You are on page 1of 10

A.C. No. 9514 - Bernard N. Jandoquile v. Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.

FIRST DIVISION A.C. No. 9514 : April 10, 2013 BERNARD N. JANDOQ I!E, Complainant, v. ATT". Q IRINO #. REVI!!A, JR., Respondent. RESO! TION VI!!ARA$A, JR., J.: Before us is a o!"laint1 for dis#ar!ent filed #y o!"lainant Bernard N. Jandoquile a$ainst res"ondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr. %&e 'a ts of t&e ase are not dis"uted. Atty. Revilla, Jr. notari(ed a o!"laint-affidavit ) si$ned #y *eneraline +. Brosas, *eri(alyn Brosas Pedrosa and ,l!er +. Alvarado. *eneraline Brosas is a sister of *ei(el -ynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr..s /ife. Jandoquile o!"lains t&at Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to "erfor! t&e notarial a t0 "er 1e tion 02 3, Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e /&i & reads as follo/s7
&anro#lesvirtuala/li#rary

1,C. 0. 8isqualifi ations. A notary "u#li is disqualified fro! "erfor!in$ a notarial a t if &e7
&anro#lesvirtuala/li#rary

999 2 3 is a s"ouse, o!!on-la/ "artner, an estor, des endant, or relative #y affinity or onsan$uinity of t&e "rin i"al4 /it&in t&e fourt& ivil de$ree. Jandoquile also o!"lains t&at Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not require t&e t&ree affiants in t&e o!"laint-affidavit to s&o/ t&eir valid identifi ation ards. 4n &is o!!ent5 to t&e dis#ar!ent o!"laint, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny #ut ad!itted Jandoquile.s !aterial alle$ations. %&e issue, a ordin$ to Atty. Revilla, Jr., is /&et&er t&e sin$le a t of notari(in$ t&e o!"laint-affidavit of relatives /it&in t&e fourt& ivil de$ree of affinity and, at t&e sa!e ti!e, not requirin$ t&e! to "resent valid identifi ation ards is a $round for dis#ar!ent. Atty. Revilla, Jr. su#!its t&at &is a t is not a $round for dis#ar!ent. *e also says t&at &e a ts as ounsel of t&e t&ree affiants: t&us, &e s&ould #e onsidered !ore as ounsel t&an as a notary "u#li /&en &e notari(ed t&eir o!"laint-affidavit. *e did not require t&e affiants to "resent valid

