOCTRINE #2: As held in Mendoza v. Coronel: the execution of the certification against forum
shopping by the attorney-in-fact in the case at bar is not a violation of the requirement that the
parties must personally sign the same. The attorney-in-fact, who has authority to file, and who
actually filed the complaint as the representative of the plaintiff co-owner, pursuant to a Special
Power of Attorney, is a party to the ejectment suit.
Failure by respondent George de Castro to attach the said SPAs to the Complaint is
innocuous, since it is undisputed that he was granted by his sisters the authority to file the action
for ejectment against Wee prior to the institution of Civil Case No. 1990.
Respondent deceased Jesus de Castro’s failure to sign the Verification and Certificate of Non-
Forum Shopping may be excused since he already executed an Affidavit with respondent George
de Castro that he had personal knowledge of the filing of Civil Case No. 1990. In Torres v.
Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, the Court ruled that the personal signing of the
verification requirement was deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, two
out of 25 real parties-in-interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the petition, signed the verification attached to it.
VELOSO v. CA
August 21, 1996 | Torres Jr., J. | General and Special Powers of Attorney
PETITIONER: Francisco A. Veloso
RESPONDENTS: COURT OF APPEALS, AGLALOMA B. ESCARIO, assisted by her husband
GREGORIO L. ESCARIO, the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MANILA
SUMMARY: Francisco Veloso was the owner of a parcel of land in Tondo, Manila. Francisco later
on found out that the title was transferred to a certain Aglaloma B. Escario. The sale was supported
by the documents, General Power of Attorney and Deed of Absolute Sale, executed by his wife,
Irma. Francisco denied executing the power of attorney and alleged that his signature was falsified.
Francisco contended that the sale of the property, and the subsequent transfer thereof, were null
and void. Francisco prayed that a temporary restraining order be issued to prevent the transfer of
the subject property. Aglaloma Escario alleged that she was a buyer in good faith and denied any
knowledge of the alleged irregularity. She allegedly relied on the general power of attorney of Irma
Veloso that was sufficient in form and substance and was duly notarized. Trial court adjudged
Escaro to be the lawful owner of the property. Whether there was a valid sale – YES, because
Escario was an innocent purchaser for value who just relied on the valid and regular on its face
document, General Power of Attorney that contained the power to sell the subject property. An
examination of the records showed that the assailed power of attorney was valid and regular on
its face. It was notarized and as such, it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution. While it is true that it was denominated as a general power of attorney,
a perusal thereof revealed that it stated an authority to sell. Thus, there was no need to execute a
separate and special power of attorney since the general power of attorney had expressly
authorized the agent or attorney in fact the power to sell the subject property.
DOCTRINE: The special power of attorney can be included in the general power when it is
specified therein the act or transaction for which the special power is required.
SPOUSES ALCANTARA v. NILDO
April 19, 2010 | Carpio, J. | GPA and SPA
PETITIONER: Spouses Joselina Alcantara And Antonio Alcantara, And Spouses Josefino Rubi
And Annie Distor- Rubi
RESPONDENTS: Brigida L. Nido, As Attorney-In-Fact Of Revelen N. Srivastava,
SUMMARY: Brigida Nido's daughter, Revelen (US resident), owned an unregistered land of
1,939 sqm in Cardona, Rizal. In March 1984, Brigida accepted the offer of Spouses Alcantara and
Spouses Rubi (Spouses A&R) to purchase 200 sqm of the lot (owned by daughter Revelen) on
installment basis. By 1987, the spouses have paid 17,500php, but have since defaulted. Brigida,
acting as Revelen's administrator and attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for recovery of possession
and damages + preliminary injunction against both Spouses. RTC held that Nido had no authority
to sell the lot, since the authority was not in writing (verbal only), thus the sale was void as per
Art. 1874. Thus, rescission is the proper remedy. CA reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the
case. It reasoned that since Nido did not have a written authority to enter into such contract of sale
the contract entered into between Spouses Rubi and Nido is void. It creates no rights or obligations,
