A. NOTARIAL LAW 3.WON Atty.

Examen failed to exercise his duty as a notary

public.
1. A. HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY
DAVID ALILANO, COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. ROBERTO RULING:
E. EXAMEN
1. No prescription of actions for acts of erring members
FACTS: of the bar. If the rule were otherwise, members of the
bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath
• Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the hold- they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as
ers of OCT No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. par- long as no private complainant would immediately
cel of land located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Ku- come forward, they stand a chance of being com-
darat. pletely exonerated from whatever administrative liabil-
• Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and Octo- ity they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court
ber 11, 1989, respectively. to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as
• It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, the administration of justice. No matter how much time
1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale were executed by the has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act
Sps Alilano in favor of Sps Examen. Both documents complained of and the time of the institution of the
were notarized by Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of complaint, erring members of the bench and bar can-
vendee. not escape the disciplining arm of the Court.
• On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit 2. Yes. Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in
for recovery of possession before RTC Sultan Kudarat. the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889.
They alleged that Atty. Examen violated the notarial However, the law governing Notarial Practice is
law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale changed with the passage of the January 3, 1916 Re-
since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a vised Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917.
document when one of the parties is a relative by con- In 2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice was
sanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity passed by the Supreme Court.
within the second civil degree. It is also alleged that
Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing that In this case, the prohibition might have still applied had the
the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ra- applicable rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. However,
mon Examen was not actually his but the residence following the Court's ruling in Kapunan et al v. Casilan and
certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also CA, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised
falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses person- Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was removed.
ally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly,
that despite knowing the infirmities of these docu- At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing no-
ments, Atty. Examen introduced these documents into tarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Re-
evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. vised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on
• Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any a notary public from notarizing a document when one of the
prohibition under the Revised Administrative Code for interested parties is related to the notary public within the
a notary public to notarize a document where one of fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree of
the parties is related to him by consanguinity and affin- affinity.
ity. With regard to the residence certificate, he said
that he was in good faith and that it was office practice 3. Yes. Notaries public must perform their duties dili-
that the secretary type details without him personally gently and with utmost care.
examining the output and that the use of another's res-
Nunga v. Atty. Viray- Notarization is not an empty, mean-
idence certificate is not a ground for disbarment and is
ingless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
barred by prescription (IBP Resolution- within 2 years
interest, such that only those who are qualified or autho-
from the date of the act.)
rized may act as notaries public. The protection of that in-
• IBP Commission on Bar Discipline- Atty. Examen li-
terest necessarily requires that those not qualified or autho-
able for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing
rized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the
false Absolute Deeds of Sale before court proceed-
public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.
ings. Recommended the penalty of disbarment.
It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary
• IBP Board of Governors- modified the penalty to sus- public converts a private document into a public document
pension from the practice of law for a period of two making that document admissible in evidence without fur-
years and a suspension of Atty. Examen's Notarial ther proof of the authenticity thereof. A notarial document is
Commission for a period of two years. by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this
• IBP BoG- Modified the penalty imposed to suspension reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the
from the practice of law for a period of one year and basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
disqualification from re-appointment as Notary Public
for a period of two years. Thus, it was the duty of the notary public to comply with the
ISSUES: 1. WON the action already prescribed. requirements of the Notarial Law. Chapter 11, Section 251
of the Revised Administrative Code provides that: Every
2.WON Atty. Examen may notarize the document notwith- contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a
standing the fact that one of the parties to the deed was his notary public shall have certified thereon that the parties
brother. thereto have presented their proper cedula [residence] cer-
tificates or are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and title. (2) he said that he took possession of the same
there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such land through the employment a caretaker. (3) In the
certification the number, place of issue, and date of each year 2000, Santiago Soy Une, president of Lisan realty
cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid. presented to Barbosa’s caretaker a deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage, allegedly executed by Jorge
Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative and Lisan realty. (4) IVQ was registered with SEC only
Code, Grounds for revocation of commission: (f) failure of
on June 5, 1998 (5) On January 7, 2004, IVQ filed a
the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
case for the cancellation of an adverse claim filed by
certificates.
Santiago Soy Une. In a portion of the transcript of
In this case, it is clear that the residence certificate number stenographic notes (TSN) in said case, it was stated
used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen that IVQ bought the property from Therese Vargas,
in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the resi- not from Jorge Vargas III. (6) Barbosa secured a certi-
dence certificate of Ramon but Florentina's. A notary public fication from the EDP Division of the Office of the City
must discharge his powers and duties, which are im- Assessor in Quezon City that there were no records of
pressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. real property assessments in the name of Jorge Var-
Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situa- gas III as of August 15, 2006 (7) Barbosa stated that
tions since the duty to function as a notary public is per- Atty. Jesus C. Apelado, Jr., the person who notarized
sonal. the March 3, 1986 Deed of Absolute Sale between
Jorge Vargas III and IVQ, was not authorized to do so
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Exa- as Atty. Apelado was only admitted as a member of
men also transgressed the his oath as a lawyer, provisions the Philippine Bar in 1987.
of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Jorge, IVQ, and Montinola said that the title was
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secre-
fraudulently acquired and that Barbosa was part of a
tary and merely perfunctorily notarizing documents, it can-
not be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating syndicate that falsifies title for purpose of land grab-
Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that he pro- bing. They presented Atty. Espejo who proved that
moted confidence in the legal system. she was the legal consultant of IVQ; that the property
was acquired from Jorge; that the property was mort-
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is gaged with the PNB; that Montinola, the atty in fact
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO of Jorge, sold the property to Lisan and the latter as-
YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if signed it to IVQ.
any, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from • RTC- GRANTED BARBOSA’S petition, stating that the
reappointment as a notary public for a period of two years latter had presented secondary evidence by submit-
from finality of this Decision. ting the photocopy of the deed and the deed of
Therese that is admissible in court. In contrast, the
2. A. IVQ Landholdings Inc. v. Reuben Barbosa RTC noted that IVQ was not able to prove its claim of
ownership over the subject property. MR was denied.
FACTS:
• CA- AFFIRMED RTC
• On June 10, 2004, Barbosa filed a Petition for Cancel- • On September 29, 2010, SC resolved to dismiss the
lation and Quieting of Titles against Jorge Vargas III, appeal for failure to show any error on the part of CA.
MR was filed by IVQ and submitted the additional docu-
Benito Montinola, IVQ, and the Register of Deeds of
ments that allegedly proves that Barbosa’s claim of owner-
Quezon City, alleging that on October 4, 1978, he
ship is spurious:
bought from Therese Vargas  a parcel of land identi-
fied as Lot 644-C-5 located on Visayas Avenue, Culiat, (1) a photocopy of a Certification dated October 27, 2010
Quezon City (A parcel of land (Lot 644-C-5 of the sub- from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court
division plan, LRC, Psd- 14038, being a portion of Lot that Espiridion J. Dela Cruz, the notary public who suppos-
644-C, Fls-2544-D, LRC, Record No. 5975); situated in edly notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
the District of Culiat, Quezon City, Island of Luzon. x x Therese Vargas, is not a member of the Philippine Bar;
x containing an area of THREE THOUSAND FOUR (2) a photocopy of the Certification dated October 19, 2010
HUNDRED FIFTYTWO (3,452) square meters, more or from the National Archives of the Philippines that a copy of
less.) the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Therese Vargas is
• Originally, the said property was owned by Kawilihan not extant in the files of said office;
Corporation(Jorge Vargas was the owner of the com- (3) a Certification dated October 12, 2010 from the Office
pany) and subsequently it was acquired by Therese of the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC of
on November 6, 1970. On the other hand, Jorge Var- Manila, stating that the notarial entries of Atty. Santiago R.
gas III acquired the same property from Kawilihan on Reyes in the Deed of Absolute Sale between Therese Var-
October 14, 1976, and was sold to IVQ. Subsequently, gas and Barbosa - Doc. No. 1947, Page 92, Book No. XIV,
title was cancelled the name of Therese and trans- Series of 1978 - actually pertained to a different deed of
ferred to IVQ. sale;
• During the trial, Barbosa (1)challenged the authentic- (4) photocopies of pages 90, 91 and 92, Book XIV, Series
ity of the documents as Therese deed of sale was of of 1978 of Atty. Santiago R. Reyes's notarial records,
earlier date, thus, it has preferential right over Jorge’s which were reproduced from the National Archives on Oc-
tober 14,2010, showing that the Deed of Absolute Sale be- consigned in a public instrument or formal writing is, never-
tween Therese Vargas and Barbosa was not found therein; theless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-
honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real
(5) a photocopy of a Certification dated October 14, 2010
estate produces legal effects between the parties.
of the City Treasurer's Office of the City of Manila, stating
that Residence Certificate No. A-423263 - the residence Not being considered a public document, the deed is sub-
certificate number of Therese Vargas in the Deed of Abso- ject to the requirement of proof under Section20,
lute Sale in favor of Barbosa - was not among those allot-
Rule 132, which reads: Section 20. Proof of private docu-
ted to the City of Manila; and
ment. - Before any private document offered as authentic is
(6) a letter dated October 20, 2010 from Director Porfirio R. received in evidence its due execution and authenticity
Encisa, Jr. of the LRA Department on Registration, explain- must be proved either:
ing that the land survey number of FLS-2554-D in IVQ's
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;
TCT No. 253434 was a mere typographical error and it
or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
should have been FLS-2544-D
handwriting of the maker.
• MR was still denied. But second MR was filed insisting Any other private document need only be identified as that
that the above documents submitted before SC which it is claimed to be.
proves that the documents submitted by Barbosa was
spurious as it was not validly notarized. Accordingly, the party invoking the validity of the deed
of absolute sale had the burden of proving its authen-
ISSUE: WON the newly submitted evidence can be accepted by ticity and due execution
suspending the rules and WON an improperly notarized docu- The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot
ment may be considered a public document. be overemphasized. Notarization is not an empty, mean-
ingless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
HELD. YES. The SC reinstated the case and remand the same to interest, such that only those who are qualified or autho-
the CA for further examination of evidence. rized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a
private document into a public document thus making that
In relation to the evidence presented by Barbosa, IVQ sub- document admissible in evidence without further proof of its
mitted evidence to prove that the one who notarized the authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full
deed of sale between Kawilihan and Therese was not a faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agen-
member of the bar. In addition, there are too many contra- cies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the
dicting statements between the parties that was not proven acknowledgment executed by a notary public and ap-
and no evidence adduced. Interestingly, despite the claim pended to a private instrument. The notary public is further
of both parties that their respective titles could be traced to enjoined to record in his notarial registry the necessary in-
TCT No. 71507 in the name of Kawilihan Corporation, nei- formation regarding the document or instrument notarized
ther of them thought to submit a certified true copy of the and retain a copy of the document presented to him for ac-
cancelled TCT No. 71507, which would have indicated to knowledgment and certification especially when it is a con-
whom the subject property had in fact been transferred. tract. The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's
The parties likewise admit in their pleadings that there is an official acts. Acknowledged documents and instruments
on-going investigation being conducted by the LRA on the recorded in it are considered public document. If the docu-
authenticity and genuineness of the certificates of title in- ment or instrument does not appear in the notarial records
volved in the present case and to date, the LRA has not is- and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that
sued any official report pertaining to said investigation. the document or instrument was not really notarized, so
that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any
In Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, SC held that:
claim made based on this document. (V da. De Rosales v.