identifi ation ards sin e &e ;no/s t&e! "ersonally. *eneraline Brosas and *eri(alyn Brosas Pedrosa are sisters-in-la/ /&ile ,l!er Alvarado is t&e live-in &ouse#oy of t&e Brosas fa!ily. 1in e t&e fa ts are not ontested, t&e Court dee!s it !ore "rudent to resolve t&e ase instead of referrin$ it to t&e 4nte$rated Bar of t&e P&ili""ines for investi$ation. 4ndeed, Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated t&e disqualifi ation rule under 1e tion 02 3, Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e. -e a$ree /it& &i!, &o/ever, t&at &is violation is not a suffi ient $round for dis#ar!ent. Atty. Revilla, Jr..s violation of t&e aforesaid disqualifi ation rule is #eyond dis"ute. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily ad!itted t&at &e notari(ed t&e o!"laint-affidavit si$ned #y &is relatives /it&in t&e fourt& ivil de$ree of affinity. 1e tion 02 3, Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e learly disqualifies &i! fro! notari(in$ t&e o!"laintaffidavit, fro! "erfor!in$ t&e notarial a t, sin e t/o of t&e affiants or "rin i"als are &is relatives /it&in t&e fourt& ivil de$ree of affinity. <iven t&e lear "rovision of t&e disqualifi ation rule, it #e&ooved u"on Atty. Revilla, Jr. to a t /it& "ruden e and refuse notari(in$ t&e do u!ent. -e annot a$ree /it& &is "ro"osition t&at /e onsider &i! to &ave a ted !ore as ounsel of t&e affiants, not as notary "u#li , /&en &e notari(ed t&e o!"laint-affidavit. %&e notarial ertifi ate = at t&e #otto! of t&e o!"laint-affidavit s&o/s &is si$nature as a notary "u#li , /it& a notarial o!!ission valid until 8e e!#er 01, )61). *e annot t&erefore lai! t&at &e si$ned it as ounsel of t&e t&ree affiants. >n t&e se ond &ar$e, /e a$ree /it& Atty. Revilla, Jr. t&at &e annot #e &eld lia#le. 4f t&e notary "u#li ;no/s t&e affiants "ersonally, &e need not require t&e! to s&o/ t&eir valid identifi ation ards. %&is rule is su""orted #y t&e definition of a ?@urat? under 1e tion =, Rule 44 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e. A ?@urat? refers to an a t in /&i & an individual on a sin$le o asion7 2a3 a""ears in "erson #efore t&e notary "u#li and "resents an instru!ent or do u!ent: 2#3 is "ersonally ;no/n to t&e notary "u#li or identified #y t&e notary "u#li t&rou$& o!"etent eviden e of identity: 2 3 si$ns t&e instru!ent or do u!ent in t&e "resen e of t&e notary: and 2d3 ta;es an oat& or affir!ation #efore t&e notary "u#li as to su & instru!ent or do u!ent. 4n t&is ase, *eneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Revilla, Jr..s /ife: *eri(alyn Brosas Pedrosa is &is /ife.s sister-in-la/: and ,l!er Alvarado is t&e live-in &ouse#oy of t&e Brosas fa!ily. Atty. Revilla, Jr. ;no/s t&e t&ree affiants "ersonally. %&us, &e /as @ustified in no lon$er requirin$ t&e! to s&o/ valid identifi ation ards. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not /it&out fault for failin$ to indi ate su & fa t in t&e ?@urat? of t&e o!"laint-affidavit. No state!ent /as in luded t&erein t&at &e ;no/s t&e t&ree affiants "ersonally. A +et it #e i!"ressed t&at Atty. Revilla, Jr. /as learly disqualified to notari(e t&e o!"laintaffidavit of &is relatives /it&in t&e fourt& ivil de$ree of affinity. -&ile &e &as a valid defense as to t&e se ond &ar$e, it does not e9e!"t &i! fro! lia#ility for violatin$ t&e disqualifi ation rule. As /e said, Atty. Revilla, Jr..s violation of t&e disqualifi ation rule under 1e tion 02 3, Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e is not a suffi ient $round to dis#ar &i!. %o our !ind, Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not o!!it any de eit, !al"ra ti e, $ross !is ondu t or $ross i!!oral ondu t, or any ot&er serious $round for dis#ar!ent under 1e tion

)A,B Rule 10B of t&e Rules of Court. -e re all t&e ase of Caria v. Corte( 9 /&ere /e re"ri!anded Corte( and disqualified &i! fro! #ein$ o!!issioned as notary "u#li for si9 !ont&s. -e /ere onvin ed t&at said "unis&!ent, /&i & is less severe t&an dis#ar!ent, /ould already suffi e as san tion for Corte(.s violation. 4n Corte(, /e noted t&e "ro&i#ition in 1e tion )2#3, Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e t&at a "erson s&all not "erfor! a notarial a t if t&e "erson involved as si$natory to t&e instru!ent or do u!ent 213 is not in t&e notary.s "resen e "ersonally at t&e ti!e of t&e notari(ation and 2)3 is not "ersonally ;no/n to t&e notary "u#li or ot&er/ise identified #y t&e notary "u#li t&rou$& a o!"etent eviden e of identity. Corte( &ad notari(ed a s"e ial "o/er of attorney /it&out &avin$ t&e alle$ed si$natories a""ear #efore &i!. 4n i!"osin$ t&e less severe "unis&!ent, /e /ere !indful t&at re!oval fro! t&e Bar s&ould not really #e de reed /&en any "unis&!ent less severe su & as re"ri!and, te!"orary sus"ension or fine /ould a o!"lis& t&e end desired. Considerin$ t&e attendant ir u!stan es and t&e sin$le violation o!!itted #y Atty. Revilla, Jr., /e are in a$ree!ent t&at a "unis&!ent less severe t&an dis#ar!ent /ould suffi e. -*,R,'>R,, res"ondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr., is R,PR4CAN8,8 and 841QDA+4'4,8 fro! #ein$ o!!issioned as a notary "u#li , or fro! "erfor!in$ any notarial a t if &e is "resently o!!issioned as a notary "u#li , for a "eriod of t&ree 203 !ont&s. Atty. Revilla, Jr. is furt&er 84R,C%,8 to 4N'>RC t&e Court, t&rou$& an affidavit, on e t&e "eriod of &is disqualifi ation &as la"sed. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

Rollo, "". 1-A.