thus its contract cannot be the subject of rescission. ISSUE: WHETHER the contract entered into
by Nido, in representation of her daughter, and Spouses A&R Rubi is void? The SC held in the
affirmative. CONTRACT IS VOID. As provided by our rules of court (Sec. 25, Rule 132 back then,
1984 nangyari, now its Sec. 24, Rule 132) proof of official or public record cannot be admitted in
evidence unless it is certified as such in accordance by an officer in the foreign service of the
Philippines stationed in the USA. (See Doctrine) Revelen did execute a GPA in the US,
authorizing her mother as her attorney-in-fact and to enter into any and all contracts and
agreements on Revelen’s behalf. But the General Power of Attorney was notarized by Larry A.
Reid, Notary Public in California, U.S.A. Since the document did not conform with the
requisites of the Rules of Court, the document has no probative value.
DOCTRINE: When the special power of attorney is executed and acknowledged before a notary
public or other competent official in a foreign country, it cannot be admitted in evidence unless it
is certified as such in accordance with the foregoing provision of the rules by a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept of
said public document and authenticated by the seal of his office.
YOSHIZAKI v. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA
July, 31, 2013 | Brion, J. | General and Special Powers of Attorney
PETITIONER: Sally Yoshizaki
RESPONDENTS: Joy Training Center of Aurora, Inc.
SUMMARY: Spouses Richard and Linda Johnson (Spouses Johnson) sold real properties in favor
of the spouses Sally and Yoshio Yoshizaki (Spouses Yoshizaki). These real properties were owned
by Joy Training Center of Aurora (Joy Training) and Spouses Johnson were members of the Board
of Trustees of the former at the time of the sale. Joy Training filed an action for the Cancellation of
the said sale transaction against both spouses Yoshizaki and John, and also the Register of Deeds
(Cecilia). Joy training argues that spouses Johnson sold the properties without authority from the
board of directors and that the board resolution which purportedly granted the spouses Johnson
the authority to sell its real properties was not valid becauses it did not attain majority votes as
required by the Articles of Incorporation (7 members of BOT). The spouses Yoshizaki filed their
answer and claimed that spouses Johnson were authorized by the board and that the actual
members of the BOT consist only of five members. They also assailed the RTC’s jurisdiction over
the case and posited that the issue involves an intra-corporate dispute cognizable by the SEC. To
buttress their claim, the spouses Yoshizaki also offered in evidence photocopies of the resolution
and certification, among others. Joy Training objected to the formal offer of the photocopied
resolution and certification on the ground that they were not the best evidence of their contents.
The RTC denied the admission of the offered copies but nonetheless ruled in favor of the spouses
Yoshizaki and held that the sale was valid because Joy Training authorized the spouses Johnson to
sell the real properties. The CA upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction over the case but reversed its ruling
with respect to the sale of real properties. It maintained that the present action is cognizable by the
RTC because it involves recovery of ownership from third parties. Hence, this petition. Issues are:
First, Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the present case – Yes, the present case involves
a dispute concerning the application of the Civil Code (agency) and thus the RTC as courts of
general jurisdiction have jurisdiction.
Second, Whether there was a contract of agency to sell the real properties between Joy
Training and the spouses Johnson – No. As a general rule, a contract of agency may be oral.
However, it must be written when the law requires a specific form. Specifically, Article 1874 of the
Civil Code provides that the contract of agency must be written for the validity of the sale of a
piece of land or any interest therein. Otherwise, the sale shall be void. A related provision, Article
1878 of the Civil Code, states that special powers of attorney are necessary to convey real rights
over immovable properties. However, in the present case, the documents that were presented by
spouses Yoshizaki were not clear and explicit enough to confer upon the spouses Johnson the right
to sell the land in question. The TCT merely states that Joy Training is represented by the spouses
Johnson. The title does not explicitly confer to the spouses Johnson the authority to sell the parcel
