EX-OFFICIO NOTARIES PUBLIC Tigno v.

Spouses Aquino 444 SCRA 61 (2004)

Cruz v. Centron 442 SCRA 53 (2004) FACTS:

 Spouses Aquino filed a complaint against Isidro Bustria which
FACTS: sought to enforce an alleged sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a
 Atty. Centron assisted a certain Gloria Logdat and Conchita de 120,000 square meter fishpond located in Dasci, Pangasinan.
la Cruz in consummating the sale of a parcel of land (OCT No. The conveyance was covered by a Deed of Sale dated 2
2186) in the name of one Joaquina Jabat. Such assistance September 1978.
consisted in preparing and notarizing the documents of sale.  A compromise agreement was entered into between them
 The said sale is illegal because the property covered by the sale whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale,
is still the subject of reconstitution and Extra-Judicial and the Aquinos agreed to grant Bustria the right to repurchase
Settlement among the heirs. As a result of the illegal sale, the same property after the lapse of seven 7 years.
Logdat and de la Cruz are charged with estafa through  Bustria died and was substituted by his daughter, Zenaida B.
falsification of public documents. Atty. Centron took advantage Tigno. On 1 December 1989, Tigno attempted to repurchase the
of her being a lawyer to solicit the trust and confidence of the property by filing a Motion for Consignation and depositing
buyers of the subject parcel of land. 230,000 with the RTC, but this was opposed by the Aquinos
 Atty. Centron is involved in the disappearance of OCT No. 2186, arguing that the right to repurchase was not yet demandable
and she refuses to surrender the title which is in the possession and that Tigno had failed to make a tender of payment.
of one of her relatives.  RTC denied the Motion for Consignation.
 Hence this case of disbarment was filed by Logdat and De la  Tigno filed an action for Revival of Judgment. The Aquinos filed
Cruz against Atty. Centron an answer wherein they alleged that Bustria had sold his right
 In her Comment, Atty. Centron denied any involvement in the to repurchase the property to them in a deed of sale.
preparation of the documents and in the consummation of the  Among the witnesses presented by the Aquinos during trial
sale of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. She claims were Jesus De Francia, the instrumental witness to the deed of
that her only participation in the said sale is that she was the sale, and former Judge Cariño, who notarized the same. These
one who notarized the deed of sale on because she was two witnesses testified as to the occasion of the execution and
requested by the parties to notarize the same. signing of the deed of sale by Bustria. Thereafter, in their
 The Office of the Court Administrator held that Atty. Centron Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, the Aquinos offered for
violated the provisions of Section 242 of the Revised admission the deed of sale purportedly executed by Bustria
Administrative Code as well as Section G, Chapter VIII of the  The admission of the Deed of Sale was objected to by Tigno on
Manual for Clerks of Court when she notarized a deed of the ground that it was a false and fraudulent document which
conveyance, a document which is not connected with the had not been acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that its
exercise of her official functions and duties as Ex-Officio Notary existence was suspicious, considering that it had been
Public. Accordingly, she be fined in the amount of P2,000.00 previously unknown, and not even presented by the Aquinos
and sternly warned. when they opposed Tigno's previous Motion for Consignation.
 RTC refused to admit the Deed of Sale in evidence. RTC then
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Centron should be held liable. ruled in favor of Tigno.
 The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the
RULING: Deed of Sale, characterizing the testimonies of De Francia and
 Yes. In the present case, we find that complainant failed to Cariño as conflicting. The RTC likewise observed that nowhere
present clear and preponderant evidence to show that in the alleged deed of sale was there any statement that it was
respondent had direct and instrumental participation in the acknowledged by Bustria; that it was suspicious that Bustria
preparation of documents and the subsequent sale of the was not assisted or represented by his counsel in connection
subject parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. with the preparation and execution of the deed of sale or that
 Aside from the deed of sale covering the subject parcel of land Aquino had raised the matter of the deed of sale in his previous
which was notarized by respondent, no competent evidence Opposition to the Motion for Consignation.
was shown that would directly link her to the said sale.  CA reversed the decision of RTC and ruled in favor of Spouses
 While it may be logical to assume that Atty. Centron was the Aquino. The appellate court ratiocinated that there were no
one who prepared the deed of sale since she was the one who material or substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies
notarized it, we cannot give evidentiary weight to such a of Cariño and De Francia that would taint the document with
supposition in the absence of any evidence to support it. doubtful authenticity; that the absence of the acknowledgment
Moreover, complainants allegation that Atty. Centron and substitution instead of a jurat did not render the
influenced the buyers is contradicted by the sworn affidavit of instrument invalid; and that the non-assistance or
Adelfa Manes, one of the buyers of the land. Manes attested to representation of Bustria by counsel did not render the
the fact that respondent did not convince nor influence them in document null and ineffective.
buying the subject property. Likewise, we find no competent  It was noted that a notarized document carried in its favor the
evidence to prove that Atty. Centron is responsible for the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and
alleged loss of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186. that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely
 Nonetheless, we find that respondent is guilty of violating preponderant evidence to contradict the same.
Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733) and
Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to ISSUE: W/N the deed of sale was notarized properly, hence
Sections G, M and N Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of admissible as evidence
Court.
 Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex RULING: No. SC ruled in favor of Tigno. RTC decision is reinstated.
officio, and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths
but only when the matter is related to the exercise of their  The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows:
official functions. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 In the present case, it is not within Atty. Centron competence,
as it is not part of her official function and duty, to notarize the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S.
subject deed of sale. Respondent is guilty of abuse of authority.
MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )
 In the present case, it appearing that this is respondents first
offense of this nature and that she has only notarized one SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of October 1985 at
document, we find the OCAs recommended penalty of a fine of Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the same parties who
P2,000.00 commensurate to the offense committed. executed the foregoing instrument.
FRANKLIN CARIÑO
Ex-Officio Notary Public
Judge, M.T.C.
Alaminos, Pangasinan
 Fuentes v. Buno 560 SCRA 22 (2008)

 There are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, FACTS:

the document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an  Geronimo Fuentes filed a complaint wherein he alleged that he
acknowledgment. is one of the nine heirs of Bernardo Fuentes, their father, who
 A jurat is a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An owned an agricultural land located at San Jose, Talibon, Bohol.
acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in  He also alleged that respondent judge prepared and notarized
going before some competent officer or court and declaring it an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of
to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an affidavit Sale" of the said agricultural land, executed by complainant’s
where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before him. mother Eulalia Credo Vda. de Fuentes, widow of Bernardo
 But there is an even more substantial defect in the notarization, Fuentes, and Alejandro Fuentes, on his own behalf and on
one which is determinative of this petition. This pertains to the behalf of his brothers and sisters, including Geronimo Fuentes,
authority of Judge Franklin Cariño to notarize the Deed of Sale. as heirs/vendors and one Ma. Indira A. Auxtero, as vendee.
 It is undisputed that Franklin Cariño at the time of the  In the aforesaid document, the aforementioned agricultural
notarization of the Deed of Sale, was a sitting judge of the land was sold, transferred and conveyed by the heirs/vendors
Metropolitan Trial Court of Alaminos. to the vendee despite the fact that in his Special Power of
 Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Attorney (SPA), he merely appointed his brother, Alejandro
(MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of Fuentes to mortgage said agricultural land but not to partition,
notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. much more to sell the same.
296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of  According to complainant Geronimo Fuentes respondent judge
1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. notarized said document as ex-officio Notary Public, thereby
 However, as far back as 1980 in Borre v. Moya, the Court abusing his discretion and authority as well as committing graft
explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cariño and corruption.
may notarize only documents connected with the exercise of  In defense, respondent judge contended that he could not be
their official duties. charged of graft and corruption, since in a municipality where a
 The Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties of notary public is unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to
Judge Cariño, and there was no reason for him to notarize it. notarize documents or deeds as ex-officio notary public.
 Most crucially for this case, we should deem the Deed of Sale as
not having been notarized at all. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge has authority to
 The validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from notarize the documents
the authority of the notarial officer.
 If the notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a RULING: No.
document, but does so anyway, then the document should be  While Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended, and
treated as unnotarized. Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code authorize MTC
 What then is the effect on the Deed of Sale if it was not and MCTC judges to perform the functions of notaries public ex
notarized? True enough, from a civil law perspective, the officio, the Court laid down the scope of said authority.
absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not  SC Circular No. 1-90 prohibits judges from undertaking the
necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. preparation and acknowledgment of private documents,
 Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contracts and other deeds of conveyances which have no direct
contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over relation to the discharge of their official functions.
immovable property should be in a public document, yet it is  In this case, respondent judge admitted that he prepared both
also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper the document itself, entitled "Extra-judicial Partition with
form does not render the transaction invalid. Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" and the acknowledgment
 Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in of the said document, which had no relation at all to the
Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of performance of his function as a judge.