ErElEElE#rErF

4d. at 14. %&e o!"laint-affidavit &ar$ed Jandoquile of fraudulent enlist!ent /it& t&e P&ili""ine Ar!y. After due "ro eedin$s, t&e investi$atin$ offi er of t&e P&ili""ine Ar!y re o!!ended t&at Jandoquile #e dis &ar$ed fro! !ilitary servi e. Jandoquile says t&at &e &as a""ealed &is ase #efore t&e >ffi e of t&e Provost Cars&al, Ar!ed 'or es oft&e P&ili""ines.
ErElEElE#rErF

Dnder 1e tion A, Rule 44 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e, ..notarial a t? and ?notari(ation? refer to any a t t&at a notary "u#li is e!"o/ered to "erfor! under t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e.
ErElEElE#rErF

Dnder 1e tion 16, Rule 44 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e, a ?"rin i"al? refers to a "erson a""earin$ #efore t&e notary "u#li /&ose a t is t&e su#@e t of notari(ation.
ErElEElE#rErF

Rollo, "". 1=-)).

ErElEElE#rErF

1u"ra note ). 4d.


ErElEElE#rErF

ErElEElE#rErF

1,C. )A. 8is#ar!ent or sus"ension of attorneys #y 1u"re!e Court, $rounds t&erefor. A !e!#er of t&e #ar !ay #e dis#arred or sus"ended fro! &is offi e as attorney #y t&e 1u"re!e Court for any de eit, !al"ra ti e, or ot&er $ross !is ondu t in su & offi e, $rossly i!!oral ondu t, or #y reason of &is onvi tion of a ri!e involvin$ !oral tur"itude, or for any violation of t&e oat& /&i & &e is required to ta;e #efore ad!ission to "ra ti e, or for a /illful diso#edien e a""earin$ as an attorney for a "arty to a ase /it&out aut&ority so to do. %&e "ra ti e of soli itin$ ases at la/ for t&e "ur"ose of $ain, eit&er "ersonally or t&rou$& "aid a$ents or #ro;ers, onstitutes !al"ra ti e. 9 9 9 2,!"&asis su""lied.3
ErElEElE#rErF

A.C. No. ABB6, A"ril 11, )61), ==9 1CRA BA, 90-94.

A.C. No. A056 - Patro inio 5. A$#ulos v. Atty. Roseller A. 5iray

T%IRD DIVISION A.C. No. &350 : F'(r)*r+ 1,, 2013 #ATROCINIO V. A-B !OS, Complainant, v. ATT". ROSE!!ER A. VIRA", Respondent. DECISION #ERA!TA, J.: %&e ase ste!!ed fro! a Co!"laint1 filed #efore t&e >ffi e of t&e Bar Confidant 2>BC3 #y o!"lainant Crs. Patro inio 5. A$#ulos a$ainst res"ondent Atty. Roseller A. 5iray of Asin$an, Pan$asinan, for alle$edly notari(in$ a do u!ent deno!inated as Affidavit of Non-%enan y) in violation of t&e Notarial +a/. %&e said affidavit /as su""osedly e9e uted #y o!"lainant, #ut t&e latter denies said e9e ution and lai!s t&at t&e si$nature and t&e o!!unity ta9 ertifi ate 2C%C3 s&e alle$edly "resented are not &ers. 1&e furt&er lai!s t&at t&e C%C #elon$s to a ertain C&ristian Anton. 0 Co!"lainant added t&at s&e did not "ersonally a""ear #efore res"ondent for t&e notari(ation of t&e do u!ent. 1&e, li;e/ise, states t&at res"ondent.s lient, Rolando 8ollente 28ollente3, #enefited fro! t&e said falsified affidavit as it ontri#uted to t&e ille$al transfer of a "ro"erty re$istered in &er na!e to t&at of 8ollente. 4
ErEl1

4n &is Co!!ent,5 res"ondent ad!itted &avin$ "re"ared and notari(ed t&e do u!ent in question at t&e request of &is lient 8ollente, /&o assured &i! t&at it /as "ersonally si$ned #y o!"lainant and t&at t&e C%C a""earin$ t&erein is o/ned #y &er. = *e, t&us, lai!s $ood fait& in notari(in$ t&e su#@e t do u!ent. 4n a ResolutionA dated A"ril 1=, )66A, t&e >BC referred t&e ase to t&e 4nte$rated Bar of t&e P&ili""ines 24BP3 for investi$ation, re"ort and re o!!endation or de ision. After t&e !andatory onferen e and &earin$, t&e "arties su#!itted t&eir res"e tive Position Pa"ers.BCo!"lainant insists t&at s&e /as de"rived of &er "ro"erty #e ause of t&e ille$al notari(ation of t&e su#@e t do u!ent.9 Res"ondent, on t&e ot&er &and, ad!its &avin$ notari(ed t&e do u!ent in question and as;s for a"olo$y and for$iveness fro! o!"lainant as a result of &is indis retion. 16
ErEl1