of land and the building thereon. Moreover, the certification is a mere general power of attorney
which comprises all of Joy Training’s business.
Lastly, as a consequence of the second issue, Whether there was a valid contract of sale of the
real properties between Joy Training and the spouses Yoshizaki – No, the absence of a contract of
agency renders the contract of sale unenforceable; Joy Training effectively did not enter into a valid
contract of sale with the spouses Yoshizaki. They also cannot also claim that they were buyers in
good faith. They misapprehended the rule that persons dealing with a registered land have the
legal right to rely on the face of the title and to dispense with the need to inquire further, except
when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry. This rule applies when the ownership of a parcel
of land is disputed and not when the fact of agency is contested. Thus, spouses Yoshizaki bought
the real properties at their own risk; they bear the risk of injury occasioned by their transaction
with the spouses Johnson.
DOCTRINE: In cases involving the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein, the special power
of attorney mandated by law must be one that expressly mentions a sale or that includes a sale as
a necessary ingredient of the authorized act. It must express the powers of the agent in clear and
unmistakable language for the principal to confer the right upon an agent to sell real estate.
Q: What are the rules regarding the validity of the acts of an agent?
A: The GENERAL RULE is that a contract of agency need not be in writing in order that the agent
may validly enter into contracts on behalf of the principal. EXCEPTION: When the law requires the
agency to be in writing, i.e. in the sale of land through an agent.
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, JOHN DOE, of legal age, Corporate Secretary of XYZ Manufacturing Corporation
(“XYZ”), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, by virtue of the
authority given to me pursuant to a Board Resolution duly issued by XYZ’s Board of Directors in
its meeting on 24 August 2018, as evidenced by secretary’s certificate attached hereto, do hereby
name, constitute, and appoint JANE DOE, to be XYZ’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact in Civil
Case No. 12345 entitled XYZ MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. IBARRA (“Case”), for
and on its behalf to:
(A) Appear for and represent XYZ whether at the original or appellate stage, and
whether as appellant or appellee, petitioner or respondent;
(B) Sign, under oath or otherwise, all necessary and appropriate pleadings, motions,
verifications, certifications, papers, and documents;
(C) Act as agent and appear on behalf of XYZ in the mandatory conciliation, mediation
conference judicial dispute resolution, and pre-trial proceedings and all other
hearings in the Case, with full power and authority to consider:
(i) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of submission to alternative
modes of dispute resolution;
(ii) The simplification of the issues;
(iii) The necessity or desirability of amending the pleadings;
(iv) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(v) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(vi) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(vii) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the Case should a valid ground therefor be
found to exist;
(viii) The advisability or necessity of suspending proceedings; and,
(ix) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of this Case.
(D) Negotiate, conclude, enter into, and execute a compromise or amicable settlement
of the Case, if appropriate.
HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto said attorney-in-fact full power and authority
whatsoever which may be necessary or proper to be done in or about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as XYZ might or could do if personally present, with power of substitution
and revocation, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact shall do or cause
to be done and by virtue of these presents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this 25th day of
September 2018 in Makati City.
John Doe
Principal
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before me, a Notary Public in and for Makati City, personally appeared Jane Doe, with CTC No.
432, issued by the City of Makati on January 10, 2018, exhibiting to me his Passport issued at DFA
Manila and expiring on August 24, 2020, who was identified by me through competent evidence
of identity to be the same person who presented the foregoing instrument as his free and voluntary
act and deed.

