A.C. No.

6689
August 24, 2011
RIZALINA L. GEMINA vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA,
Facts:
Allegedly, Complainant is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land
located in Laoag City.2 These parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in
connivance with the respondent. The documents pertaining to the transactions over these
lands were notarized by the respondent either without the presence of the affiants or with
their forged signatures. The documents the complainant referred to were:1. Waiver of Rights
& Interest; 2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee;3. Deed of Adjudication3 & Sale;4. Affidavit of
Non-Tenancy and 5. Deed of Absolute Sale.
In his Comments and Compliance ,7 the respondent admitted the complainants
allegations on the notarization of the subject documents, but denied any participation in
the sale and transfer of the lands covered by the documents. He claimed that it was his
secretary who prepared and drafted the documents. He claimed that his only participation
was to affix his signature on the documents. He apologized and committed himself not to
repeat these misdeeds.
In a resolution the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation.8
In the position paper she submitted to the IBP, the complainant reiterated her
charges against the respondent. The respondent likewise reiterated in his position paper 10
his explanations contained in his comment submitted to this Court. The Commissioner incharge of the case submitted to the IBP Board of Governors her Report and
Recommendation, recommending the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, finding
that no documentary evidence was presented to support the same. She insisted that
respondent notarized documents without the appearance before him of the persons who
executed the same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was also presented. The report was
adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors. Hence, this appeal
Issue: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Ruling
The court disagree with the findings of Commissioner Maala for the following
reasons: First, the IBP cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the
registered owner of the land. It is not within its authority to determine whether the
complainant has a legal right to the properties involved in the transactions and to require
her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers, and it
cannot determine issues of law and facts regarding the parties legal rights to a dispute.
Second, from the respondents own admissions, it cannot be doubted that he is guilty of the

charges against him. His admissions show that he had notarized documents without
reading them and without ascertaining what the documents purported to be. He had
completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the maintenance of his Notarial
Register. This eventually resulted in inaccuracies in the entry of the notarial acts in his
Notarial Register.
The IBP resolution, based wholly on Commissioner Maalas Report and Recommendation,
totally missed and disregarded the submitted evidence and the respondents testimony
during the hearing of the complaint. The IBP apparently had treated the respondent with
exceptional leniency. The respondents age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to
disregard the serious lapses he committed in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and
as a notary public. The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register entries and his failure to enter
the documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as a notary
public. He cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself,
not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.16
. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must
inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part
or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.17
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. The Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, moreover, require a
duly commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register and to
refrain from committing any dereliction or any act which may serve as cause for the
revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions.18
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondents failure to make the
proper entry or entries in his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the
presence of a principal at the time of the notarial acts, and his failure to identify a principal
on the basis of personal knowledge by competent evidence are grounds for the revocation of
a lawyers commission as a notary public.19
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba GUILTY of
violating the Notarial Law, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and hereby orders the REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if still
existing. He is further SUSPENDED indefinitely from reappointment as a Notary Public.
Considering the seriousness of his violations, he deserves disbarment from the practice of
law but taking into account his old age and sickness, the Court, for humanitarian reasons,
hereby orders his SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

ABADILLA vs. TABILIRAN

A.M. No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995
FACTS:

Repondent Judge Tabiliran was married to Teresita Banzuela. Sometime in 1965,

Banzuela left and abandoned their family home in Zamboanga del Norte and thereafter her
whereabouts could not be known. In 1970, tabiliran began cohabiting with Priscilla
Baybayan, with whom he had three children born in 1970, 1971 and 1975, respectively.
Tabiliran and Baybayan got married in 1986. In the marriage contract, Tabiliran
represented himself as single. Petitioner is a clerk of court assigned in the sala of
respondent, charging Tabiliran for gross immorality.

ISSUES:
1. W/N Tabilirans marriage to Baybayan was valid; NO.
2. W/N their children were legitimated by their subsequent marriage. NO.

HELD:
1. The Supreme Court held Tabiliran culpable for gross immorality, having
scandalously and openly cohabited with Baybayan during the existence of his
marriage to Bazuela. Evidently, respondent and Baybayan had openly lived together
even while respondents marriage to his (first) wife was still valid and subsisting. The
provisions of Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court and Article 390 of the Civil Code which
provide that after an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, the absent spouse shall be considered dead for all purposes,
except for those of succession, cannot be invoked by respondent. From the time
Banzuela left the conjugal home in 1966 until the time that respondent started to
cohabit with Baybayan in 1970, only four years had elapsed. Respondent had no
right to presume therefore that Banzuela was already dead for all purposes.
As to respondents act of eventually marrying Baybayan in 1986, the Supreme Court
(SC) declared to be not in the position to determine the legality thereof, absent all the
facts for proper determination. The SC considered the finding of the Investigating
Judge that said marriage is authorized under Article 83 (2) of the Civil Code.
2. As a lawyer and a judge, respondent ought to know that, despite his subsequent
marriage to Priscilla, the three children cannot be legitimated nor in any way be
considered legitimate since at the time they were born, there was an existing valid
marriage between respondent and Banzuela. The applicable provision in this case is
Article 269 of the Civil Code, which states that: Only natural children can be
legitimated. Children born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the
conception of the former, were not disqualified by an impediment to marry each
other, are natural.

Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of

adulterous relations.
The reasons for this limitation are as follows: (1) rationale of legitimation would be
destroyed; (2) it would be unfair to the legitimate children in terms of successional
rights; (3) there will be the problem of public scandal, unless social mores change; (4)
it is too violent to grant the privilege of legitimation to adulterous children as it will
destroy the sanctity of the marriage; and (5) it will be very scandalous, especially if
the parents marry many years after the birth of the child.

Bernard Jandoquile, complainant

v.
Atty Quirino Revilla Jr, respondent
Facts:
The facts of the case are not disputed. Atty Revilla Jr notarized a complaint-affidavit
signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer Alvarado. Heneraline
Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atyy Revilla Jrs wife. Jandoquile
complains that Atyy Revilla Jr is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3 (c),
Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant also complains that
respondent did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid
identification cards.Atty Revilla did not deny but admitted complainants material
allegations.
Issue: Whether or not the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives within
the fourth civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid
identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
Rulings:
No. Since the facts are not contested, the court deems it more prudent to resolve the case.
Indeed, Atty Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualification rule under Section 3 , Rule IV of the

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The court agree with him, that respondents violation is
not sufficient ground for disbarment. Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule,
it behooved upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse notarizing the document.
On the second charge, Atty Revilla, Jr. cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the
affiants personally, he need not require them to show their valid identification cards. This
rule is supported by the definition of a jurat under Sec 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice. A Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a)
appears in person before the notary public and presents an instruments or documents; (b)
is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through
competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the
notary; (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister-in-law of Atty Revilla, Jrs wife;
Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wifes sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in house
boy of the Brosas family. Respondent knows the three affiants personally, thus he was
justified in no longer requiring them to show valid identification cards. But respondent is
not without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the jurat of the complaint-affidavit.
While he has a valid defense as to the second charge, it does not exempt him from liability
for violating the disqualification rule.

A.C. No. 4545

February 5, 2014

CARLITO ANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, Respondent.

Legal Ethics: Rule 9.01, Canon 7; Rule 9.01, Canon 9
FACTS:
The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by complainant Carlito Ang against
respondent. Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely
Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of
Heirs and Partition involving a land which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(T-22409)-6433. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot No.
2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon.

However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT number
had already been cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs had been issued in the names of
William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio
Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero.
Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent had a direct
participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who
prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale that led to the
transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang pointed out that the Deed of Absolute Sale
which was allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated and
Candelaria Magpayos signature was forged as clearly shown by the Certification issued by
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu since the Notarial
Report indubitably showed that the document executed was an affidavit, not a Deed of
Absolute Sale.
As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on
April 29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as she Died three years prior to the
execution of the said affidavit of loss.
Ang further alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact and executed a Deed
of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim So Mecantile Co even though a civil case was pending
before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.
Respondent denied any wrongdoing. According to the respondent, in the pending civil case
Ang anchored his claim on the Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition and sought
to annul the deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of land.
However, because of Angs admission that he is not an heir of late Candelaria Magpayo, the
notice of lis pendens annotated in the title of land were ordered cancelled and the land
became available for disposition. Respondent surmised that these developments in Civil
Case No. Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so Ang resorted to the filing of the
present administrative complaint. Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for
being devoid of any factual or legal basis, or in the alternative, holding resolution of the
instant case in abeyance pending resolution of civil case.
Investigating Commissioner Navarro of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that
respondent is administratively liable. She recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for three months. She held that respondent committed an
unethical act when he allowed himself to be an instrument in the disposal of the subject
property through a deed of sale executed between him as attorney-in-fact of his client and
Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said property is the subject of a
pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu.

The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that respondent "delegated the notarial
functions to the clerical staff of their office before being brought to him for his signature."
This, according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the forged signatures
of the parties in the questioned documentas well as the erroneous entry in his notarial
register. Respondent should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the bar in accordance with Rule
9.0117 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent is administratively liable for violating the notarial law and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
The Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of his notarial duties when
he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria Magpayo. it is clear that the party
acknowledging must appear before the notary public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.23 In the case at bar, the jurat of the
Affidavit of Loss stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on
April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26,
1991. Hence, it is clear that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law.
As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy
impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. The Code of
Professional Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that "[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance
of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing."
in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is liable for misconduct.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and
suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order.

SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct and Dishonesty
FACTS
- Petitioners Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused respondent Atty. Edwin
Hidalgo of serious misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyers oath and notarial
law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo German over ownership of said land;
German presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo denying authenticity of his signature on
deed of sale
Petitioners' Claim
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly
notarized document (including impression of his notarial dry seal)
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, not being learned in technicalities
surrounding notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and notarial register, and they could not have
made any imprint of his seal or signature.
Respondents' Comments
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for disputed property.
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted
that he notarized several documents in that office.
- As a matter of procedure, documents were scrutinized by senior lawyers, and only with
their approval could notarization be done.
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) would affix dry seal of junior associates on
documents relating to cases handled by the law firm.
- He normally required parties to exhibit community tax certificates and to personally
acknowledge documents before him as notary public.

- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov 1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so
as to personally acknowledge another document)
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged (strokes of a lady)
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on vacation.

ISSUES
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed of sale was forged
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence

HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio The alleged forged signature was different from Hidalgos signatures in other
documents submitted during the investigation.
Reasoning Santuyos did not state that they personally appeared before respondent. They
were also not sure if he signed the document; only that his signature appeared on it. They
had no personal knowledge as to who actually affixed the signature.
2. Yes.
Ratio He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the preparation and other mechanics
of the document for notarization to the office secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal
and making entries in notarial register.
Reasoning Responsibility attached to a notary public is sensitive, and respondent should
have been more discreet and cautious.
Disposition Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission as notary public for two (2)
years for negligence in the performance of duties as notary public.

BAUTISTA v SILVA
GR No. 157434
FACTS: Spouses Berlina Silva and Pedro Silva were the owners of a parcel of land with a
Transfer Certificate of Title No B-37189, which was registered on August 14, 1980 in their
names.
On March 3, 1988, Pedro , for himself and as attorney-in-fact of his wife Berlina, thru a
Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Berlina in his favor, executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land in favor of defendants-spouses Claro Bautista and
Nida Bautista.
As a consequence, TCT No B-37189 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. V-2765 was
issued in the names of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista on March 4, 1988.
Based on the evidence presented, the signature appearing on the SPA as that of Berlina is
a forgery and consequently the Deed of Absolute Sale Executed by Pedro in favor os
Spouses Bautista is not authorized by Berlina. Thus the RTC declared the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated March 3, 1988 executed by Pedro M. Silva, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of
Berlina F. Silva, in favor of defendants-spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista over the
parcel of land as null and void.
ISSUE:Whether or Not petitioners are considered as purchasers in good faith and for value
having relied upon a SPA which appears legal, valid, and genuine on its face
Whether the nullity of the deed of sale includes the one half share of the husband gratia
argumenti that the special power of attorney is a forgery and the deed of sale executed by
the husband is null and void
HELD: There is no merit to petitioners' claim that they are purchasers in good faith.
There was positive and convincing evidence that respondent did not sign the SPA, and on
the uncontroverted Certification of Dorado that respondent was in Germany working as a
nurse when the SPA was purportedly executed in 1987. The SPA being a forgery, it did not
vest in Pedro any authority to alienate the subject property without the consent of
respondent. Absent such marital consent, the deed of sale was a nullity.
The petitioners are not buyers in good faith. A buyer for value in good faith is one who buys
property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in,
such property and pays full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or
before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys

the property with the well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the
thing had title to the property and capacity to convey it.
To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he relied on
the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is
not obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the title. Such degree of proof of good
faith, however, is sufficient only when the following conditions concur: first, the seller is the
registered owner of the land; second, the latter is in possession thereof; and third, at the
time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of some other person in
the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to
convey title to the property.
Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the buyer on notice
and obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence by scrutinizing the certificate
of title and examining all factual circumstances in order to determine the seller's title and
capacity to transfer any interest in the property. Failure to exercise such degree of
precaution makes him a buyer in bad faith. To prove good faith then, petitioners must show
that they inquired not only into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to sell.
A test has to be done whether the buyer had a choice between knowing the forgery and
finding it out, or he had no such choice at all.
A person dealing with a seller who has possession and title to the property but whose
capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if he proves that he inquired
into the title of the seller as well as into the latter's capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry,
he relied on the notarial acknowledgment found in the seller's duly notarized special power
of attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial
acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the document, its due
execution and authenticity. Said rule should not apply when there is an apparent flaw
afflicting the notarial acknowledgment of the special power of attorney as would cast doubt
on the due execution and authenticity of the document; or when the buyer has actual
notice of circumstances outside the document that would render suspect its genuineness.
In the present case, petitioners knew that Berlina was in Germany at the time they were
buying the property and the SPA relied upon by petitioners has a defective notarial
acknowledgment. The SPA was a mere photocopy and we are not convinced that there ever
was an original copy of said SPA as it was only this photocopy that was testified to by
petitioner Nida Bautista and offered into evidence by her counsel. But then said photocopy
of the SPA contains no notarial seal. There being no notarial seal, the signature of the