It is always in the power of this Court to suspend its own Ramos)
rules, or to except a particular case from its operation,
whenever the purposes of justice require it. This Court is
mindful of the policy of affording litigants the amplest op- 2. B. XERXES A. ABADIANO vs. SPOUSES JESUS and LOLITA
portunity for the determination of their cases on the merits MARTIR
and of dispensing with technicalities whenever compelling
G.R. No. 156310 | July 31, 2008 | Nachura, J.
reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires
it. 
FACTS:
(2) NO.  In Bitte v. Jonas,54 the Court had occasion to dis- • The Original Certificate of Title (OCT) of Lot No. 1318 of
cuss the consequence of an improperly notarized deed of the Kabankalan Cadastre was issued in the name of
absolute sale. Thus – Spouses Inocentes Bañares and Feliciana Villanueva.
Article 1358 of the New Civil Code requires that the form of • Before the issuance of the OCT, Inocentes and the
a contract transmitting or extinguishing real rights over im- heirs of Feliciana Villanueva executed an Agreement of
movable property should be in a public document. x x x. Partition over the same lot. Demetrio Bañares (Lot No.
1318-A), Ramon and David Abadiano who are the
Not having been properly and validly notarized, the
grandchildren of Inocentes and Feliciana (Lot No. 1318-
deed of sale cannot be considered a public document.
B), and Amando Bañares (Lot No. 1318-C) received a
It is an accepted rule, however, that the failure to observe
portion thereof. The partition is embodied in a Deed
the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. It
of Partition executed on June 1, 1922 and notarized
has been settled that a sale of real property, though not
 the following day by Notary Public Jose Peralta with • While it is true that an error in the notarial inscription
notarial inscriptions "Reg. No. 64, Pag. 69, Libro III." would not have invalidated the sale, the same error
• David Abadiano, who was absent during the execution would have meant that the document cannot be
of the agreement, executed a Deed of Confirmation ac- treated as a notarial document and thus, not enti-
knowledging and ratifying the document of partition. tled to the presumption of regularity. The document
• The OCT was administratively reconstituted. Annotated would be taken out of the realm of public documents
at the back were the Agreement of Partition and the whose genuineness and due execution need not be
Deed of Confirmation as well as the sale of the share of proved. In the present case, the document’s due execu-
Demetrio Bañares to his son, Leopoldo. tion MUST BE PROVED.
• Leopoldo filed an ex-parte petition praying for: 1. the • Accordingly, since the respondents have not proven the
confirmation of the agreement, the conformity executed due execution and genuineness of the purported docu-
by David, and the Deed of Sale between him and his fa- ment of sale, the weight of evidence preponderates in
ther and 2. the cancellation of OCT and the issuance of favor of petitioner.
a new certificate of title over the property. The Court • Moreover, Rule 130 Section 3 of the Revised Rules of
granted the petition. Court requires that the original document must be pro-
• Petitioner insists that the OCT is still the valid and that duced except on certain exceptions.
no sale of the portion pertaining to Ramon and David • In the case at bar, respondents attached only a photo-
ever took place. copy of the document of sale to their complaint. Accord-
• On the other hand, respondent spouses alleged that: ing to the respondents, the original was in the office of
a. Ramon, for himself and on behalf of David, had already the Register of Deeds who refused to give a request.
sold their rights and interests over the lot to Victor Garde. However, these were bare assertions as no evidence
Allegedly, there is document of sale acknowledged before was presented to prove that the original is indeed in the
Notary Public Jose Peralta and bearing notarial inscription custody of the Register of Deeds or that respondents’
"Doc. No. 64, Pag. No. 60, Book No. III, series of 1922." Such due and diligent search for the same was unsuccessful.
sale was allegedly affirmed by David. The respondents failed to establish that the offer in evi-
dence of the document was made in accordance with
b. Victor Garde and his heirs were in continuous, public,
any of the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court.
peaceful, and uninterrupted possession and occupation in
the concept of an owner of the lot.
c. The lot was eventually sold to Jose Garde and then to 2. C. LEONOR CAMCAM et. al. vs. HONORABLE
Lolita Martir. COURT OF APPEALS AND ARCADIO FRIAS
d. After acquiring the property, respondent spouses contin- G.R. No. 142977, September 30, 2008, SECOND
ued to plant sugarcane on the land. However, Roberto Aba- DIVISION, CARPIO MORALES, J.
diano (son of Ramon) allegedly entered the property and
cultivated the stalks of sugarcane and refused to vacate de- • Leonor Camcam (Leonor) and her husband Laure-
spite demands to do so. ano Salvador (Laureano) were the registered own-
• As a result, the respondent filed the Action to Quiet Title ers of two parcels of land located in the Barrio of
and/or Recovery of Possession with Damages. Basista, San Carlos, Pangasinan.
• It was denied that the lot was sold by Ramon and • Laureano died intestate.
David. It was claimed that Roberto and the spouses • Leonor, together with her brothers-in-law Agapito,
Martir came to an agreement whereby Roberto would Jose, Fortunato, and the heirs of another deceased
continue to cultivate the remaining stalks of sugarcane brother, Luis, filed before the RTC of San Car-
left and that until the harvest of said sugarcane. los City, Pangasinan a Complaint against Arcadio
• Xerxes Abadiano (Petitioner) intervened alleging like- Frias (Frias), for annulment of the following docu-
wise that his predecessor Ramon never sold their share ments executed by Leonor in Frias’ favor covering
of the property to Victor Garde. the 2 parcels of land.

ISSUE: ✓ Deed of Adjudication with Sale of the en-

Whether or not the document of sale (compra y venta) that evi- tire lot 1, and half of lot 2
denced the alleged sale of the portion of lot belonging to Ramon ✓ Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
and David can be treated as a notarial document (No) and Sale of ONE-HALF portion EACH [of
the two lots] together with [Leonors] conju-
gal share of ONE-HALF () EACH of the
HELD: [two lots]
• A notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear ✓ Deed of Absolute sale of the other half
unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its of  Lot 2
favor the presumption of regularity.
• In the case at bar, the trial court brushed aside the ap-
• Petitioners contend that from the appearance of
parent defect that the document presented contained
these documents, particularly the Deed of Extraju-
the same notarial inscription as the Agreement on Parti-
dicial Partition and Sale, and the Deed of Adjudi-
tion. Although they were executed on different days,
cation with Sale, while both were notarized by the
they were notarized on the same day. Both documents
same notary public, yet they have identical notar-
contained the signatures of the same witnesses.
ial documentary identification, i.e., the same docu-
mentary number to be 464, same page num-
 ber 44, the same book number X and the same she did not read them because she did not know how to
series of 1982, and appeared to have been sworn read. When asked, however, on cross-examination about
before the notary public on the same date Novem- her educational attainment, Leonor answered that she fin-
ber 4, 1982. ished the third year of a nursing course at San Juan de
Dios Hospital.
• Private respondent on the other hand claimed that  
the Deed of Partition and Sale, was a consolida- Clarifying her statement that she did not know how to read,
tion deed of the Deed of Adjudication with Sale Leonor explained that she knew how to read but her eye-
and the Deed of Absolute Sale However, sum- sight was blurred. Leonors granddaughter-witness
ming up the considerations stated in the 2 docu- Gertrudes Calpo (Gertrudes) who signed as witness de-
ments of P11,000.00 and P3,000.00, the total will clared, however, that she read the contents of Exhibit B/1
naturally be P14,000.00, but the alleged [consoli- to Leonor, thus belying petitioners claim that Leonor signed
dation] deed shows the consideration is not the same without knowing its true contents.
P14,000.00 but P45,000.00.
2. D. SPOUSES LEHNER AND LUDY MARTIRES V.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 3 Deeds must be declared null MENELIA CHUA
and void considering their physical appear-
ance and conditions indicating strongly the G.R. No. 174240. March 20, 2013. Third Division (Per-
irregularities of their execution. alta, J.)

FACTS:
RULING: NO.
Menelia Chua and her mother, Florencia R. Calagos, own
Without passing on the merits of Frias claim that Leonor 24 memorial lots located at the Holy Cross Memorial Park
originally sold to him of Lot No. 18739 but later conveyed in Barangay Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City, which are
the remaining thereof, hence, the execution of the second the subject properties in this case.
document bearing the same date, an irregular notariza-
tion merely reduces the evidentiary value of a docu- In 1995, Chua secured a loan of P150,000 with interests
ment to that of a private document, which requires (monthly interest of 8% and an additional 10% monthly in-
proof of its due execution and authenticity to be ad- terest in case of default) from Spouses Martires and se-
missible as evidence. The irregular notarization or, for cured the same with a real estate mortgage over the said
that matter, the lack of notarization does not thus necessar- 24 memorial lots. Unfortunately, Chua failed to fulfill her
ily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the docu- obligation. Subsequently, without foreclosure of the mort-
ment. Tigno v. Aquino enlightens: gage, ownership of the subject lots were transferred in the
  name of Spouses Martires via a Deed of Transfer.
From a civil law perspective, the absence
of notarization of the Deed of Sale would In 1997, Chua filed a complaint against Spouses Martires,
not necessarily invalidate the transaction Manila Memorial Park, Inc. and the Register of Deeds of
evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Quezon City before the RTC praying for the annulment of
Civil Code requires that the form of a the contract of mortgage between her and the Spouses
contract that transmits or extinguishes Martires claiming the interest rates imposed are unjust and
real rights over immovable property exorbitant. Chua likewise prayed for an accounting for lia-
should be in a public document, yet it is bilities and reconveyance of the property.
also an accepted rule that the failure to
observe the proper form does not ren- In 1998. Chua amended her complaint to include an allega-
der the transaction invalid. Thus, it has tion stating that that she later discovered that ownership of
been uniformly held that the form re- the subject lots was transferred in the name of petitioners
quired in Article 1358 is not essential to by a forged Deed of Transfer and Affidavit of Warranty.
the validity or enforceability of the Chua prayed that the Deed of Transfer and Affidavit of
transaction, but required merely for Warranty be annulled.
convenience. We have even affirmed
that a sale of real property though not The RTC denied and dismissed the complaint for lack of
consigned in a public instrument or for- merit. On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification as to
mal writing, is nevertheless valid and the amount of damages. The CA ruled that Chua voluntar-
binding among the parties, for the time- ily entered into a contract of loan and that the execution of
honored rule is that even a verbal con- the Deed of Transfer is enough evidence of petitioners' ac-
tract of sale or real estate produces ef- quisition of ownership of the subject property.
fects between the parties.