Page No. ; ________________________
Book No. ;
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Series of 2018.
Roll No. 12345
D. Demand Letter/Response to Demand Letter

NEW CIVIL CODE
TITLE I — OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 2 — NATURE AND EFFECT OF OBLIGATIONS
ART. 1169. THOSE OBLIGED TO DELIVER OR TO DO SOMETHING INCUR IN
DELAY FROM THE TIME THE OBLIGEE JUDICIALLY OR EXTRAJUDICIALLY
DEMANDS FROM THEM THE FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OBLIGATION.
HOWEVER, THE DEMAND BY THE CREDITOR SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY IN

ORDER THAT DELAY MAY EXIST:
(1) WHEN THE OBLIGATION OR THE LAW EXPRESSLY SO DECLARE; OR
(2) WHEN FROM THE NATURE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

OBLIGATION IT APPEARS THAT THE DESIGNATION OF THE TIME
WHEN THE THING IS TO BE DELIVERED OR THE SERVICE IS TO BE
RENDERED WAS A CONTROLLING MOTIVE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONTRACT; OR
(3) WHEN DEMAND WOULD BE USELESS, AS WHEN THE OBLIGOR HAS

RENDERED IT BEYOND HIS POWER TO PERFORM.
IN RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS, NEITHER PARTY INCURS IN DELAY IF

THE OTHER DOES NOT COMPLY OR IS NOT READY TO COMPLY IN A PROPER
MANNER WITH WHAT IS INCUMBENT UPON HIM. FROM THE MOMENT ONE
OF THE PARTIES FULFILLS HIS OBLIGATION, DELAY BY THE OTHER BEGINS.
(1100A)
1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 70 — FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
SEC. 2. LESSOR TO PROCEED AGAINST LESSEE ONLY AFTER
DEMAND. UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED, SUCH ACTION BY THE LESSOR
SHALL BE COMMENCED ONLY AFTER DEMAND TO PAY OR COMPLY WITH
THE CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE AND TO VACATE IS MADE UPON THE
LESSEE, OR BY SERVING WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH DEMAND UPON THE
PERSON FOUND ON THE PREMISES, OR BY POSTING SUCH NOTICE ON THE
PREMISES IF NO PERSON BE FOUND THEREON, AND THE LESSEE FAILS TO
COMPLY THEREWITH AFTER FIFTEEN (15) DAYS IN THE CASE OF LAND OR
FIVE (5) DAYS IN THE CASE OF BUILDINGS.
PALMARES v. COURT OF APPEALS

March 31, 1998 | Regalado, J. | Demand Letter, response to
PETITIONER: Estrella Palmares
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, and MB Lending Corporation
SUMMARY: MB Lending (MB) extended a loan (30,000) in favor of Sps. Azarraga with Palmares
as surety. When the loan matured, Palmares and Sps. Azarraga were able to pay 16,300, leabing a
balance of 13,700. No payments were made thereafter. In this light, MB filed a money claim against
Palmares as surety. In her answer, she raised, inter alia, that MB is in bad faith for proceeding
against her directly. RTC dismissed. CA reversed.
Before the SC, Palmares argues that she is a mere guarantor by virtue of Par. 3 of the Contract,
and that she should only be proceeded against upon default or insolvency of the Sps. She also
argued that she is not yet in default since there is no judicial or extrajudicial demand yet, and that
MB did not attach the said demand letters, if any, in any of their pleadings. She also cannot be in
default since she made partial payments.
The issues are whether the contract is one of a guaranty or surety, and whether the complaint
is prematurely filed. Anent the first issue, she is a surety by virtue of Par. 2 of the Contract. MB can
proceed directly against her since she is solidarily liable as surety. Her claim that she did not know
the meaning of “jointly and solidarily liable” is belied by the fact that the same contract provides
that she fully understands the terms of the same.
Anent the second issue, the need for the demand was waived by Sps. Azarraga (her
prinicipals) and she is bound by such waiver. Even assuming that she is not bound, the institution
of an action for collection is a sufficient demand. A creditor;s right to proceed against the surety exists
independently of his right to proceed against the principal.
DOCTRINE: The waiver of the need of demand binds the surety.
Demand on the sureties is not necessary before bringing suit against them, since the
commencement of the suit is a sufficient demand.
A creditors right to proceed against the surety exists independently of his right to proceed
against the principal. Where a creditor refrains from proceeding against the principal, the surety is
not exonerated.
CETUS DEV’T INC. v. CA
7 August 1989 | Medialdea, J. | Demand; Ejectment suit; Lease
PETITIONER: Cetus Development Inc.
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals and Ederlina Navalta, Ong Teng, Jose Liwanag, Leandro
Canlas, Flora Nagbuya
SUMMARY: Cetus Dev’t sent a letter to the lessees demanding that they vacate the subject
premises AND to pay the back rentals for the months of July, August, and September 1984 within
15 days from receipt of said letter. The lessees paid their respective arrearages which were accepted
by Cetus Dev’t without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit. For failure of the lessees to
vacate the premises as demanded in the October 1984 letter, Cetus Dev’t filed an ejectment suit
against them. The MTC, RTC, and CA ruled in favor of the lessees. Hence this petition where the
issue to be resolved is whether Cetus Dev’t has a cause of action against the lessees. The Court
ruled in the negative opining that There was no failure yet on the part of the lessees to pay rents
for three consecutive months. The terms of the individual verbal leases which were on a month-to-
month basis were not alleged and proved. its demand to vacate was premature as it was an exercise
of a non-existing right to rescind. While it is true that a lessor is not obligated to send a collector, it
has been duly established that it has been customary for private respondents to pay the rentals
through a collector.
DOCTRINE: For the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit, two requisites must concur, namely:
(1) there must be failure to pay rent or comply with the conditions of the lease and (2) there must
be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate with in the period specified in Section 2, Rule 70,
namely 15 days in case of lands and 5 days in case of buildings. The first requisite refers to the
existence of the cause of action for unlawful detainer while the second refers to the jurisdictional
requirement of demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.
Q: What are the rules on the necessity of extrajudicial demand?