4n &is re"ort, Co!!issioner 8ennis A. B. 'una 2Co!!issioner 'una3 re"orted t&at res"ondent indeed notari(ed t&e su#@e t do u!ent in t&e a#sen e of t&e alle$ed affiant

&avin$ #een #rou$&t only to res"ondent #y 8ollente. 4t turned out later t&at t&e do u!ent /as falsified and t&e C%C #elon$ed to anot&er "erson and not to o!"lainant. *e furt&er o#served t&at res"ondent did not atte!"t to refute t&e a usation a$ainst &i!: rat&er, &e even a"olo$i(ed for t&e o!"lained a t.11 Co!!issioner 'una, t&us, re o!!ended t&at res"ondent #e found $uilty of violatin$ t&e Code of Professional Res"onsi#ility and t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e, and t&at &e #e !eted t&e "enalty of si9 2=3 !ont&s sus"ension as a la/yer and si9 2=3 !ont&s sus"ension as a Notary Pu#li . 1)
ErEl1

>n A"ril 15, )66B, t&e 4BP Board of <overnors issued Resolution No. G5444-)66B-1== /&i & reads7
rala/li#rary

R,1>+5,8 to A8>P% and APPR>5,, as it is &ere#y A8>P%,8 and APPR>5,8, .i/0 1o2i3i4*/io5,t&e Re"ort and Re o!!endation of t&e 4nvesti$atin$ Co!!issioner of t&e a#ove-entitled ase, &erein !ade "art of t&is Resolution as Anne9 ?A?: and, findin$ t&e re o!!endation fully su""orted #y t&e eviden e on re ord and t&e a""li a#le la/s and rules, and onsiderin$ Res"ondents violation of t&e Code of Professional Res"onsi#ility and )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e, Atty. Roseller A. 5iray is &ere#y S S#ENDED fro! t&e "ra ti e of la/ for one 213 !ont&. 10
ErEl1

Res"ondent !oved for t&e re onsideration of t&e a#ove de ision, #ut t&e sa!e /as denied. %&e a#ove resolution /as furt&er !odified in Resolution No. GG-)61)-11A, dated Car & 16, )61), to read as follo/s7
rala/li#rary

R,1>+5,8 to 8,NH Res"ondents Cotion for Re onsideration, and unani!ously C>84'H as it is &ere#y C>84'4,8 Resolution No. G5444- )66B-1== dated A"ril 15, )66B, in addition to Res"ondentsS S#ENSION fro! t&e "ra ti e of la/ for one 213 !ont&, Atty. Roseller A. 5iray is &ere#yS S#ENDED as Notary Pu#li for si9 2=3 !ont&s. 2Emphasis in the original3 %&e findin$s of t&e 4BP are /ell ta;en. 1e tion ) 2#3 of Rule 45 of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e e!"&asi(es t&e ne essity of t&e affiants "ersonal a""earan e #efore t&e notary "u#li 7 14
ErEl1

999 2#3 A "erson s&all not "erfor! a notarial a t if t&e "erson involved as si$natory to t&e instru!ent or do u!ent 213 is not in t&e notarys "resen e "ersonally at t&e ti!e of t&e notari(ation: and 2)3 is not "ersonally ;no/n to t&e notary "u#li or ot&er/ise identified #y t&e notary "u#li t&rou$& o!"etent eviden e of identity as defined #y t&ese Rules. Coreover, 1e tion 1),15 Rule 44, of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e defines t&e ? o!"etent eviden e of identity? referred to a#ove.