Chua filed a Motion for Reconsideration. To this, the CA
Petitioners alleged fraud on Frias part, hence, they had the amended its decision and held that the Deed of Transfer
burden of establishing the same by clear and convincing and the Affidavit of Warranty, are void ab initio. Moreover,
evidence. This they failed to discharge. the court said that the Deed of Transfer was in fact an equi-
  table mortgage; that the true intention of Chua was merely
By Leonors account, she signed the three documents rely- to provide security for her loan and not to transfer owner-
ing on Frias word that they were deeds of mortgage, and ship of the property to Spouses Martires.
Spouses Martires filed for a Motion for Reconsideration – change for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and
denied (Resolution 5 July 2006); received on 18 July 2006 sold his real property in Badian, Cebu to Mervir
Realty.
Spouses filed for a Second Motion for Reconsideration –
denied (Resolution 28 August 2006); received on 5 Sep- • Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
tember 2006 Cebu City a petition for the appointment of Tere-
sita as the administrator of Emigdio’s estate which
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. the RTC granted.
• As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inven-
ISSUE: tory of the estate of Emigdio for the consideration
and approval by the RTC. She indicated in the
Whether or not the CA erred in not upholding the Deed of inventory that at the time of his death, Emigdio
Transfer because the same was not duly notarized. had "left no real properties but only personal
properties"
RULING:
• Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to
No. The Supreme Court held that, at the outset, the petition amend the inventory, claiming that there are prop-
should be denied for being filed out of time. But even if the erties that were not included in the inventory. The
petition was filed on time, the CA properly held that the al- RTC granted Thelma’s motion.
leged Deed of Transfer was not duly notarized. • Teresita filed a compliance with the order support-
ing her inventory with certificates.
In the present case, the CA has clearly pointed out the du-
bious circumstances and irregularities attendant in the al- • Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory,
leged notarization of the subject Deed of Transfer, to wit: and asked leave of court to examine Teresita on
the inventory.
1. The Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the
• After a series of hearings that ran for almost eight
Notarial Section of the RTC of Makati City which sup-
posedly attested that a copy of the subject Deed of years, the RTC issued on an order finding and
Transfer is on file with the said court, was contradicted holding that the inventory submitted by Teresita
by the Certification issued by the Administrative Officer had excluded properties that should be included.
of the Notarial Section of the same office as well as by • Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely
the testimony of the court employee who prepared the sought the reconsideration of the order on the
Certification issued by the Clerk of Court, to the effect ground that one of the real properties affected, Lot
that the subject Deed of Transfer cannot, in fact, be No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu, had already
found in their files; been sold to Mervir Realty, and that the parcels of
2. Chua's categorical denial that she executed the sub- land covered by the deed of assignment had al-
ject Deed of Transfer; and ready come into the possession of and registered
3. The subject document did not state the date of execu- in the name of Mervir Realty.
tion and lacks the marital consent of Chua's husband.
While indeed a notarized document enjoys the presump- • The CA granted the petition The CA opined that
tion of regularity, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a Teresita, et al. had properly filed the petition for
guarantee of the validity of its contents. Assuming further certiorari because the order of the RTC directing a
that the notarization of the disputed Deed of Transfer was new inventory of properties was interlocutory; that
regular, the Court, nonetheless, is not persuaded by peti- pursuant to Article 1477 of the Civil Code, to the
tioners' argument that such Deed is enough evidence of effect that the ownership of the thing sold "shall
the validity of the agreement between the parties. As cor- be transferred to the vendee" upon its "actual and
rectly held by the CA, the true intention of Chua was constructive delivery," and to Article 1498 of the
merely to provide security for her loan and not to transfer Civil Code, to the effect that the sale made
ownership of the property to Spouses Martires. through a public instrument was equivalent to the
delivery of the object of the sale, the sale by
2. E. THELMA M. ARANAS v TERESITA V. MERCADO Emigdio and Teresita had transferred the owner-
ship of Lot No. 3353 to Mervir Realty because the
FACTS: deed of absolute sale had been notarized;
ISSUE:
• Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate, sur-
vived by his second wife, Teresita V. Mercado Whether or not the notarization of the deed of ab-
(Teresita), and their five children; and his two chil- solute sale constitutes delivery and should be ex-
dren by his first marriage, namely: respondent cluded in the inclusion in the inventory of
Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Emigdio’s property.
Aranas (Thelma).
• Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties RULING:
during his lifetime. He owned corporate shares in
Mervir Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and NO. The fact that the deed of absolute sale executed by
Cebu Emerson Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emigdio in favor of Mervir Realty was a notarized instru-
Emerson). He assigned his real properties in ex-
ment did not sufficiently justify the exclusion from the in- tation; "This tax declaration is also declared in the name of
ventory of the properties involved. A notarized deed of sale Mrs. VICTORIA LEE PO married to PETER PO under [T]ax
only enjoyed the presumption of regularity in favor of its ex- [Declaration] [N]o. 0634-A so that one may be considered a
ecution, but its notarization did not per se guarantee the le- duplicate to the other."
gal efficacy of the transaction under the deed, and what the
contents purported to be. The presumption of regularity On April 19, 1993, Roberto filed an application for
could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the original registration of Lot No. 2835 with the Mandaue City
contrary. As the Court has observed in Suntay v. Court of Regional Trial Court, acting as land registration court. The
Appeals: x x x. Though the notarization of the deed of sale RTC eventually granted the OCT in the name of Roberto.
in question vests in its favor the presumption of regularity, it The lot was immediately subdivided with portions sold to
is not the intention nor the function of the notary public to Ernesto and Jose. On November 19, 1996, the Spouses
validate and make binding an instrument never, in the first Po filed a complaint to recover the land and to declare nul-
place, intended to have any binding legal effect upon the lity of title with damages
parties thereto. The intention of the parties still and always
is the primary consideration in determining the true nature RTC – in favor of Spouses Po
of a contract.
It appears that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252 cover- CA – partially affirmed the RTC decision. It ruled that the ti-
ing Lot 3353 was still in Emigdio’s name. Indeed, the RTC tles issued to respondents Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel
noted in the order or ten years after his death, that Lot should be respected as innocent buyers in good faith.
3353 had remained registered in the name of Emigdio.
That is why the disputed lot should be included in the in- ISSUES:
ventory of Emigdio’s estate.
1. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction
over the Spouses Peter and Victoria Po's complaint; 
2. F. SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA
2. Whether the action is barred by prescription; 
CABARRUS vs. SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L.
PO 3. Whether the doctrines of estoppel and laches apply; 
G.R. No. 208450. June 5, 2017. SECOND DIVISION. LEO- 4. Whether the land registration court's finding that Ciriaco
NEN, J Seno only held the property in trust for the Mariano Heirs is
binding as res judicata in this case; 
FACTS:
5. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco
On July 31, 1973, Mariano Seno, as the original
Seno and the Spouses Peter and Victoria Po should be
owner, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his
considered as evidence of their entitlement to the property; 
son, Ciriaco Seno (Ciriaco), over a 1.0120-hectare land in
Cebu. This property included two (2) lots: Lot No. 2807 and 6. Whether the Mariano Heirs, as sellers in a deed of con-
the land subject of this case, Lot No. 2835. veyance of realty, are indispensable parties; and 
On May 5, 1978, Ciriaco sold the two (2) lots to 7. Whether the respondents Jose Maria Moraza, Ernesto
Victoria Po (Victoria). The parties executed a Deed of Ab- Aboitiz, and Isabel Aboitiz are innocent purchasers in good
solute Sale. On 1982, when Mariano died and was sur- faith. 
vived by his five children. In 1990, Peter Po (Peter) discov-
ered that Ciriaco "had executed a quitclaim dated August RULING:
7, 1989 renouncing his interest over Lot No.]2807 in favor
of petitioner Roberto." In the quitclaim, Ciriaco stated that 1) Except for actions falling within the jurisdiction of the Mu-
he was "the declared owner of Lot [Nos.] 2835 and 2807." nicipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts have exclu-
sive original jurisdiction over actions involving "title to, or
The Spouses Po confronted Ciriaco. By way of possession of, real property."1 The Spouses Aboitiz claim
remedy, Ciriaco and the Spouses Po executed a Memoran- that it is the Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over the
dum of Agreement dated June 28, 1990 in which Ciriaco annulment of Regional Trial Court judgments. The jurisdic-
agreed to pay Peter the difference between the amount tion of the Court of Appeals is provided in Section 9 of
paid by the Spouses Po as consideration for the entire Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.2 The case at bar is not for the
property and the value of the land the Spouses Po were left annulment of a judgment of a Regional Trial Court. It is for
with after the quitclaim. reconveyance and the annulment of title. Considering the

However, also in 1990, Lot No. 2835 was also 1 Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides: Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. -
sold to Roberto. The Mariano Heirs, including Ciriaco, exe- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (2) In all civil actions
cuted separate deeds of absolute sale in favor of Roberto. which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdic-
Thereafter, Roberto immediately developed the lot as part tion over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
of a subdivision called North Town Homes. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
2 Section 9. Jurisdiction. - The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise: (2) Exclusive
Both Spouses Po and Spouses Aboitiz declared original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts.
the lot for taxation purposes with the latter having an anno- While the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to annul judgments of the Regional Trial
Courts
Spouses Aboitiz's fraudulent registration without the that the property was registered in the name of the
Spouses Po's knowledge and the latter's assertion of their Spouses Aboitiz in 1993, the Spouses Po then filed the in-
ownership of the land, their right to recover the property stant complaint to recover the property sold to them by Ciri-
and to cancel the Spouses Aboitiz's title, the action is for aco, alleging that it was done without their knowledge,
reconveyance and annulment of title and not for annulment through evident bad faith and fraud. The Spouses Po filed
of judgment. Thus, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction this case in less than three (3) years from the time of regis-
to hear this case.  tration. Based on these circumstances, the elements of
laches are clearly lacking in this case. There was no delay
2) "An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten [10] years in asserting their right over the property, and the Spouses
from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property." Aboitiz had knowledge that the Spouses Po would assert
The basis for this is Section 53, Paragraph 3 of Presidential their right. Thus, it cannot be said that they are barred by
Decree No. 1529 in relation to Articles 1456 and 1144(2) of laches. 