the transaction, but required merely for convenience.  These acts of respondent judge are clearly proscribed by the
 The Deed of Sale, invalidly notarized as it was, does not fall aforesaid Circular.
under the enumeration of public documents; hence, it must be  While it may be true that no notary public was available or
considered a private document. residing within respondent judge’s territorial jurisdiction, as
 The nullity of the alleged or attempted notarization performed shown by the certifications issued by the RTC Clerk of Court and
by Judge Cariño is sufficient to exclude the document in the Municipal Mayor of Talibon, Bohol, SC Circular No. 1-90
question from the class of public documents. specifically requires that a certification attesting to the lack of
 Even assuming that the Deed of Sale was validly notarized, it any lawyer or notary public in the said municipality or circuit be
would still be classified as a private document, since it was not made in the notarized document.
properly acknowledged, but merely subscribed and sworn to by  Here, no such certification was made in the Extra-Judicial
way of jurat. Partition with Simultaneous Deed of Sale. Respondent judge
 Being a private document, the Deed of Sale is now subject to also failed to indicate in his answer as to whether or not any
the requirement that before any private document offered as notarial fee was charged for that transaction, and if so, whether
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and the same was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer of
authenticity must be proved. Talibon, Bohol.
 The Deed of Sale was offered in evidence by Aquinos, hence,  Clearly, then, respondent judge, who was the sitting judge of
the burden falls upon the Aquinos to prove its authenticity and the MCTC, Talibon-Getafe, Bohol, failed to comply with the
due execution. aforesaid conditions prescribed by SC Circular No. 1-90, even if
 However, the SC observed that no receipts were ever presented he could have acted as notary public ex-officio in the absence of
by the respondents to evidence actual payment of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit to
consideration by them to Bustria, despite the allegation of the which he was assigned.
respondents that the amount was covered by seven receipts.
 Also of note is the fact that there are glaring differences as to
the alleged signature of Bustria on the Deed of Sale and as it
otherwise appears on the judicial record.

NOTARIZED DOCUMENT AS A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT

 Vda. De Rosales v. Ramos 383 SCRA 498 (2002) FACTS:
 Complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged respondent,
FACTS: Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary
 Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda public.
Bernardo Vda. de Rosales, borrowed from Rosalinda the PCT of  Complainant further alleged that respondent notarized with
a lot in her name. The lot measures 112 square meters and is unknown witnesses, a fake deed of sale allegedly executed by
located at the back of Manuel's house on Fabie Street, Paco, two dead people, in gross violation of his oath as a
Metro Manila. Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon City.
 Rosalinda sold this lot to one Alfredo P. Castro. When she  Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain
asked her brother Manuel to return her title he refused. Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a
Rosalinda then executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and Petition for the Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the
presented the affidavit to the Register of Deeds of Manila. Owners copy OCT in the names of Sps. Pedro Sumulong and
 Rosalinda was informed by the Register of Deeds that her title Cirila Tapales.
to the property was already transferred to Manuel by virtue of  However, complainant was not able to register the property
a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly executed in favor of because the property was already registered in the name of
Manuel. Antipolo Properties, Inc.,
 The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G.  Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the
Ramos and entered in his Notarial Register. Rosalinda however land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by
denied having signed any deed of sale over her property in respondent, with damages against the complainant and his
favor of Manuel. wife.
 Atty. Ramos admitted in his Answer that he had affixed his  The Deed of Sale was the same document Marero used when
signature on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale but failed to he filed a complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public
enter the document in his Notarial Registry Book. He also Document and in a disbarment case against complainant.
admitted executing before the NBI on an affidavit regarding the  Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this complaint
matter. for disbarment against respondent. According to complainant,
 Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint since respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the
according to him he only inadvertently signed the purported parties to the transaction was already dead, grossly violating his
Deed of Absolute Sale and/or that his signature was procured oath as a notary public.
through mistake, fraud, undue influence or excusable  Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not
negligence, claiming that he simply relied on the assurances of have to go beyond the documents presented to him for
Manuel that the document would not be used for illegal notarization. In notarial law, he explains, the minimum
purposes. requirements to notarize a document are the presence of the
 The respondent further claims to have notarized the document parties and their presentation of their community tax
out of sympathy for his kababayan is not a legitimate excuse. It certificate.
is appalling that respondent did away with the basics of notarial  As long as these requirements are met, the documents may be
procedure in order to accommodate the alleged need of a notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized the Deed
friend and client. of Sale, he had no way of knowing whether the persons who
appeared before him were the real owners of the land or were
ISSUE: Should the notarized documents be recorded in the notarial merely poseurs.
registry in order to be considered as public document?