4n t&is ase, res"ondent ad!its t&at not only did &e "re"are and notari(e t&e su#@e t affidavit #ut &e li;e/ise notari(ed t&e sa!e /it&out t&e affiants "ersonal a""earan e. *e e9"lained t&at &e did so !erely u"on t&e assuran e of &is lient 8ollente t&at t&e do u!ent /as e9e uted #y o!"lainant. 4n notari(in$ t&e do u!ent, res"ondent ontented &i!self /it& t&e "resentation of a C%C des"ite t&e Rules lear require!ent of "resentation of o!"etent eviden e of identity su & as an identifi ation ard /it& "&oto$ra"& and si$nature. -it& t&is indis retion, res"ondent failed to as ertain t&e $enuineness of t&e affiants si$nature /&i & turned out to #e a for$ery. 4n failin$ to o#serve t&e require!ents of t&e Rules, even t&e C%C "resented, "ur"ortedly o/ned #y o!"lainant, turned out to #elon$ to so!e#ody else. %o #e sure, a notary "u#li s&ould not notari(e a do u!ent unless t&e "erson /&o si$ned t&e sa!e is t&e very sa!e "erson /&o e9e uted and "ersonally a""eared #efore &i! to attest to t&e ontents and t&e trut& of /&at are stated t&erein. 1= -it&out t&e a""earan e of t&e "erson /&o a tually e9e uted t&e do u!ent in question, t&e notary "u#li /ould #e una#le to verify t&e $enuineness of t&e si$nature of t&e a ;no/led$in$ "arty and to as ertain t&at t&e do u!ent is t&e "artys free a t or deed. 1A
ErEl1

As a"tly o#served #y t&e Court in Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan:1B

ErEl1

%&e Court is a/are of t&e "ra ti e of not a fe/ la/yers o!!issioned as notary "u#li to aut&enti ate do u!ents /it&out requirin$ t&e "&ysi al "resen e of affiants. *o/ever, t&e adverse onsequen es of t&is "ra ti e far out/ei$& /&atever onvenien e is afforded to t&e a#sent affiants. 8oin$ a/ay /it& t&e essential require!ent of "&ysi al "resen e of t&e affiant does not ta;e into a ount t&e li;eli&ood t&at t&e do u!ents !ay #e s"urious or t&at t&e affiants !ay not #e /&o t&ey "ur"ort to #e. A notary "u#li s&ould not notari(e a do u!ent unless t&e "ersons /&o si$ned t&e sa!e are t&e very sa!e "ersons /&o e9e uted and "ersonally a""eared #efore &i! to attest to t&e ontents and trut& of /&at are stated t&erein. %&e "ur"ose of t&is require!ent is to ena#le t&e notary "u#li to verify t&e $enuineness of t&e si$nature of t&e a ;no/led$in$ "arty and to as ertain t&at t&e do u!ent is t&e "artys free a t and deed.19
ErEl1

%&e Court &as re"eatedly e!"&asi(ed in a nu!#er of ases )6 t&e i!"ortant role a notary "u#li "erfor!s, to /it7
rala/li#rary

9 9 9 INJotari(ation is not an e!"ty, !eanin$less routinary a t #ut one invested /it& su#stantive "u#li interest. %&e notari(ation #y a notary "u#li onverts a "rivate do u!ent into a "u#li do u!ent, !a;in$ it ad!issi#le in eviden e /it&out furt&er "roof of its aut&enti ity. A notari(ed do u!ent is, #y la/, entitled to full fait& and redit u"on its fa e. 4t is for t&is reason t&at a notary "u#li !ust o#serve /it& ut!ost are t&e #asi require!ents in t&e "erfor!an e of &is duties: ot&er/ise, t&e "u#li s onfiden e in t&e inte$rity of a notari(ed do u!ent /ould #e under!ined. )1
ErEl1

Res"ondents failure to "erfor! &is duty as a notary "u#li resulted not only da!a$e to t&ose dire tly affe ted #y t&e notari(ed do u!ent #ut also in under!inin$ t&e inte$rity of a notary "u#li and in de$radin$ t&e fun tion of notari(ation. )) *e s&ould, t&us, #e &eld lia#le for su & ne$li$en e not only as a notary "u#li #ut also as a la/yer. )0 %&e res"onsi#ility to fait&fully o#serve and res"e t t&e le$al sole!nity of t&e oat& in an a ;no/led$!ent or jurat is !ore "ronoun ed /&en t&e notary "u#li is a la/yer

#e ause of &is sole!n oat& under t&e Code of Professional Res"onsi#ility to o#ey t&e la/s and to do no false&ood or onsent to t&e doin$ of any. )4 +a/yers o!!issioned as notaries "u#li are !andated to dis &ar$e /it& fidelity t&e duties of t&eir offi es, su & duties #ein$ di tated #y "u#li "oli y and i!"ressed /it& "u#li interest. )5
ErEl1