the Civil Code. Under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Prop-
erty Registration Decree), the owner of a property may 4) This Court rules that this cannot be binding in this action
avail of legal remedies against a registration procured by for reconveyance. Res judicata embraces two (2) concepts:
fraud: SECTION 53. Presentation of Owner's Duplicate (i) bar by prior judgment and (ii) conclusiveness of judg-
Upon Entry of New Certificate. – In all cases of registration ment, respectively covered under Rule 39, Section 47 of
procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and the Rules of Court, paragraphs (b) and (c): Section 47. Ef-
equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud with- fect of judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment
out prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
for value of a certificate of title ... CIVIL CODE, Art. 1456 jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may
provides: Article 1456. If property is acquired through mis- be as follows: (b) In other cases, the judgment or final or-
take or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, der is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to
considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of any other matter that could have been raised in relation
the person from whom the property comes. CIVIL CODE, thereto, conclusive between the parties and their succes-
Art. 1144(2) provides: Article 1144. The following actions sors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement
must be brought within ten years from the time the right of of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same
action accrues: (2) Upon an obligation created by law. In thing and under the same title and in the same capacity;
an action for reconveyance, the right of action accrues from and (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or
the time the property is registered. An action for recon- their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have
veyance and annulment of title does not seek to question been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which
the contract which allowed the adverse party to obtain the appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which
title to t h e property. What is put on issue in an action for was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary
reconveyance and cancellation of title is the ownership of Thereto. An exception to this rule is if the party claiming
the property and its registration. It does not question any ownership has already had the opportunity to prove his or
fraudulent contract. Should that be the case, the applicable her claim in the land registration case. In such a case, res
provisions are Articles 1390 and 1391 of the Civil Code. judicata will then apply. When an issue of ownership has
Thus, an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title been raised in the land registration proceedings where the
prescribes in 10 years from the time of the issuance of the adverse party was given full opportunity to present his or
Torrens title over the property. Considering that the her claim, the findings in the land registration case will con-
Spouses Po's complaint was filed on November 19, 1996, stitute a bar from any other claim of the adverse party on
less than three (3) years from the issuance of the Torrens the property. However, this is not the circumstance in the
title over the property on April 6, 1994, it is well within the case at bar. The Spouses Po were not able to prove their
10-year prescriptive period imposed on an action for recon- claim in the registration proceedings. Thus, res judicata
veyance.  cannot apply to their action for reconveyance. 

3) There is laches when a party was negligent or has failed 5) The Spouses Aboitiz posit that the Deed of Absolute
"to assert a right within a reasonable time," thus giving rise Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po is fake and
to the presumption that he or she has abandoned it. fraudulent. They argue that this is evidenced by certifica-
Laches has set in when it is already inequitable or unfair to tions of the document's non-existence in the notarial books
allow the party to assert the right. The elements of laches and the Spouses Po's failure to enforce their rights over the
were enumerated in Ignacio v. Basilio: There is laches property until 18 years later. They also claim that the Deed
when: (1) the conduct of the defendant or one under whom of Absolute Sale is inadmissible as no documentary stamp
he claims, gave rise to the situation complained of; (2) was paid and affixed. The Spouses Aboitiz failed to prove
there was delay in asserting a right after knowledge of the that these exceptions exist in the case at bar. The Regional
defendant's conduct and after an opportunity to sue; (3) de- Trial Court lent credence to documents presented by the
fendant had no knowledge or notice that the complainant Spouses Po, Peter's testimony about Mariano's sale of the
would assert his right; (4) there is injury or prejudice to the property to Ciriaco, Ciriaco's sale of the property to the
defendant in the event relief is accorded to the com- Spouses Po, and the issuance of a Tax Declaration in the
plainant. "Laches is different from prescription." Prescrip- name of Victoria. The Regional Trial Court thus held: In this
tion deals with delay itself and thus is an issue of how case, the Court believes that defendant Roberto Aboitiz is
much time has passed. The time period when prescription aware of the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs considering
is deemed to have set in is fixed by law. Laches, on the the land was already declared for taxation purposes in
other hand, concerns itself with the effect of delay and not plaintiffs' names after the tax declaration of said land, first
the period of time that has lapsed. When they discovered in the name of Mariano Seno was cancelled and another
one issued in the name of Ciriaco Seno when the latter to ensure that the Notary Public submits his or her notarial
bought the said land from his father Mariano Seno, and af- reports.
ter the said tax declaration in the name of Ciriaco Seno
was cancelled and another one issued in the name of The Spouses Aboitiz failed to present clear and convincing
plaintiffs herein. So, defendant Roberto Aboitiz purchased evidence to overturn the presumption. The notarized Deed
the subject land from the Heirs of Mariano Seno who are of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po is,
no longer the owners thereof and the tax declaration of thus, presumed regular and authentic.
subject land was no longer in the name of Mariano Seno
nor in the name of Heirs of Mariano Seno. The City Asses- Consequently, this Court can affirm the finding that the
sor of Mandaue City even issued a Certification to the ef- property was sold to Ciriaco in 1973, and that Ciriaco, as
fect that Tax Declaration No. 0634-A in the name of Mrs. the owner of the property, had the right to sell it to the
Victoria Lee Po married to Peter Po was issued prior to the Spouses Po. Hence, the lot did not form part of the estate
issuance of T.D. No. 1100 in the name of Roberto Aboitiz of Mariano, and the Mariano Heirs did not have the capac-
married to Maria Cristina Cabarruz. Buyers of any untitled ity to sell the property to the Spouses Aboitiz later on.
parcel of land for that matter, to protect their interest, will
first verify from the Assessor's Office that status of said 6) The Mariano Heirs are not indispensable parties. Rule 3,
land whether it has clean title or not. The Spouses Aboitiz Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Section
failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn 7. Compulsory Joinder of Indispensable Parties. - Parties in
the presumption. interest without whom no final determination can be had of
an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Furthermore, this Court finds that the Spouses Aboitiz An indispensable party is the party whose legal presence in
failed to prove their claim of fraud. The Spouses Aboitiz at- the proceeding is so necessary that "the action cannot be
tempted to prove that the Deed of Absolute Sale between finally determined" without him or her because his or her
Ciriaco and the Spouses Po was fake and fraudulent by interest in the matter and in the relief "are so bound up with
presenting certifications of its non-existence in the notarial that of the other parties. The Mariano Heirs, as the alleged
books of the notary public who notarized the document. sellers of the property, are not indispensable parties. They
are at best necessary parties, which are covered by Rule 3,
However, a review of the certifications does not even state Section 8 of the Rules of Court: Section 8. Necessary
that the document does not exist in the notarial books. Party. - A necessary party is one who is not indispensable
but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to
The Certification dated April 1, 1997 of the Records Man- be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
agement and Archives Office of the Department of Educa- determination or settlement of the claim subject of the ac-
tion, Culture and Sports and Certification dated April 4, tion. It is clear that the Mariano Heirs are not indispensable
1997 of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional parties. They have already sold all their interests in the
Trial Court of Cebu, 7th Judicial Region, Cebu City merely property to the Spouses Aboitiz. They will no longer be af-
states that they do not declare that the Deed of Absolute fected, benefited, or injured by any ruling of this Court on
Sale does not exist. They only state that at the time of their the matter, whether it grants or denies the complaint for re-
issuance, the Notary Public had not submitted his notarial conveyance. The ruling of this Court as to whether the
reports or that the document had not been transferred to Spouses Po are entitled to reconveyance will not affect
the archives for safekeeping. It cannot logically be con- their rights. Their interest has, thus, become separable
cluded from these certifications that the document is inexis- from that of Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel. Thus, the Court of
tent, false, or fraudulent. Appeals correctly ruled that the Mariano Heirs are not in-
dispensable parties. 
In any case, the Notary Public's failure to submit his or her
notarial report does not affect the act of notarization.3 7) An innocent purchaser for value refers to the buyer of
the property who pays for its full and fair price without or
When a private document is notarized, the document is before notice of another person's right or interest in it. He
converted to a public document which is presumed regular, or she buys the property believing that "the seller is the
admissible in evidence without need for proof of its authen- owner and could transfer the title to the property." If a prop-
ticity and due execution, and entitled to full faith and credit erty is registered, the buyer of a parcel of land is not
upon its face. obliged to look beyond the transfer certificate of title to be
considered a purchaser in good faith for value. Section 44
To overturn the presumption in favor of a notarized docu- of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states: Section 44. Statu-
ment, the party questioning it must present "clear, convinc- tory liens affecting title. - Every registered owner receiving
ing, and more than merely preponderant evidence." a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration,
and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking
Thus, parties who appear before a Notary Public should a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the
not be prejudiced by the failure of the Notary Public to fol- same free from all encumbrances except those noted in
low rules imposed by the Notarial Law.They are not obliged said certificate and any of the following encumbrances
which may be subsisting, namely: First. Liens, claims or
rights arising or existing under the laws and Constitution of
the Philippines which are not by law required to appear of
3 Rule 132, Section 30 of the Rules of Court provides that: record in the Registry of Deeds in order to be valid against
Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. — Every instrument duly acknowledged or
proved and certi􏰄ed as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers of record. Sec-
proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of ond. Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within
the instrument or document involved.
two years immediately preceding the acquisition of any • He did not notarize a partial extrajudicial partition. His no-
right over the land by an innocent purchaser for value, with- tarial stamp and falsified signature were superimposed
out prejudice to the right of the government to collect taxes over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio Cabasan, the
payable before that period from the delinquent taxpayer lawyer who actually notarized this document.
alone. Third. Any public highway or private way established • Gimeno falsified the signature to make it appear that he
or recognized by law, or any government irrigation canal or notarized it before his admission to the Bar.
lateral thereof, if the certificate of title does not state that • He needed to use several notarial registers in his sepa-
the boundaries of such highway or irrigation canal or lateral rate satellite offices in order to better cater to the needs
thereof have been determined. Fourth. Any disposition of of his clients, which explains the irregular and non-se-
the property or limitation on the use thereof by virtue of, or quential entries in his registers. (On the falsification)
pursuant to, Presidential Decree No. 27 or any other law or • Gimeno was never his client. She engaged the services
regulations on agrarian reform. In Leong v. See: The Tor- of ZMZ where he worked as an associate.
rens system was adopted to "obviate possible conflicts of
title by giving the public the right to rely upon the face of IBP Proceedings:
the Torrens certificate and to dispense, as a rule, with the • It was recommended that Atty Zaide be suspended for 3
necessity of inquiring further." One need not inquire be- months for violating Notarial Practice Rules (NPR) and
yond the four comers of the certificate of title when dealing another 6 months for employing abusive and insulting
with registered property... The protection of innocent pur- language.
chasers in good faith for value grounds on the social inter- • He was found administratively liable for:
est embedded in the legal concept granting indefeasibility - Violating the NPR when he maintained several active
of titles. Between the third party and the owner, the latter notarial registers: A notary public is required to keep
would be more familiar with the history and status of the ti- only one active notarial register at any time.
tled property. Consequently, an owner would incur less - Using intemperate, offensive, and abusive language
costs to discover alleged invalidities relating to the property when he called Gimeno a “notorious extortionist”.
compared to a third party. Such costs are, thus, better • Gimeno was his former client. The retainer of a law firm
borne by the owner to mitigate costs for the economy, is equivalent to the retainer of all its lawyers but he is not
lessen delays in transactions, and achieve a less optimal liable for representing conflicting interests since the an-
welfare level for the entire society. Thus, respondents were nulment of title case is totally unrelated to the Ombuds-
not obliged to look beyond the title before they purchased man complaint.
the property. They may rely solely on the face of the title.