A: GENERAL RULE — Extrajudicial demand is not a condition precedent to the filing of a case in
court. EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Case for unlawful detainer brought by the lessor against the lessee
(2) Consignation
[Letterhead]
[Date]
Ms. JUANA DELA CRUZ

[Address]
Re: [SUBJECT]
Dear Ms. Dela Cruz,
We write on behalf of our client, Mr. Juan Dela Cruz (“Mr. Dela Cruz”).
Mr. Dela Cruz has informed us that: [insert summary of basic facts supporting your client’s
demand/comprising your client’s cause of action].
We wish to inform you that your acts constitute clear violations of [insert applicable laws or
regulations violated by the addressee which give rise to a cause of action in your client’s favor].
Accordingly, if Mr. Dela Cruz does not receive full payment of the sum of P1,000,000.00 within 15
days from your receipt of this letter, we will be constrained to file all the appropriate civil and
criminal actions against you in connection with the foregoing facts.
We trust that you will give this demand your most urgent attention.
Yours,
[Name]
Q: If the demand is coursed through counsel, to whom should the response be sent?
A: Response should be sent to counsel and not to the party, by clear provision of law that if a party
who engages counsel, all communications must be made to the lawyer.
[Letterhead]
[Date]
[Addressee]
[Address]
Re: YOUR LETTER DATED [INSERT]

Gentlemen:
We write on behalf of our client, Ms. Juana Dela Cruz (“Ms. Dela Cruz”), and in response to your
demand letter dated [insert] (“Demand Letter”).
Your client claims that [insert summary of demands made against your client]. Based on these
assertions, your client has demanded the sum of P1,000,000.00 from our client.
We reject your client’s demands against Ms. Dela Cruz.
[Insert brief responses against claims asserted against your client].
Should your client insist in filing civil and criminal actions against Ms. Dela Cruz notwithstanding
the baseless nature of his claims against her, we will not hesitate to prosecute all counterclaims and
causes of action that our client has against him.
We trust that you find the foregoing response in order.
Yours,
[Name]

Leg Forms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leg Forms Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAWS, CASES, AND NOTES ON LEGAL

I. NOTARIAL LAW ......................................................................................................................................... 4