notary public on the notarial certificate was therefore incomplete. It was a mere private
document which petitioners cannot foist as a banner of good faith.
All told, it was not sufficient evidence of good faith that petitioners merely relied on the
photocopy of the SPA as this turned out to be a mere private document. They verified with
Atty. Lucero whether the SPA was authentic but then the latter was not the notary public
who prepared the document. Worse, they purposely failed to inquire who was the notary
public who prepared the SPA. Finally, petitioners conducted the transaction in haste. It
took them all but three days or from March 2 to 4, 1988 to enter into the deed of sale,
notwithstanding the restriction on the capacity to sell of Pedro. In no way then may
petitioners qualify as buyers for value in good faith.
That said, we come to the third issue on whether petitioners may retain the portion of Pedro
Silva in the subject property. Certainly not. It is well-settled that the nullity of the sale of
conjugal property contracted by the husband without the marital consent of the wife affects
the entire property, not just the share of the wife.

Aragon vs. Bustamante, A.C. No. 5510, December 20, 2007

Facts: Complainant Sajid D. Agagon filed the instant administrative case against respo
ndent Atty. Artemio Bustamante charging the latter with malpractice and violation of
the lawyers oath. Complainant alleged that respondent acted as Notary Public to the "
Deed of Sale" allegedly executed by and between Dominador Panglao and Alessandro P
anglao. However, upon verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Baguio City, it was discovered that the alleged Deed of Sale was not included i
n the notarial report. Instead, Doc. No. 375 appearing on Page 76 of Book XXXIII, Series o
f 2000 of respondent Atty. Bustamante referred to an Affidavit executed by a certain Teofilo
M. Malapit. Moreover, the Community Tax Certificates used by the parties in the Deed of Sa
le were fictitious, as certified to by the City Treasurers Office.
In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was the one who prepared the Deed of Sale.
However, he claimed that the parties merely dictated to him their Community Tax Cer
tificate Numbers;and that it was pure inadvertence that the document that was repor
ted and included in the report to the Office of the Clerk of Court and which bore the

document number assigned to the Deed of Sale was an Affidavit executed by Teofilo Ma
lapit.
Issue: Whether the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held: YES. There is no doubt that respondent violated the Code of Professional Respon
sibility and the Notarial Law when he failed to include a copy of the Deed of Sale in hi
s Notarial Report and for failing to require the parties to the deed to exhibit their res
pective community tax certificates. Doubts were cast as to the existence and due exe
cution of the subject deed, thus undermining the integrity and sanctity of the notari
zation process and diminishing public confidence in notarial. In the performance of not
arial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as
affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to publi
c, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuinene
ss and due execution. Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningl
ess, or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only th
ose who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Indeed, a notarial docu
ment is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, nota
ries public must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities in
the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity o
f this form of conveyance would be undermined. Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Respo
nsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and pro
mote respect for the law and legal processes. Moreover, the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rul
es on Notarial Practice require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper
entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any dereliction or act
which constitutes good cause for the revocation of commission or imposition of admi
nistrative sanction. Unfortunately, respondent failed in both respects.

Father Ranhilio Aquino vs Atty. Edwin Pascua

Facts:
Father Aquino as the Academic head of Philippine Judicial Academy, filed a complaint
against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public for violation of the Notarial Practice Law. He
alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two documents wherein both documents had Doc. No.
1213, Page No. 243. Book III, Series of 1998 and both are dated on December 10, 1998. It
was shown by the Clerk of Court of RTC-Tuguegarao that none of these entries appear in
the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua. In his comment, Atty. Pascua admitted having

notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but they were not entered in his
Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal secretary. Complainant maintains that
Atty. Pascuas omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pascua violated the Notarial Practice Rule.
Ruling:
Yes. Under the notarial law, 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. 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 is a ground for revocation of his commission.
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight of his
staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His failure to enter into
his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on
his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff.
Furthermore, the claim of Atty. Pascua of simple inadvertence is untenable. The
photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which he notarized on December
28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page 240. On the other hand, the two affidavitcomplaints allegedly notarized on December 10, 1998 are Document Nos. 1213 and 1214,
respectively, under Page No. 243, Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the other complainants
are correct in maintaining that Atty. Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the
questioned affidavit-complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a Notary Public,
but also as a member of the Bar.
A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any misconduct in his
professional or private capacity. The Court has invariably imposed a penalty for notaries
public who were found guilty of dishonesty or misconduct in the performance of their
duties.
Atty Pascua is declared guilty of misconduct and is suspended from the practice of
law for 3 months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with
more severely. His notarial commission is revoked.