The only exception to the rule is when the purchaser has
IBP Board of Governors: 1 year suspension from the prac-
actual knowledge of any defect or other circumstance that
tice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if existing,
would cause "a reasonably cautious man" to inquire into
and 2 years suspension from being commissioned as a no-
the title of the seller. If there is anything which arouses sus-
tary public.
picion, the vendee is obliged to investigate beyond the face
of the title. Otherwise, the vendee cannot be deemed a
HELD: The Court upheld the findings of the IBP Board of
purchaser in good faith entitled to protection under the law.
Governors and recommended penalty.
2. G. JOY GIMENO VS ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE
April 22, 2015 Violation of Notarial Practice Rules:
Brion, J. • As regards the notarization of the document, Atty Zaide’s
signature and notarial stamp were merely superimposed
over Atty Cabasan’s typewritten name. At the time the
FACTS:
document was notarized, Atty Zaide’s details (roll num-
• Gimeno filed a complaint with the IBP’s Commission on
ber, PTR number, IBP number, and expiration date of
Bar Discipline charging Atty Zaide with usurpation of a
notarial commission) had not yet existed. He could not
notary public’s office, falsification, use of intemperate, of-
have obtained and used the exact figures pertaining
fensive and abusive language, violation of lawyer-client
to his details and could not have notarized the docu-
trust.
ment before his admission to the Bar & receipt of no-
tarial commission.
Allegations: • Atty. Zaide violated the Notarial Practice Rules by main-
• Atty Zaide had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition taining different notarial registers in several offices. Sec-
before his admission to the Bar & receipt of notarial com- tion I(a) Rule VI of NPR provides that “a notary public
mission. Falsification of notarial entries shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful in-
• Gimeno was Atty Zaide’s former client (Zaragoza - Mak- spection as provided in these Rules, a chronological of-
abangkit - Zaide Law Offices), but Atty Zaide still ap- ficial notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a
peared against her in the complaint for estafa and viola- permanently bound book with numbered pages... a no-
tion of RA 3019 that Somontan filed against her. Hence, tary public shall keep only one active notarial register
he violated the prohibition against the representation of at any given time”.
conflicting client’s interest. • A notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, hence,
• Atty Zaide called her a “notorious extortionist” in the com- the notary public must also personally administer the no-
plaint Somontan filed against her. tarial acts. Further, a notarial register needs to be in
chronological sequence to prevent the rampant practice
Answer: (Atty Zaide) of leaving blank spaces to allow the antedating of nota-
rizations. Therefore, it is a clear violation of Canon 1 of
 the CPR, which provides that “a lawyer should uphold sold his share to Reynold under a Deed of Abso-
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and pro- lute Sale.
mote respect for law and legal processes.” • Lastly, he denied violating the Rules on Notarial
Practice.
Representing conflicting interests The IBP’s Findings
• There is no conflict on interest as the annulment of title • It found the respondent administratively liable for
case and the Ombudsman case are totally unrelated. violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (A lawyer shall not en-
Further, nothing shows that Atty Zaide used against Gi- gage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
meno any confidential information which he acquired. conduct) and Canon 16 ("A lawyer shall hold in
trust all moneys and properties of his client that
Use of intemperate, offensive, and abusive language in may come into his possession) of the Code of Pro-
professional dealings fessional Responsibility, and Section 3(c), Rule IV
• “Notorious extortionist” or “Public prosecutor suffers seri- of 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and recom-
ous mental incompetence” mended his suspension from the practice of law for
• It shows Atty Zaide’s lack of restraint in the use and a period of six (6) months.
choice of his words, a conduct unbecoming of an officer • IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP Commis-
of the court. In keeping with the dignity of the legal pro- sioner’s finding, but increased the penalty imposed
fession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings, must to two (2) years suspension and a warning.
be dignified.
Issue: Whether the respondent is administratively liable for vio-
3. A. FE A. YLAYA vs. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT lating Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. (NO)
Adm. Case No. 6475 January 30, 2013
BRION, J. Ruling:
• The respondent argues that the IBP Commis-
Facts: sioner’s findings are contrary to the presented evi-
• The complainant, Fe A. Ylaya, alleged that she and dence, specifically to the MOA executed by Lau-
her late husband, Laurentino L. Ylaya, are the reg- rentino and Reynold acknowledging the existence
istered owners of 2 parcels of located at Barangay of a co-ownership; to the complainant’s Ex Parte
Sta. Lourdes, Puerto Princesa City. Motion to Withdraw the Verified Complaint and To
• Prior to the acquisition of these properties, one Dismiss the Case where she stated that the parties
property was already the subject of expropriation have entered into a compromise agreement, and
proceedings filed by the City Government of Puerto that the disbarment complaint arose from a misun-
Princesa against its former registered owner, Cirilo derstanding, miscommunication and improper ap-
Arellano. preciation of facts; to her Affidavit affirming and
• The RTC already fixed the price and issued an or- confirming the existence, genuineness and due ex-
der for the City Government to deposit ecution of the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized;
₱6,000,000.00 as just compensation for the prop- and to the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in
erty. 2001.
• Atty. Glenn Gacott briefly represented the com- • In all, the respondent claims that these cited pieces
plainant and her late husband in the expropriation of evidence prove that this administrative complaint
case as intervenors for being the new registered against him is fabricated, false and untrue. He also
owners of the property. points to Atty. Robert Peneyra, the complainant’s
• The complainant alleged that the respondent con- counsel in this administrative case, as the hand be-
vinced them to sign a "preparatory deed of sale" for hind the complaint.58 According to the respondent,
the sale of the property, but he left blank the space Atty. Peneyra harbors ill-will against him and his
for the name of the buyer and for the amount of family after his father filed several administrative
consideration. cases against Atty. Peneyra, one of which resulted
in the imposition of a warning and a reprimand on
• The respondent then fraudulently – without their
Atty. Peneyra.
knowledge and consent, and contrary to their un-
derstanding – converted the "preparatory deed of • Rule IV, Section 3 (c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC pro-
sale" into a Deed of Absolute Sale selling the sub- vides as follows:
ject property to Reynold So and Sylvia Carlos So "Sec. 3. Disqualifications – a notary public is disquali-
for ₱200,000.00. fied from performing a notarial act if he:
• The complainant also claimed that the respondent (a) xxx
notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale even though (b) xxx
Reynold and Sylvia are his uncle and his aunt, re- (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
spectively. descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguin-
• Gacott claimed that the sale was their voluntary ity of the principal within the fourth civil degree."
transaction and that he "simply ratified the docu- • The Court agreed with the respondent and find the
ment." He also claimed that Reynold and Lau- evidence insufficient to prove the charge that he vi-
rentino had originally jointly purchased the proper- olated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Profes-
ties from Cirilo Arellano; that they were co-owners sional Responsibility and Section 3(c), Rule IV of
for some time; and that Laurentino subsequently A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
 • Specifically, (1) the evidence against the respon- The court cannot agree with his proposition to consider him
dent fails to show the alleged fraudulent and de- to have acted more as counsel of the affiants, not as notary
ceitful acts he has taken to mislead the com- public, when he notarized the complaint-affidavit. The no-
plainant and her husband into signing a "prepara- tarial certificate at the bottom of the complaint-affidavit
tory deed of sale" and the conversion into a Deed shows his signature as a notary public, with a notarial com-
of Absolute Sale in favor of Reynold; and (2) no mission valid until December 31, 2012.
prohibition exists against the notarization of a docu-
ment in which any of the parties interested is the 5. No. If the notary public knows the affiants personally,
notary’s relative within the 4th civil degree, by affin- he need not require them to show their valid identifica-
ity or consanguinity, at that time the respondent no- tion cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a
tarized the documents. "jurat" under Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on
• While the facts of this case may raise some ques- Notarial Practice. A "jurat" refers to an act in which an
tions regarding the respondent’s legal practice, the individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person
court nevertheless found nothing constituting clear before the notary public and presents an instrument or
evidence of the respondent’s specific acts of fraud document; (b) is personally known to the notary public
and deceit. His failure to prove the existence of a or identified by the notary public through competent
co-ownership does not lead the court to the conclu- evidence of identity; (c) signs the instrument or docu-
sion that the MOA and the Deed of Absolute Sale ment in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an
are spurious and that the respondent was responsi- oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such
ble for creating these spurious documents. instrument or document.

3. B. BERNARD N. JANDOQUILE v. ATTY. QUIRINO P. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Atty. Re-
REVILLA, JR. villa, Jr.’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa is his wife’s
sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in house-
boy of the Brosas family.
FACTS:
However, he is not without fault for failing to indicate
•Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit
such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No
signed by Heneraline L. Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas
statement was included therein that he knows the
Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado.
three affiants personally.
• Heneraline Brosas is a sister of Heizel Wynda
Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not commit any deceit, malprac-
• Jandoquile complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr. is dis- tice, gross misconduct or gross immoral conduct, or
qualified to perform the notarial act as per Section any other serious ground for disbarment under Section
3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Prac- 27,8 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
tice: (spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, de-
scendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Quirino P. Revilla, Jr.,
the principal4 within the fourth civil degree). He is REPRIMANDED and DISQUALIFIED from being
also complains that Atty. Revilla Jr. did not require commissioned as a notary public, or from performing
the three affiants to show their valid identification any notarial act if he is presently commissioned as a
cards. notary public, for a period of three (3) months.
