IMPORTANCE OF NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS
Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary public.
Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos 383 SCRA 498 (2002)
FACTS:
1. Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo
Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the PCT of a lot in her
name. The lot measures 112 square meters and is located at the back of
Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, Metro Manila.
2. Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she asked
her brother Manuel to return her title he refused. Rosalinda then executed
an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented the affidavit to the Register
of Deeds of Manila.
3. Rosalinda was informed by the Register of Deeds that her title to
the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of Manuel. The
document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G. Ramos and
entered in his Notarial Register. Rosalinda however denied having signed
any deed of sale over her property in favor of Manuel.
4. Atty. Ramos admitted in his Answer that he had affixed his
signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to enter the
document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also admitted executing
before the NBI on an affidavit regarding the matter.
5. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since
according to him he only inadvertently signed the purported Deed of
Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured through mistake,
fraud, undue influence or excusable negligence, claiming that he simply
relied on the assurances of Manuel that the document would not be used
for illegal purposes. The respondent further claims to have notarized the
document out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a legitimate excuse. It
is appalling that respondent did away with the basics of notarial
procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a friend and
client.
ISSUE: Should the notarized documents be recorded in the notarial
registry in order to be considered as public document?
RULING: Yes. If it is not recorded in the notarial registry then the
document is not considered notarized.
The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial registry the
necessary information regarding the document or instrument notarized
and retain a copy of the document presented to him for acknowledgment
and certification especially when it is a contract. The notarial registry is a
record of the notary public's official acts. Acknowledged documents and
instruments recorded in it are considered public documents. If the
document or instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there
is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that the document or
instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document
and cannot bolster any claim made based on this document. Considering
the evidentiary value given to notarized documents, the failure of the
notary public to record the document in his notarial registry is
tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized
when in fact it was not.
De La Cruz vs. Zabala 442 SCRA 407 (2004)
FACTS:
1. Complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent, Atty.
Complainant further alleged that respondent notarized with unknown
witnesses, a fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in
gross violation of his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon
City.
2. Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain Demetrio C.
Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance
of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy OCT in the names of
Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. However, complainant was not
able to register the property because the property was already registered
in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc.,
3. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the
land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by respondent,
with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale
was the same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Document and in a disbarment case against
complainant.
4. Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint for
disbarment against respondent. According to complainant, respondent
notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the
transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary
public.
5. Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have
to go beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In notarial
law, he explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a document are
the presence of the parties and their presentation of their community tax
certificate. As long as these requirements are met, the documents may be
notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized the Deed of Sale, he
had no way of knowing whether the persons who appeared before him
were the real owners of the land or were merely poseurs.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zabala was violated the Notarial Law?
RULING: Yes. It appears that there was negligence on respondents part
which, in our view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he did
not violate the Notarial Law, and our rules regarding Notarial Practice.
Nor could we agree that, as recommended by the IBP, he should only be
reprimanded.
At least his commission as Notary Public should be revoked and for two
years he should be disqualified from being commissioned as such.
The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the
purported vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed
the deed even though the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and
Cirila Tapales. In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said
Deed of Sale when it was presented for notarization. The aforementioned
circumstances should have alerted respondent. Given the ease with which
community tax certificates are obtained these days, respondent should
have been more vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who
appeared before him.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested
with substantive public interest. It must be underscored that the
notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
document, making that document admissible in evidence without further
proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary public must
observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this
form of conveyance would be undermined
Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008
Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty.
Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of
the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious
in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent,
Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned
for the unnotated Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy
of their respective voter's affidavit.
In addition to such, the contested will was executed and
acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which
was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the
Records Management and Archives Office of the National
Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA).
Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely
given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with
due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and
had complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his
duties and that the complaint was filed simply to harass him based on
the result of a criminal case against him in the Ombudsman that did
not prosper.
However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the
Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case
to the IBP and the decision of which was affirmed with modification
against the respondent and in favor of the complainant.
Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in
Notarial Law and the Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a
spurious last will and testament?
Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is
guilty of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01nof the Code
of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and
provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended
from the practice of law for one year and his Notarial commission
revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the
trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer
of the court, he is perpetually disqualified from reappointments as a
Notary Public.
Dela Cruz v. Dimaano 565 SCRA 1 (2008)
FACTS:
In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Dimaano,
complainants alleged that on July 16, 2004, respondent notarized a
document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate with
Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister,
Zenaida V.L. Navarro.
According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized document
when he made it appear, among other things, that complainants
"personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed
their signatures on the document in his presence.
In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively enabled
their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their deceased
parents' property in and sell the same to the Department of Public
Works and Highways.
The respondent however argued that "he notarized the document in
good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida
Navarro that the signatures and the community tax certificates
appearing in the document were true and correct." Navarro would
not, according to respondent, lie to him having known, and being
neighbors of, each other for 30 years.
ISSUES:
Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing
violations of his duties as a notary public.
What is the effect of a Notarized Document as a Public Instrument
RULING:
Yes, lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being
dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the
necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic
requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of
the public on notarized documents will be eroded.