1. Reyes vs Heirs of Malance, GR No.

219071, Aug 24, 2016

Facts:
- Benjamin during his lifetime obtained a loan amounting to 600k from Magtalas sisters
evidenced by a Kasulatan notarized by Atty Navarro. in consideration, the Magtalas sisters
possessed and cultivated Benjamin’s land and enjoyed its fruits (antichresis)
- Upon his death, Benjamin’s heirs assail the validity of the Kasulatan alleging that it was
forged because there could be no reason for Benjamin to obtain such loan since he is
financially capable, single and the contract was entered into when Benjamin was sick and
that the signature is forged.
- RTC and CA held that a notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity as to its
genuineness and due execution.
Held:
- The presumption of regularity of the Kasulatan cannot apply since there is a defect in the
notarization since only a CTC was presented by Benjamin before the notary public which is
not one of the IDs allowed under the rules on notarial practice.
- A notarized document enjoys presumption of regularity which can only be overturned by
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. When there is a defect however, the
document will be stripped off its public character and will be reduced into a private document
and the measure to test its validity is preponderance of evidence.
- In this case, despite being defective, Atty Navarro who notarized the document positively
identified and testified that Benjamin executed the document basing in his Senior Citizen ID
and attested that he personally witnessed the exchange of money.

2. Endaya vs Palay, AC No. 10150

Facts:
- Atty Palay, a notary public in Palawan, notarized a deed of sale covering parcels of land
owned by Engr Villaos executed thru thumbmark during the time when Engr Villaos was
already confined at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City and was seriously ill which
was a month prior to his death.

Held:
- By acknowledging the Deed of Sale, he made it appear that Villaos personally appeared
before him when this was not in fact the case. Worse, in his answer to the complaint, he lied
about being called into a car by Villaos' driver.
- Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for six (6)
months, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and DISQUALIFIES him
from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

3. Flores-Salado vs Villanueva, 804 SCRA 225

Facts:
- Complainants presented their adverse claim over a parcel of land in Agusan del Norte
registered under the name of spouses Villanueva which was registered in the RD on January
2007. On December the same year, an affidavit of waiver which is notarized, appearing to be
signed by them was presented which caused the cancellation of the adverse claim.
- In order to challenge the due execution of the waiver, they merely denied having signed the
same and alleged that Atty Villanueva falsified the same.
Held:
- The complainants have hereby challenged the due
execution and authenticity of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal, a notarized
document. In view of this, the complainants’ mere denial of having signed
 the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal did not suffice to overcome the positive
value of it as a notarized document. It is settled that notarization converts a
private document into a public document, whereby the document becomes
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The notarized document then
has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the presumed
regularity of its execution, whoever alleges the contrary should present
evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.

4. Recio vs Fandino, 804 SCRA 496

Facts:
- Bail bonds of ORASCO were counterfeited which circulated and were confiscated by various
branches of courts in the 5th judicial region bearing the bogus notary seal of Atty Fandino
facilitated by his secretary Cruz.
- Atty Fandino denied any participation in the execution of simulated bonds and alleged that
he himself is engaged in insurance business and entrusted its management to his secretary,
Cruz.
Held:
- although atty Fandino did not directly participate, he is still liable due to his negligence.
- Had Cruz not been equipped with the needed familiarity and given access to respondent's
notarial tools, no fake ORASCO bail bond could have been circulated. The negligence and
oversight of respondent produced a grave wrong to ORASCO.
- Here, respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice24 particularly Section 2(a)
and (c), Rule VII, to wit:
o 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. x x x
(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.

- Complainant successfully showed in her Position Paper that Cruz is the secretary of
respondent. This was evidenced by the Affidavit of Service signed by Cruz of a Motion to
Withdraw as Bondsman dated June 23, 1999 filed before RTC Branch 22 Naga City.
Even so, respondent should not have entrusted everything to his secretary
and allowed the latter to have full access to his notarial paraphernalia
considering the sensitivity of his responsibility as a notary public. His
negligence in giving Cruz absolute freedom and access to his office paved
the way for Vargas and Cruz to secure the notarization of the spurious
ORASCO bonds.