• Atty. Revilla, Jr. did not deny the allegations. How-
ever, he submits that his act is not a ground for 4. A. Mercedita De Jesus v. Atty Juvy Mell Sanchez-
disbarment. He also says that he acts as counsel Malit
of the three affiants; thus, he should be consid- FACTS:
ered more as counsel than as a notary public
when he notarized their complaint-affidavit and • On June 23, 2004, De Jesus filed a disbarment com-
that he did not require them to present valid identi- plaint against Sanchez-Malit for allegedly notarizing
fication cards since he personally knows them. several false documents which caused her financial
ISSUES: 1. WON Atty. Revilla, Jr. violated the disqualifica- problems.
tion rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
• The notarized documents were as follows: (1) REM of
Notarial Practice.
a public market stall that named De Jesus absolute
2. WON he should be disbarred. and registered owner; (2) Lease agreement in Septem-
ber 1999 without the signature of lessees; (3) sale
RULING: agreement over a property covered by Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA); (4) SPA’s and affidavit
4. Yes. Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized of Irene Tolentino, Mercedita’s secretary/treasurer.
the complaint-affidavit signed by his relatives within • Sanchez-Malit filed her answer stating that (1) the
the fourth civil degree of affinity. Section 3(c), Rule IV mortgage contract was prepared in the presence of
of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly disquali- Mercedita and she had read it before affixing her sig-
fies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from nature, and it was urgently needed for a loan that’s
performing the notarial act, since two of the affiants or why it was hastily done and left unedited. In addition,
principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree there had been a prior mortgage over the property in
of affinity.
which she was presented as the absolute owner, but
 she did not complaint. The perjury case against Mer- 4. B. EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS,
cedita was even dismissed as the debt was already EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE BALATUCAN, MIL-
paid.; (2) The lease agreement was newly made and DRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and MELINDA
Mercedita promised that the lessees would sign it, D. SIOTING vs. ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO
however, it was left unsigned; (3) as regards the prop- A.C. No. 6677 | June 10, 2014 | PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
erty covered by CLOA, she said that Mercedita was an
experienced broker and need no advice on the trans- FACTS:
action; (4) as to the SPA’s, she alleged that it was prop- • Complainants individually purchased housing units in
erly notarized. Imus, Cavite from Rudex International Development
• Afterwards, an exchange of pleadings happen, and Corp. In view of several inadequacies and construction
Mercedita submit additional evidence containing sev- defects in the housing units and the subdivision itself,
eral documents that were notarized but were not complainants sought the rescission of their respective
signed. contracts to sell before the HLURB. Rudex was repre-
• IBP recommended immediate revocation of the notar- sented by the respondent.
ial commission and her suspension as a notary public • Judgments of default were eventually rendered against
for 2 years, suspension to practice law for 6 months. Rudex. In response, Rudex filed petitions for review. In
• IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted the res- the certifications against forum shopping, Rudex,
olution of IBP Commissioner. through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel
• Sanchez-Malit initially filed a motion for reconsidera- Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not commenced or
tion, prayed for mitigating circumstances alleging (1) has knowledge of any similar action or proceeding in-
absence of prior disciplinary record (2) absence of dis- volving the same issues pending before any court, tri-
honest or selfish motive (3) personal and emotional bunal or agency. It must be noted that Rudex (with Atty.
Nazareno as the counsel) previously filed an ejectment
problems (4) good faith (5) character and reputation
case against Spouses Sioting.
(6) remorse.
• However, it was denied by IBP Board of Governors for • Rudex, represented by the same counsel, filed another
lack of reason. complaint against Spouses Sioting before the HLURB
ISSUE: WON Sanchez-Malit committed grave misconduct and for the rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s
grievously violated her oath as notary public. ejectment, similar to its pending ejectment complaint.
The certification against forum shopping attached which
HELD: YES. The Court has repeatedly held that notarization Is was notarized by the respondent himself contained the
not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with same declaration as above.
substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private doc- • After some time, 6 similar complaints were filed by Atty.
ument into a public one, making it admissible in evidence even Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex, against the other peti-
without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized docu- tioners before the HLURB. The certifications against fo-
ment is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The rum shopping attached contained the same declaration
nitary public must observe with outmost care the basic require- as above.
ments in the basic performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, • Consequently, complainants jointly filed administrative
the public confidence in the integrity of a notarized document complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nazareno due to
would be undermined. the false declarations made by the latter in the certifica-
tions against forum shopping. In addition, complainants
Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of asserted that Atty. Nazareno committed malpractice as
a false statement contained in the document to be notarized, a notary public since he only assigned 1 document
yet proceeds to do the same, the Court must not hesitate to dis- number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) in all the certifications
cipline it accordingly. Otherwise, its integrity will be under- against forum shopping that were separately attached
mined, and public confidence in public documents will be dimin- to the 6 complaints mentioned above.
ished.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Nazareno is guilty of malpractice as
A notary public should not notarize a document unless the per- notary public (Yes)
sons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and
who personally appeared before the said notary public to attest
HELD:
to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. In acknowl-
• It is a standing rule that for every notarial act, the notary
edging that the parties personally came and appeared before
shall record in the notarial register at the time of the no-
her, Sanchez-Malit violated Rule 10.01 of CPR. tarization, among others, the entry and page number of
the document notarized, and that he shall give to each
SC found Sanchez-Malit guilty of misconduct and suspend her instrument or document executed, sworn to, or ac-
from practice of law for 1 year. The notarial commission re- knowledged before him a number corresponding to the
voked, and perpetually disqualified to be commissioned as no- one in his register.
tary public. • In the case at bar, the respondent assigned only one
document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the certifica-
tions against forum shopping attached to the 6 com-
plaints for rescission and ejectment despite the fact that
 each of them should have been treated as a separate • Respondent, on his part, admitted that he indeed
notarial act. failed to file a position paper on behalf of com-
• Moreover, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications plainant. However, he maintained that said omis-
against forum shopping, fully aware that they identically sion was due to complainant's failure to adduce
asserted a material falsehood. The administrative liabil- credible witnesses to testify in her favor
ity in this respect was clearly delineated as a violation of
Rule 1.01,Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Respon- ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held adminis-
sibility in the case of Heirs of the Late Spouses Vil- tratively liable.
lanueva v. Atty. Beradio. If the notary public would not
be disciplined, the integrity and sanctity of the notariza-
RULING: YES
tion process may be undermined and public confidence
The relationship between a lawyer and his client is one im-
on notarial documents diminished.
bued with utmost trust and confidence. In this regard,
• It must be remembered that notarization is not an
clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful
empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with of their cause, and accordingly, exercise the required de-
substantive public interest, such that only those who are gree of diligence in handling their affairs. Accordingly,
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Nota- lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high stan-
rization converts a private document into a public docu- dard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full attention,
ment thus making that document admissible in evi- skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their im-
dence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial portance, and whether they accept them for a fee or for
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon free.17 To this end, lawyers are enjoined to employ only fair
its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public and honest means to attain lawful objectives.18 These prin-
at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment ciples are embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule
executed by a notary public and appended to a private 18.03 of Canon 18 of the CPR, which respectively read as
instrument. follows:
• When a notary public certifies to the due execution and
delivery of the document under his hand and seal he CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowl- Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor con-
edged before a notary public, in addition to the solem- sent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or al-
nity which should surround the execution and delivery low the Court to be misled by any artifice.1âwphi1
of documents, is to authorize such documents to be
given without further proof of their execution and deliv- CANON 18 -A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
ery. WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
• Consequently, due to the multiplicity of his infractions, Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter en-
coupled with his willful malfeasance in discharging the trusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
office, the Court deems it proper to revoke his existing shall render him liable.
commission and permanently disqualify him from being
commissioned as a notary public. In this case, it is undisputed that a lawyer-client relationship
was forged between complainant and respondent when the
latter agreed to file a position paper on her behalf before
4. C. JOY T. SAMONTE vs. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JU-
the NLRC and, in connection therewith, received the
MAMIL
amount of ₱8,000.00 from complainant as payment for his
services. Case law instructs that a lawyer-client relation-
• Joy T. Samonte received summons from the ship commences when a lawyer signifies his agreement to
NLRC Davao City, relative to an illegal dismissal handle a client's case and accepts money representing le-
case filed by four 4 persons claiming to be work- gal fees from the latter, 19 as in this case. From then on, as
ers in her small banana plantation the CPR provides, a lawyer is duty-bound to "serve his
• She engaged the services of Atty. Jumamil to pre- client with competence and diligence," and in such regard,
pare her position paper, and paid him the amount "not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
of ₱8,000.00 as attorney's fees.
• Complainant Joy Samonte discovered that Atty However, it is fairly apparent that respondent breached this
Jumamil failed to file the position paper, despite duty when he admittedly failed to file the necessary position
constantly reminding him of the deadline paper before the NLRC, which had, in fact, resulted into an
adverse ruling against his client, i.e., herein complainant. To
• As such, on January 25, 2013, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a Decision whereby complainant was be sure, it is of no moment that complainant purportedly
held liable to the workers in the total amount of failed to produce any credible witnesses in support of her po-
₱633,143.68 sition paper; clearly, this is not a valid justification for re-
spondent to completely abandon his client's cause. By volun-
• When she confronted him about the said ruling,
the latter casually told her to just sell her farm to tarily taking up complainant's case, respondent gave his un-
pay the farm workers. qualified commitment to advance and defend the latter's in-
terest therein. Verily, he owes fidelity to such cause and must
• Because of respondent's neglect, complainant
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
claimed that she was left defenseless and without
any remedy to protect her interests against the ex-
ecution of the foregoing judgment, hence, she Likewise, the IBP correctly found that respondent vio-
filed the instant complaint. lated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR. Records show
that he indeed indulged in deliberate falsehood when gations, complainant attached the following documents to
he admittedly prepared23 and notarized24 the affidavit of her pleadings:
complainant's intended witness, Romeo, despite his d. Two documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago
belief that Romeo was a perjured witness. In Spouses City Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian bearing the
Umaguing v. De Vera the Court highlighted the oath under- names of commissioned notaries public within the ter-
taken by every lawyer to not only obey the laws of the land, ritorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for the
but also to refrain from doing any falsehood, viz.  : years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. Atty. Echanez’
name does not appear on either list;
The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to
e. Copies of ten documents that appear to have been no-
obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from do-
tarized by Atty. Echanez in the years 2006, 2007, and
ing any falsehood in or out of court or from consent-
2008; and
ing to the doing of any in court, and to conduct him-
f. A copy of a certification issued by Judge Cacatian stat-
self according to the best of his knowledge and dis-
ing that a joint affidavit notarized by Atty. Echanez in
cretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as
2008 could not be "authenticated as to his seal and
to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law,
signature as no Notarial Commission was issued upon
and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as
him at the time of the document's notarization."