ACT NO. 2103

SECTION 1. AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED AND

(A) THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE MADE BEFORE A NOTARY

(B) THE CERTIFICATE OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC OR THE OFFICER TAKING

SECTION 2. AN INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT ACKNOWLEDGED AND

(A) THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL BE MADE BEFORE (1) AN

UNITED STATES, ACTING WITHIN THE COUNTRY OR PLACE TO

WHICH HE IS ACCREDITED, OR (2) A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OFFICER

(B) THE PERSON TAKING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHALL CERTIFY

COUNTRY OR PLACE TO WHICH HE IS ACCREDITED. THE OFFICER

SECTION 3. INSTRUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS ACKNOWLEDGED AND

SECTION 4. THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPEAL IN ANY WAY

A CODE OR PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN

CONVENTION ABOLISHING THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGALISATION FOR

(A) DOCUMENTS EMANATING FROM AN AUTHORITY OR AN OFFICIAL

(C) NOTARIAL ACTS;

(D) OFFICIAL CERTIFICATES WHICH ARE PLACED ON DOCUMENTS

SUCH AS OFFICIAL CERTIFICATES RECORDING THE REGISTRATION OF

HOWEVER, THE PRESENT CONVENTION SHALL NOT APPLY:

(A) TO DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BY DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR AGENTS;

(B) TO ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS DEALING DIRECTLY WITH

HOWEVER, THE FORMALITY MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING

IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE DRAWN UP IN THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF

WHEN PROPERLY FILLED IN, IT WILL CERTIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF

THE SIGNATURE, SEAL AND STAMP ON THE CERTIFICATE ARE EXEMPT

IT SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH DESIGNATION TO THE MINISTRY OF

(A) THE NUMBER AND DATE OF THE CERTIFICATE,

AT THE REQUEST OF ANY INTERESTED PERSON, THE AUTHORITY

IT SHALL BE RATIFIED, AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION

THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH SIGNATORY

SUCH ACCESSION SHALL HAVE EFFECT ONLY AS REGARDS THE

THE CONVENTION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE AS BETWEEN THE

AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, SUCH EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTIFIED

WHEN THE DECLARATION OF EXTENSION IS MADE BY A STATE

IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DENUNCIATION, THE CONVENTION SHALL

ANY DENUNCIATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MINISTRY OF

IT MAY BE LIMITED TO CERTAIN OF THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH THE

THE DENUNCIATION WILL ONLY HAVE EFFECT AS REGARDS THE

(A) THE NOTIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF

(B) THE SIGNATURES AND RATIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10;

(C) THE DATE ON WHICH THE PRESENT CONVENTION ENTERS INTO

(D) THE ACCESSIONS AND OBJECTIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12

(E) THE EXTENSIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 AND THE DATE ON

(F) THE DENUNCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF

Q: Why is Act No. 2103 still relevant despite PH independence?

Q: What are the requisites for a valid authentication in a foreign country?

Q: What is an Apostille and when do I need one?

Q: To which documents does the Apostille Convention apply?

Q: Where do I get an Apostille?

Q: What does an Apostille contain?

Q: How are Apostilles affixed to public documents?

Q: What are the effects of an Apostille?

Q: Can Apostilles be rejected in the country where they are to be used?

ACT NO. 2711

SECTION 231. TITLE OF THE CHAPTER – TITLE OF THE CHAPTER SHALL BE

SECTION 232. APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES PUBLIC. – JUDGES OF COURT

SECTION 233. QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT. – TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR

IN THE CHARTERED CITIES AND IN THE CAPITALS OF THE PROVINCES,

IN MUNICIPALITIES OR (TOWNSHIPS) MUNICIPAL, DISTRICTS

SECTION 234. DISQUALIFICATION INCIDENT TO CONVICTION OF CRIME. –

SECTION 235. RESTRICTION ON RIGHT OF CERTAIN OFFICIALS TO ACT AS