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zabala was violated the Notarial Law?
RULING: Yes.
 If it is not recorded in the notarial registry then the document is RULING: Yes.
not considered notarized.  It appears that there was negligence on respondents part
 The notary public is further enjoined to record in his notarial which, in our view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude
registry the necessary information regarding the document or that he did not violate the Notarial Law, and our rules regarding
instrument notarized and retain a copy of the document Notarial Practice. Nor could we agree that, as recommended by
presented to him for acknowledgment and certification the IBP, he should only be reprimanded.
especially when it is a contract.  At least his commission as Notary Public should be revoked and
 The notarial registry is a record of the notary public's official for two years he should be disqualified from being
acts. commissioned as such.
 Acknowledged documents and instruments recorded in it are  The IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not
considered public documents. executed by the purported vendee and that only Pedro
 If the document or instrument does not appear in the notarial Sumulong appeared and executed the deed even though the
records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales.
that the document or instrument was not really notarized, so  In addition, a copy of the title was not attached to the said
that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim Deed of Sale when it was presented for notarization. The
made based on this document. aforementioned circumstances should have alerted
 Considering the evidentiary value given to notarized respondent.
documents, the failure of the notary public to record the  Given the ease with which community tax certificates are
document in his notarial registry is tantamount to falsely obtained these days, respondent should have been more
making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact vigilant in ascertaining the identity of the persons who
it was not. 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

De La Cruz vs. Zabala 442 SCRA 407 (2004) Lee vs Tambago 544 SCRA 393 (2008)
 duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity
FACTS: of notarized deeds will be undermined.
 Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino  Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law
B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the render the entire will invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken
legal profession for notarizing a will. lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will,
 The will was alleged to be spurious in nature in containing considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case,
forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. are no longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its
and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the contents.
absence of notation of the Residence Certificates that are  Accordingly, respondent must be held accountable for his acts.
known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a
 In addition to such, the contested will was executed and consequence of his breach of duty.
acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a  These gross violations of the law also made respondent liable
Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, for violation of his oath as a lawyer and constituted
which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of transgressions of Section 20 (a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
the Records Management and Archives Office of the National and Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the CPR.
Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA).
 Respondent refuted that all allegations were falsely given Dela Cruz v. Dimaano 565 SCRA 1 (2008)
because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with
due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law FACTS:
and had complied with elementary formalities in the  In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty.
performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed Dimaano, complainants alleged that on July 16, 2004,
simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial
against him filed by complainant in the Ombudsman that did Settlement of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly
not prosper. executed by them and their sister, Zenaida V.L. Navarro.
 However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to  According to complainants, respondent had made untruthful
the Archives Division of NCAA. statements in the acknowledgment portion of the notarized
 In a resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the document when he made it appear, among other things, that
decision of which found respondent guilty of violations of complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and
pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the that they affixed their signatures on the document in his
Administrative Code. The violation constituted an infringement presence.
of legal ethics, particularly Canon 1 and Rule 1.01of the Code of  In the process, complainants added, respondent effectively
Professional Responsibility (CPR). enabled their sister, Navarro, to assume full ownership of their
 Thus, the investigating commissioner of the IBP Commission on deceased parents' property in and sell the same to the
Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of respondent for Department of Public Works and Highways.
a period of three months.  The respondent however argued that "he notarized the
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved, with document in good faith relying on the representation and
modifications, the recommendation of the CBD and ruled that assurance of Zenaida Navarro that the signatures and the
Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one community tax certificates appearing in the document were
year and his notarial commission is Revoked and Disqualified true and correct." Navarro would not, according to respondent,
from reappointment as Notary Public for two years. lie to him having known, and being neighbors of, each other for
30 years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tambago acted negligently in exercising
his duties as Notary Public. ISSUES:
1. Whether or not respondent should be penalized for committing
RULING: No. violations of his duties as a notary public.
 Respondent, as notary public, evidently failed in the 2. What is the effect of a Notarized Document as a Public
performance of the elementary duties of his office. The Court Instrument
finds that he acted very irresponsibly in notarizing the will in
question. RULING:
 Such recklessness warrants the less severe punishment of 1. Yes, lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to
suspension from the practice of law. It is, as well, a sufficient discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties
basis for the revocation of his commission and his perpetual being dictated by public policy and impressed with public
disqualification to be commissioned as a notary public. interest.