well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by oth-
ers. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that
the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustwor- On the other hand, Atty. Echanez denied the aforesaid alle-
thiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of gations. In his two-page Answer, Atty. Echanez stated, "I
Professional Responsibility. In this light, Rule 10.01, have never been notarizing any document or pleadings"
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and added that he has "never committed any
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated [the] lawyers (sic)
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall oath". Likewise, he said that the allegations were “prepos-
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any terous, full of lies, politically motivated and . . . meant to
artifice." harass or intimidate [him]". Also, he surmised that the doc-
uments annexed to the Affidavit-Complaint were "tampered
Notably, the notarization of a perjured affidavit also and adulterated", or that "[s]omebody might have forged
constituted a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial [his] signature". He failed to attend the mandatory confer-
Practice. Section 4 (a), Rule IV thereof pertinently pro- ence and likewise failed to file his Position Paper.
vides:
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag
perform any notarial act described in these Rules for recommended that Atty. Echanez be suspended from the
any person requesting such an act even if he tenders practice of law for 6 months and disqualified from being
the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if: commissioned as a notary public for 2 years for violating
Rules 1.014 and 10.015 of the Code of Professional Re-
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that
sponsibility. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed with
the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral[.]
modifications to increase the penalty of suspension 1 year.
(Emphasis supplied)
Atty. Echanez did not file a Motion for Reconsideration or
On this score, it is well to stress that "notarization is any other subsequent pleading.
not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest. It must be under- Issue:
scored that the notarization by a notary public con- Whether or not Atty. Echanez is guilty of engaging in notar-
verts a private document into a public document, mak- ial practice without a notarial commission.
ing that document admissible in evidence without fur-
ther proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document
Ruling:
is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Echanez is guilty
For this reason, a notary public must observe with ut-
of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commis-
most care the basic requirements in the performance
sion.
of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public
in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined."27 In this case, Tenoso presented evidence supporting her al-
legation that respondent had notarized various documents
in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that name of
5. A. Efigenia M. Tenoso v. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez Atty. Echanez does not appear on the list of notaries public
A.C. No. 8384. April 11, 2013. En Banc (Leonen, J.) commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela for the
years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008.
Facts: To this, Atty. Echanez failed to present evidence to rebut
Efigenia M. Tenoso filed a complaint against Atty. Anselmo complainant's allegations.
S. Echanez, who engaged as a notary public in Cordon, Is-
abela, without having been properly commissioned by the
RTC of Santiago City, Isabela. 4 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
This alleged act violates Rule III of the 2004 Rules on No- 5 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
tarial Practice (A.M. No. 02- 8-13-SC). To support her alle- the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or al-
low the Court to be misled by any artifice.
 In the case at bar, Respondent was already a member
The Court emphasized that the duties of notaries public are of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in
In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, Atty. 1985. As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the man-
Echanez exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and date of the law that before a second marriage may be
the public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage
public instruments. must first be annulled by the appropriate court. This
clearly constitute an Immoral Conduct.
5. B. ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH
SCHOOL (SLU-LHS) FACULTY v ATTY. ROLANDO C. As to the charge of misconduct for having nota-
DELA CRUZ. rized several documents during the years 1988-
FACTS: 1997 after his commission as notary public had
expired, respondent humbly admitted having nota-
• This is a disbarment case filed by the Faculty rized certain documents despite his knowledge
members and Staff of the Saint Louis University- that he no longer had authority to do so. He, how-
Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) against Atty. ever, alleged that he received no payment in nota-
Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS. rizing said documents.
Predicated on the following grounds: It has been emphatically stressed that notarization
is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On
6. Gross Misconduct - it appears that there is a
the contrary, it is invested with substantive public
pending criminal case for child abuse al-
interest, such that only those who are qualified or
legedly committed by him against a high
authorized may act as notaries public. Notariza-
school student; a pending administrative case
tion of a private document converts the document
for his alleged unprofessional and unethical
into a public one making it admissible in court
acts of misappropriating money supposedly
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
for the teachers; and the pending labor case
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit
filed by SLU-LHS Faculty, on alleged illegal
upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public
deduction of salary by respondent.
must observe with the utmost care the basic re-
7. Grossly Immoral Conduct – In contracting a
quirements in the performance of their duties.
second marriage despite the existence of his
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the in-
first marriage;
tegrity of this form of conveyance would be under-
8. ) Malpractice - In notarizing documents de-
mined.
spite the expiration of his commission,
• The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of The requirements for the issuance of a commission as
the Philippines (IBP), for investigation, report and notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
recommendation. formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act
• The Commissioner Arcery Pacheco recom- of notarizing documents without the requisite com-
mended the penalty of suspension for 2 years. mission to do so as "reprehensible, constituting as it
One year for Gross Immoral Conduct and another does not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of
year for Malpractice. falsification of public documents."
• The IBP Board of Governors, approved and
adopted the recommendation of Commissioner The Court had occasion to state that where the nota-
Pacheco. rization of a document is done by a member of the
RULING: Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization
or commission to do so, the offender may be sub-
• The court adopted the findings but with modifica- jected to disciplinary action or one, performing a no-
tion on the imposed penalty it opined that the tarial act without such commission is a violation of the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege be- lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the
stowed by the State on those who show that they
Notarial Law.
possess the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the
Thus the court increases his penalty for a pe-
bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A
riod of two (2) years, and another two (2) years
lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law
for notarizing documents despite the expira-
only during good behavior, and he can be de-
tion of his commission or a total of four (4)
prived of it for misconduct ascertained and de-
years of suspension.
clared by judgment of the court after opportunity
to be heard has been afforded him. Without invad-
ing any constitutional privilege or right, an attor- 5. C. HEINZ R. HECK vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS
ney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657. February 23, 2004. EN BANC.
proceeding to suspend, based on conduct render- CALLEJO, SR., J
ing him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the FACTS:
duties and responsibilities of an attorney.
This is a disbarment case filed by Heinz R. Heck
on March 21, 2001. The complainant alleged that prior to
the respondent's appointment as RTC judge on April 11,
1989, he violated the notarial law wherein Judge Santos, he leaves the government which he has served well and
was not duly commissioned as notary public until January faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding
9, 1984 but still subscribed and forwarded (on a non-regu- censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the sit-
lar basis) notarized documents to the Clerk of Court VI uation.”
starting January 1980 uncommissioned until the 9th of Jan-
However, recognizing "the proliferation of unfounded or
uary 1984.
malicious administrative or criminal cases against mem-
Heck prayed to order Judge Santos to be dis- bers of the judiciary for purposes of harassment," we is-
barred, to forfeit retirement benefits, to prohibit practice of sued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC which took effect on Novem-
law and to pay all cost of the administrative charges. ber 3, 2003; Thus, in order for an administrative complaint
against a retiring or retired judge or justice to be dismissed
The complainant submitted a certification from
outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the com-
Clerk of Court pf Misamis Oriental.
plaint must have been filed within six months from the com-
In his Answer dated June 13, 2001, the respon- pulsory retirement of the judge or justice; (2) the cause of
dent judge categorically denied the charges against him. action must have occurred at least a year before such fil-
He also submitted a certification from Clerk of Court to ing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to
prove that there was no proper recording of the commis- harass the respondent.
sioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro as well as In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated
the submitted notarized documents/notarial register. He March 21, 2001 was received by the Office of the Court Ad-
further averred that the complainant has never been privy
ministrator on March 26, 2001. The respondent retired
to the documents notarized and submitted by the respon-
compulsorily from the service more than a year later, or on
dent before the office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional
May 22, 2002. Likewise, the ground for disbarment or disci-
Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, nor his rights prejudiced on
plinary action alleged to have been committed by the re-
account of the said notarized documents and therefore not
spondent did not occur a year before the respondent's sep-
the proper party to raise the said issues.
aration from the service. Furthermore,the instant complaint
The Office of the Court Administrator recommend- was not prima facie shown to be without merit and intended
ing the need to resort to a full-blown investigation to deter- merely to harass the respondent. Clearly, therefore, the in-
mine the veracity of the parties' assertions. stant case does not fall within the ambit of the foregoing
resolution.
The Investigating Justice Edgardo P. Cruz made
the following recommendation: “It is recommended that [i] It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts commit-
respondent (who retired on May 22, 2002) be found guilty ted prior to his appointment to the judiciary. In fact, even
of violation of the Notarial Law by (a) notarizing documents the new Rule itself recognizes this, as it provides for the
without commission; (b) tardiness in submission of notarial immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition
reports; and (c) non- forwarding of his notarial register to and adjudication of charges against justices and judges be-
the Clerk of Court upon expiration of his commission; and fore the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment
[ii] that for these infractions, he be suspended from the to the judiciary. It need not be shown that the respondent
practice of law and barred from being commissioned as no- continued the doing of the act or acts complained of; it is
tary public, both for one year, and his present commission, sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge
if any, be revoked.” on the respondent, considering the gravity of the offense.
According to the Investigating Justice, the respon- It must be remembered that notarization is not an
dent did not adduce evidence in his defense, while the empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is in-
complainant presented documentary evidence to support vested with substantive public interest, such that only those
the charges
who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
ISSUE: Notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without
May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents
the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
without the requisite notary commission more than twenty
years ago be disciplined therefor? execution. The requirements for the issuance of a commis-
sion as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
RULING:
formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of no-
YES. The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise tarizing documents without the requisite commission there-
been separated from the service does not necessarily di- fore as "reprehensible, constituting as it does not only mal-
vest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of practice, but also the crime of falsification of public docu-
the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary ments." For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has
authority over members of the bench. As we held in Gallos sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice
v. Cordero, “The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualifi-
filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the cation from acting as such, and even disbarment.
mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during
In this case, the respondent did not object to the
the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction ei-
complainant's formal offer of evidence, prompting the In-
ther to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of
vestigating Justice to decide the case on the basis of the
the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
pleadings filed. Neither did he claim that he was commis-
would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful
sioned as notary public for the years 1980 to 1983, nor
and dangerous implications . . . If innocent, respondent
deny the accuracy of the first certification. The respondent
public official merits vindication of his name and integrity as
merely alleged in his answer that "there was no proper Olympus Subdivision in Novaliches, with Stateland as
recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Ca- the developer. Mila agreed for Atty Virtusio to use her
gayan de Oro nor of the submitted Notarized Documents/ personal checks in paying the seller with Mila reimburs-
Notarial Register." The respondent in this case was given ing her. Under this arrangement, Mila gave a total of
an opportunity to answer the charges and to controvert the 440K to Atty. Virtusio.
evidence against him in a formal investigation. When the • To her surprise, however, Mila began receiving letters
integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not from Stateland, demanding that she make good the dis-
enough that he deny the charges; he must meet the issue honored checks that it got. Atty Virtusio assured her that
and overcome the evidence against him. she would take care of the problem.