5. Malvar vs Valeros, AC No. 11346, 819 SCRA 620

Facts:
- Dr Malvar owns a land in La Union which was sold to Mallari. Dr. Malvar undertook to
facilitate the transfer of title to Mallari.
- Mallari could not withstand the delay of the transfer of title so he filed an application before
the CENRO for certification of alienable and disposable land over the property using Dr.
Malvar’s name and signature which was notarized by Atty Valeros.
- Dr. Malvar instituted an action for disbarment against Atty Valeros for notarizing the
certification and making it appear that he executed the same when he never went to the
 office of Atty Valeros as he was busy performing his duties as a doctor in Manila and
presented medical records to support the same.

Held:

- On the issue of presumption of regularity of notarized document: The unsubstantiated claim

of the respondent that the complainant
appeared before her and signed the contested document in her presence
cannot prevail over the evidence supplied by the complainant pointing that it
was highly improbable if not impossible for him to appear before the
respondent on the date so alleged that the subject document was notarized.
The complainant furnished in his Sworn Judicial Affidavit submitted before
the court patients’ record cards showing that he attended to a number of
them on August 18, 2010 in De Los Santos Medical Center, E. Rodriguez,
Sr. Avenue, Quezon City.

- On the issue of requiring identification: Granting that the complainant was present before the
notary public at the time of the
notarization of the contested document on August 18, 2010, the respondent
remained unjustified in not requiring him to show a competent proof of his
identification. She could have escaped administrative liability on this score
if she was able to demonstrate that she personally knows the complainant.
- On the issue of filling up the notarial registry: Worse, it was discovered that the entry in the
notarial register covering the document refers to a different document and not the
certification and respondent even admitted that it was his staff who fills up the notarial
register contrary to what the law requires that it shall not be delegated to any unqualified
person-only members of the bar may perform.
- On the issue of retaining copy: Respondent not required to retain a copy because it was only
jurat. Notary public is required to retain a copy if it is acknowledgment.

6. Boers vs Calubaquib, 833 SCRA 427, AC No. 10562

Facts:
- Boers and her siblings co-owned a land in Tuguegarao. She learned that an adverse claim
was annotated in their title based on a deed of sale which appears to be signed by her as
one of the sellers and notarized by Atty Calubaquib.
- Boers contended that she was in Canada at the time of the alleged notarization and
presented her passport and visa as evidence and upon verification with the national archives
she learned that the document does not exist in Atty Calubaquib’s notarial file and the
document that corresponds to the notarial number is an affidavit not a deed of sale.
- In his defense, Atty Calubaquib presented the joint affidavit of Boer’s aunt and cousin that
the document was signed by Boers in the presence of Atty Calubaquib in the latter’s office
but was notarized on a different date at the time when Boers was no longer in the country
because not all the parties signed at the same time.
Held:
- a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed are the very
same persons who executed and personally appeared before him or her to attest to the
contents and truth of the matters stated in the document.26
- Calubaquib clearly violated this rule. Boer satisfactorily proved that she could not have
personally appeared before Calubaquib on October 16, 1991 as she was out of the country
as early as December 20, 1990. Moreover, Calubaquib's own evidence established this
same fact. He presented a joint affidavit which expressly states that Boer was not in the
 Philippines when he notarized the Deed of Sale. For this violation of the Rules, the
imposition of disciplinary sanctions is proper.
- Calubaquib also violated the recording requirements under the rule for failing to record the
document.