As to t&e "ro"er "enalty, t&e Court finds t&e need to in rease t&at re o!!ended #y t&e 4BP /&i & is one !ont& sus"ension as a la/yer and si9 !ont&s sus"ension as notary "u#li , onsiderin$ t&at res"ondent &i!self "re"ared t&e do u!ent, and &e "erfor!ed t&e notarial a t /it&out t&e "ersonal a""earan e of t&e affiant and /it&out identifyin$ &er /it& o!"etent eviden e of &er identity. -it& &is indis retion, &e allo/ed t&e use of a C%C #y so!eone /&o did not o/n it. -orse, &e allo/ed &i!self to #e an instru!ent of fraud. Based on e9istin$ @uris"ruden e, /&en a la/yer o!!issioned as a notary "u#li fails to dis &ar$e &is duties as su &, &e is !eted t&e "enalties of revo ation of &is notarial o!!ission, disqualifi ation fro! #ein$ o!!issioned as a notary "u#li for a "eriod of t/o years, and sus"ension fro! t&e "ra ti e of la/ for one year. )=
ErEl1

6%EREFORE, t&e Court finds res"ondent Atty. Roseller A. 5iray - I!T" of #rea & of t&e )664 Rules on Notarial Pra ti e and t&e Code of Professional Res"onsi#ility. A ordin$ly, t&e Court S S#ENDS&i! fro! t&e "ra ti e of la/ for one 213 year: REVO7ES &is in u!#ent o!!ission, if any: and#RO%IBITS &i! fro! #ein$ o!!issioned as a notary "u#li for t/o 2)3 years, effe tive i!!ediately. *e is 6ARNED t&at a re"etition of t&e sa!e or si!ilar a ts in t&e future s&all #e dealt /it& !ore severely. +et all t&e ourts, t&rou$& t&e >ffi e of t&e Court Ad!inistrator, as /ell as t&e 4BP and t&e >ffi e of t&e Bar Confidant, #e notified of t&is 8e ision and #e it entered into res"ondent.s "ersonal re ord. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

Rollo, "". 1-4. !d. at 5. !d. at 4. !d. Id. at A-B. Id. at A. Id. at 16.

Id. at 46-4) and 44. Id. at 41. Id. at 44. Re"ort and Re o!!endation of t&e Co!!issioner, "". 4-5. Id. at 5. 5ol. 444, ". 1. 2Emphasis in the original3.

16

11

1)

10

14

Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, A.C. No. 5B51, Nove!#er )5, )66B, 5A1 1CRA 4A9, 4B0.
15

1e tion 1). Competent Eviden e o! Identit". - %&e "&rase ? o!"etent eviden e of identity? refers to t&e identifi ation of an individual #ased on7
rala/li#rary

2a3 At least one urrent identifi ation do u!ent issued #y an offi ial a$en y #earin$ t&e "&oto$ra"& and si$nature of t&e individual: or 2#3 %&e oat& or affir!ation of one redi#le /itness not "rivy to t&e instru!ent, do u!ent or transa tion /&o is "ersonally ;no/n to t&e notary "u#li and /&o "ersonally ;no/s t&e individual, or of t/o redi#le /itnesses neit&er of /&o! is "rivy to t&e instru!ent, do u!ent or transa tion /&o ea & "ersonally ;no/s t&e individual and s&o/s to t&e notary "u#li do u!entary identifi ation.
1=

#egaspi v. #andrito, A.C. No. A691, > to#er 15, )66B, 5=9 1CRA 1, 5: Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, $r., A.C. No. AAB1, 1e"te!#er 1), )66B, 5=5 1CRA 1, 5-=.
1A

Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, $r., supra, at =. Supra note 14. Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, supra note 14, at 4BA-4BB.

1B

19

)6

Id. at 4BB: #egaspi v. #andrito, supra note 1=: Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, $r., supra note 1=, at A-B.
)1

#ustesti a v. %erna&e, A.C. No. =)5B, Au$ust )4, )616, =)B 1CRA =10, =19-=)6. Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, supra note 14, at 4BB. Id. #egaspi v. #andrito, supra note 1=, at =. Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, $r., supra note 1=, at A.

))

)0

)4

)5

)=

Isenhardt v. Real, A.C. No. B)54, 'e#ruar" 15, )61), === 1CRA )6, )B: #in o v. #a e&al, A.C. No. A)41, > to#er 1A, )611, =59 1CRA 106, 10=: #anuzo v. %ongon, A.C. No. =A0A, 1e"te!#er )0, )66B, 5== 1CRA )14, )1B.