Judge Laquindanum vs. Atty. Quintana

A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009

Puno, CJ.

Facts:

Judge Laquindanum sent a letter to the Supreme Court requesting that proper disciplinary
action be imposed to Atty. Nestor Quintana for the following acts:
1. Notarizing documents outside of the area of his commission as notary public;
2. Allowing his wife to notarize documents in his absence;
3. Notarizing a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that
time.
Issues:
1. Whether or not a lawyer of good standing has the right to practice his profession
including notarial acts in the entire Philippines, as so claimed by the respondent
2. Whether or not Atty. Quintana can transfer the blame to his wife for the latters
unauthorized practice of notarial acts
3. Whether or not a notary public can notarize documents where one of the signatories
therein was already dead at that time
Held:
1. No. While it is true that lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in the
practice of law in the Philippines, however, not every lawyer even in good standing
can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as notary public.
He must have submitted himself to the commissioning court by filing his petition for
issuance of his Notarial Practice.
2. No. A notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register.
Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wifes act and that he did not
authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the
activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who
acts as his secretary.

3. No. Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides A person
shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument
or document (1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through
competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

AVELINO O. ANGELES, LAURO O. ANGELES, MARIA O. ANGELES, ROSALINA O.

ANGELES, and CONNIE M. ANGELES, Complainants, vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAEZ,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 7860
January 15, 2009
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Complainants filed a case for disbarment against respondent for having notarized the
Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the parties
thereto, and despite his alleged lack of a notarial commission. The respondent denied that
he notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale, but claimed that he did so not
in Manila as stated in the document, but in Cavite where he claimed to be a commissioned
notary public; he attributed the mistake to his legal secretary. He also admitted that he did
not require the presence of the parties to the document because he was assured as to the
authenticity of their signatures. The IBP Commissioner recommended that he be barred
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years and be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

ISSUE: WON respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional
Responsibility when he notarized the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale in the
absence of the affiants.

RULING:
Time and again, we have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries public that the
affiants must personally appear before them. The physical presence of the affiants enables
the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties
and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act and deed.
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders
it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. 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. Notarization is not an empty
routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to
act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative
offices generally.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents notarial commission should
not only be suspended but respondent must also be suspended from the practice of law.

Lanuzo v. Atty. Bongon (2008)

Doctrine:

Notarization is not a meaningless routinary act. A notarized document is by law

entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must
observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence
of the public in notarized documents will be undermined.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are
the same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the
contents and the truth of what are stated therein, the purpose being to enable the
notary public to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging parties
and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act.

Facts:
Lanuzo Jr. bought a parcel of land from Nangyo. Flocerfida (complainant, Lanuzo Jr.s wife)
went to pay the real estate taxes on the land, but found out that the land was earlier sold
by Nangyo to a certain Santos. She was able to obtain the Deed of Sale from the Assessors
office, which was verified by Atty. Borongon as the Notary Public. This Deed of Sale was

signed by the spouses Nangyo as co-vendors and was notarized in 2004. However, it was
found out that Primitiva Nangyo (one of the signees) died in 1997.
Flocerfida then filed a complaint against Atty. Bongon for falsification of documents and
violation of notarial rules. She alleged that Atty. Bongon conspired with Nangyo to defraud
her and her husband.
Issue:
1. W/N Atty. Bongon violated the rules on notarial
practice Held/Ratio:
1. YES, Atty. Bongon was sentenced to 1 year suspension from the practice of law and 2
years disqualification from being a notary public.
While the investigators found no evidence to show that Atty. Bongon conspired to
defraud the Lanuzos and intentionally falsified the documents, the facts clearly
showed that he notarized the deed of sale wherein one of the signatories was not in
his presence. Notaries public should not notarize a document unless the persons
who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before
him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
In this case, Atty. Bongons notarization would make it appear that Primitiva
appeared before him in order to notarize a document, which is impossible given that
she was already dead at the time. Atty. Bongon failed to exercise utmost diligence in
the performance of his functions as a notary public. By notarizing the questioned
deed, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.