7. Dandoy vs Endayan, AC No. 12084, June 6, 2018

Facts:
- Dandoy alleged that Atty Edayan notarized an SPA allegedly executed by his father Jacinto
(granting authority to mortgage his land) and a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate as to
his grandmother.
- Dandoy contends that his father could not have been present since he died years ago prior
to said notarization.
- Atty Endayan’s defense is that he verified the identities of the signatories thru their resident
certificates and there were witnesses. He added also that although resident certificates are
not mentioned in the list of competent evidence of identity, they are still necessary for proper
execution of notarial act as it is still prescribed by other laws like LGC, CA 465, Notarial Law.
Held:
- Jurisprudence provides that a community tax certificate or cedula is no longer considered as
a valid and competent evidence of identity not only because it is not included in the list of
competent evidence of identity under the Rules; but moreso, it does not bear the photograph
and signature of the persons appearing before them, which the Rules deem as the more
appropriate and competent means by which notaries public can ascertain the person's
identity. Records show that Jacinto passed away on July 13, 1999, and therefore, clearly
could not have appeared before respondent to sign and execute the two (2) documents. Had
respondent been more circumspect in performing his duties as notary public and asked for
the photograph-andsignature-bearing identification document required by the 2004 Notarial
Rules, he would have immediately discovered that the person before him was not the person
whom he purports to be. All told, by accepting the residence certificates presented by the
person who claimed to be Jacinto as evidence of identity, respondent made it appear that
Jacinto personally appeared before him and subscribed the SPA and the Deed in violation of
the 2004 Notarial Rules and to the detriment of Dandoy and his siblings.
- Moreover, the statements made by the witnesses to the documents as regards the identity
of the persons who claimed to be Felipe and Jacinto and those made by the person
purporting to be Felipe as regards the latter do not comply with the 2004 Notarial Rules'
requirements on competent evidence of identity. Section 12 clearly states that the credible
witness/es making the oath – as to the identity of the individual subscribing the document
must: not be a privy to the document, etc.; personally know/s the individual subscribing; and,
must either be (a) personally known to the notary public, or (b) must show to the notary
public a photograph-and-signature-bearing identification document. In this case, Felipe and
Garzo were both privies to the document, and the records are bereft of any evidence
showing that the other witnesses to the document had shown to respondent the
documentary identification which the 2004 Notarial Rules require.

8. De Lima vs Guerrero, GR No. 229781

Facts:
- De Lima was detained in Camp Crame following an arrest warrant issued by RTC on her
alleged connection in the drug trade inside Bilibid. She sought relief via petition for certiorari
and other injunctive reliefs but there was an issue as to the regularity of notarization of her
certification against non forum shopping.
 - Atty Cabalo testified that she went to camp crame where De Lima was detained and was
informed that the certification was already signed and ready for notarization and due to her
personal relationship with De Lima, she is familiar with the signature of De Lima and
examined and confirmed the document to have been signed by De Lima. That she likewise
asked for id and attached its copy to the document and recorded it in her registry.
Held:
- The certification which bears a defective notarization shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading under the rules of court unlike in any other document wherein it is merely reduced
into a private document. The petition therefore filed by De Lima was not given due course.

At first glance, it is curious that Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo who claims to have “stamped and
signed the [Verification and Certification and Affidavit of Merit]” inside
Camp Crame, presumably in De Lima’s presence, still found it necessary to,
hours later, “confirm with Senator De Lima that [she had] already notarized
the Petition.” Nonetheless, assuming the veracity of the allegations narrated
in the Affidavit, it is immediately clear that petitioner De Lima did not sign
the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of
Merit in front of the notary public. This is contrary to the jurats (i.e., the
certifications of the notary public at the end of the instruments) signed by Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo
that the documents were “SUBSCRIBED AND
SWORN to before me.” Such clear breach of notarial protocol is highly
censurable as Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
requires the affiant, petitioner De Lima in this case, to sign the instrument or
document in the presence of the notary.

“an irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a document to

that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution and
authenticity to be admissible as evidence,” the same cannot be considered
controlling in determining compliance with the requirements of Sections 1
and 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65
require that the petitions for certiorari and prohibition must be verified and
accompanied by a “sworn certificate of non-forum shopping.” In this regard,
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[a] pleading is
verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based
on authentic records.” “A pleading required to be verified which x x x
lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.”

9. Mariano vs Enchanez, AC No. 10373

Facts:

- Complaint for disbarment against Atty Echanez for performing notarial acts without a
notarial commission evidenced by several documents notarized by Atty Echanez and a
certificate issued by the executive judge with a list of commissioned notary public
wherein the name of Atty Echanez is not included.
Held:
- Suspended for 2 years and permanently barred to be commissioned as notary public for
performing unauthorized notarial acts. He violated lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood. He
did not even attempt to present a defense.
- Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless
and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this
reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties.15
-
-