• Mila, for fear of losing the property, directed to stateland
The qualification of good moral character is a re-
and found out that her arrearages had come close to
quirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to
200K. In order not to lose the property, Mila and her hus-
membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a con-
band decided to settle their overdue obligation with
dition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
money they borrowed at high interest
continued possession is essential to maintain one's good
• Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return
standing in the profession. The rule is settled that a lawyer
to her the money the latter misappropriated despite de-
may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if
mand. Only when Mila threatened to file a case against
it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him
her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her by executing a
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda car. De-
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only
spite the sale, Atty. Virtusio refused to give up the car.
a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing
• Mila filed a replevin case against Atty. Virtusio. However,
requirement to the practice of law. Pursuant to the forego-
Atty. Virtusio had managed to register the car in her chil-
ing, there can be no other conclusion than that an adminis-
dren’s name and sold it to a third person. Mila filed a
trative complaint against an erring lawyer who was there-
case of estafa against Atty. Virtusio apart from the
after appointed as a judge, albeit filed only after twenty-four
present disbarment case.
years after the offending act was committed, is not barred
• Mila claimed that Atty. Virtusio engaged in conduct that
by prescription. If the rule were otherwise, members of the
discredits the legal profession, all in violation of the Code
bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they
of Professional Responsibility, rendering her unfit to re-
took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as
main a member of the bar.
no private complainant would immediately come forward,
• The Court also referred the case to the IBP for investiga-
they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from
tion, report, and recommendation.
whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It
• The IBP Investigating Commissioner reported having
is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the prac-
found that Atty. Virtusio appropriated portions of the
tice of law as well as the administration of justice. No mat-
money that Mila gave her for payment to Stateland, thus
ter how much time has elapsed from the time of the com-
evidencing her moral unfitness to practice the profession.
mission of the act complained of and the time of the institu-
• The Commissioner recommended the imposition of the
tion of the complaint. Thus, even the lapse of consider-
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law
able time, from the commission of the offending act to
with a two-year disqualification from reappointment as
the institution of the administrative complaint, will not
Notary Public, given that she had notarized documents
erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer who no-
despite the expiration of her notarial commission.
tarizes documents without the requisite authority therefor.
• Atty. Virtusio said that she committed no intentional
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out wrongs and that she was but a victim of circumstances.
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the Although she admitted using Mila’s money rather than
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the pay Stateland with it, she explained that, having been
court. A tempering of justice is mandated in this case, con- busy attending to her sick son in Manila, she failed to
sidering that the complaint against the respondent was filed monitor her check disbursements, entrusting it to an of-
twenty-four years after the commission of the act com- fice staff.
plained of; that there was no private offended party who • Atty. Virtusio averred that she and Mila entered into a
came forward and claimed to have been adversely affected verbal agreement whereby she would pay her P
by the documents so notarized by the respondent; and, the 200,000.00, with P 87,500.00 up front, in exchange for
fact that the respondent is a retired judge who deserves to Mila’s dismissal of all her actions. Atty. Virtusio claimed
enjoy the full measure of his well-earned retirement bene- that it obliterated her liabilities, given that she substan-
fits. The Court finds that a fine of P5,000.00 is justified in tially settled her obligations to Mila.
this case. • Further, the charges against her were not born of some
professional relation between Mila and her. She had
acted as an accommodation party, allowing Mila to make
5. D. MILA VIRTUSIO VS ATTY. GRENALYN V. use of her personal checks to facilitate the purchase of a
VIRTUSIO property from Stateland. And, assuming that it has a
September 5, 2012 bearing on her professional conduct, the same does not
Abad, J. amount to grossly immoral conduct since she owned up
to her responsibilities and exerted tireless effort to settle
her accounts.
FACTS:
• Atty. Virtusio claimed that she should not be penalized
• Mila filed a complaint for disbarment against her hus-
for violation of the notarial law since this offense did not
band’s distant relative, Atty Virtusio, alleging that Atty Vir-
form part of the original complaint to which she was re-
tusio persuaded her to buy a house and lot at North
 quired to respond. At any rate, she merely committed an Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that ad-
oversight. She had religiously renewed her notarial com- versely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
mission yearly. When she notarized the questioned doc- whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
uments, she believed in good faith that she had renewed manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
her notarial commission.
5. E. VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IBP erred in finding Atty Virtusio BERNABE
guilty of grave misconduct in her dealings with Mila and in A.C. No. 6963 February 9, 2006
notarizing documents without a renewed commission YNARES-SANTIAGO, J

HELD: Facts:
• Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998, re-
Violation of Notarial Practice Rules spondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib
na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato Sa-
• Although the IBP discovered this violation of the notarial longa and complainant’s mother, Basilia de la
law only in the course of the proceedings and was not a Cruz. Both affiants declared that a certain parcel
subject matter of Mila s complaint, it cannot close its of land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being
eyes to the same. occupied by Rodolfo Lucas and his family for
• Her defense is that she thought that she had renewed more than 30 years. Complainant claimed that her
her commission. Such is unsubstantial. She could not mother could not have executed the joint affidavit
have missed the fact that she did not renew her notarial on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead
commission for 2 years, considering that she said that since January 28, 1961.
she had been renewing her commission yearly from • Respondent denied that he falsified the
1995 to 2005. Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed any
• A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged that
commission violates his lawyer’s oath to obey the before he notarized the document, he requested
law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned when for Basilia’s presence and in her absence, he al-
he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that lowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of
the lawyer’s oath forbids. Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as
• As she had notarized only 2 documents, her suspension shown by the word "by" on top of the name of
from notarial practice for 1 year is adequate. Basilia.
• That Mila had agreed after some financial settlement to • Respondent maintained that there was no forgery
withdraw her complaint against Atty. Virtusio cannot ex- since the signature appearing on top of Basilia’s
empt the latter from the prescribed sanction. She has name was the signature of Pronebo.
outraged the country s professional code and this de- • Respondent filed a manifestation attaching thereto
mands a measure of justice. the affidavit of desistance of complainant which
reads in part:
Gross misconduct (not related) Ako na si, VICTORINA BAUTISTA CAPA, x x x matapos
• Atty Virtusio is guilty of gross misconduct that warrants makapanumpa ng naaayon sa batas ay malaya at ku-
her suspension for one year from the practice of law. sang loob na nagpapahayag ng mga sumusunod:
• She admitted misusing the money that Mila entrusted to 1. Na ako ang siyang tumatayong nagrereklamo laban
her for payment to Stateland. She lost track of her fi- kay Abogado, SERGIO EXQUIVEL BERNABE, sa isang
nances and mixed up her office funds with her personal kaso sa Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines
funds. She tried to borrow money from a third person to na may Blg. CBD CASE NO. 04-1371;
cover it up. 2. Na ang nasabing habla ay hindi ko kagustuhan
• She cannot absolve herself of liability by claiming that sapagkat iyon ay pinapirmahan lamang sa akin ni
she failed to attend to her finances because she had to
ELISEO OLOROSO at ng kanyang Abogado na si Atty.
look after a sick child. If this were so, she could have
MARCIAL MORFE MAGSINO at sa katunayan hindi ako
easily rectified her mistake by using her other funds.
• To cover up her fault, she executed a Deed of Sale cov- nakaharap sa Notaryo Publiko na si Abogado CARLITOS
ering her car in Mila’s favor rather than return the money. C. VILLARIN;
However, she withheld possession of the car and trans- 3. Na ang pagpapapirma sa akin ay isang panlilinlang
ferred its registration in the name of her children. at ako ay ginawang kasangkapan para sirain ang maga-
ndang pangalan nitong si Abogado SERGIO ESQUIVEL
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, BERNABE;
immoral or deceitful conduct. 4. Na dahil sa ganitong pangyayari, aking hinihiling sa
Tanggapan ng Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD na ang reklamo ko laban sa nasabing Abogado SERGIO
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PRO- ESQUIVEL BERNABE ay mapawalang bisa.
FESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE IN- • The IBP suspended the respondent from practic-
TEGRATED BAR ing law for 1 month and revoked his notarial com-
mission for a period of 1 year.
Issue: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Practices Act.
(YES)

Ruling:
• The records sufficiently established that Basilia
was already dead when the joint affidavit was pre-
pared on January 3, 1998. Respondent’s alleged
lack of knowledge of Basilia’s death does not ex-
cuse him. It was his duty to require the personal
appearance of the affiant before affixing his notar-
ial seal and signature on the instrument.
• 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
truth of what are stated therein. The presence of
the parties to the deed will enable the notary pub-
lic to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
affiant.
• By affixing his signature and notarial seal on the
instrument, he led us to believe that Basilia per-
sonally appeared before him and attested to the
truth and veracity of the contents of the affidavit
when in fact it was a certain Pronebo who signed
the document.
• Respondent’s conduct is fraught with dangerous
possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the
due execution of a document that our courts and
the public accord on notarized documents. Re-
spondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost dili-
gence in the performance of his function as a no-
tary public and to comply with the mandates of the
law.
• Respondent was also remiss in his duty when he
allowed Pronebo to sign in behalf of Basilia. A
member of the bar who performs an act as a no-
tary public should not notarize a document unless
the persons who signed the same are the very
same persons who executed and personally ap-
peared before him.
• The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to
anyone for what are stated therein are facts of
which they have personal knowledge. They
should swear to the document personally and not
through any representative. Otherwise, their rep-
resentative’s name should appear in the said doc-
uments as the one who executed the same. That
is the only time the representative can affix his
signature and personally appear before the notary
public for notarization of the said document. Sim-
ply put, the party or parties who executed the in-
strument must be the ones to personally appear
before the notary public to acknowledge the docu-
ment.
• The notarial commission of respondent Atty. Ser-
gio E. Bernabe, is REVOKED. He is DISQUALI-
FIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a
period of two years. He is also SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one year, effec-
tive immediately.