 The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged 2. It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document
importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact that it to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without
was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due
and embodied in a distinct and separate provision. execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit
 An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must
in going before some competent officer or court and declaring observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents.
it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notarized
whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public documents will be eroded.
that the same is his or her own free act and deed. The
acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold purpose: (1) to
safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to
assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he
intends it to be done.
 A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in
question shows that this particular requirement was neither
strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there was the
conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates
of the notarial witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the
acknowledgment.
 Similarly, the notation of the testators old residence certificate
in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law.
These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
 Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost
fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their Diampoc v Beunaventural et al
 [G.R. No. 200383, March 19, 2018]  Consequently, the private conveyance of the house is valid
between the parties.
FACTS:
 The Diampocs filed a Complaint for annulment of deed of sale
and recovery of duplicate original copy of title, with damages, Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon, v. Atty. Arturo B.
against Buenaventura and the Registry of Deeds for the A.C. No. 5482, 10 February 2015
Province of Rizal.
 The Diampocs alleged in their Complaint that they owned the Facts:
subject property, covered by TCT 25044;  Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother-
 that Buenaventura became their friend; that Buenaventura and sister-in-law. Complainants , along with Jimmy’s brothers
asked to borrow the owner’s copy of TCT 25044 to be used as and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter parcel of land located
security for a P1 million loan she wished to secure; in Sison, Pangasinan.
 that they acceded, on the condition that Buenaventura should  Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned
not sell the subject property; that Buenaventura promised to by the complainants.
give them P300,000.00 out of the P1 million loan proceeds;  The names of petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name
 that Buenaventura caused them to sign a folded document of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as the vendee.
without giving them the opportunity to read its contents; that  The complainants claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
Buenaventura failed to give them a copy of the document falsified.
which they signed;  They alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The
 that they discovered later on that Buenaventura became the National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents
owner of a one-half portion of the subject property by virtue Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were
of a supposed deed of sale in her favor; forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over
 that they immediately proceeded to the notary public who the document.
notarized the said was purportedly sold to Buenaventura for  Moreover, it was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and
P200,000.00; and that the purported deed of sale is spurious; sister to have signed the document because they were
and somewhere else at that time.
 that the deed was secured through fraud and deceit, and thus  Due to the forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant
null and void. Diampoc’s arguments center on the claim that Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, filed a case of
the deed of sale suffers from defects relative to its falsification of public document against Atty. Cefra and Paran.
notarization, which thus render the deed ineffective, if not null
and void, more specifically claims that the deed was not Issue: Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial
signed by the parties before the notary public; Law and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
 that it was notarized in her and her husband’s absence; that
there was only one Community Tax Certificate used for both Held:
petitioner and her husband; and that Buenaventura failed to  The Supreme Court agreed and adopted the findings of fact of
present the notary public as her witness. the IBP-Investigating Commissioner. The respondent violated
Rule II, Section 1, and Rule IV, Section 2(6) of the Notarial
ISSUE: Whether or not the defects of notarization of deed of sale Practice 2004, and Canon 1 of the CPR.
affects the validity of the sale.  The Supreme Court suspended the respondent from the
Practice of Law for two years, revoked his incumbent Notarial
RULING: No. Commission, and perpetually disqualified him from being
 The absence of notarization of the deed of sale would not commissioned as a Notary Public.
invalidate the transaction evidenced therein; it merely reduces
the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private MARINA C. GONZALES vs. ATTY. CALIXTO B. RAMOS
document, which requires proof of its due execution and [A.C. No. 6649. June 21, 2005]
authenticity to be admissible as evidence.
 A defective notarization will strip the document of its public FACTS:
character and reduce it to a private instrument. Consequently,  When Francisco returned to his office, he brought with him the
when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by Marina C. Gonzales. At first, he
clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to was hesitant to notarize the document because he did not see
a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure the complainant sign the same, but due to Francisco’s
to test the validity of such document is preponderance of insistence and knowing them personally, he eventually
evidence. notarized the deed.
 Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a  Respondent compared the signatures of Marina C. Gonzales on
contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over the Deed of Absolute Sale with her other signatures in his files,
immovable property should be in a public document, yet the the spouses Gonzales being his clients from way back.
failure to observe the proper form does not render the Convinced that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was
transaction invalid. indeed the signature of complainant Marina C. Gonzales,
 The necessity of a public document for said contracts is only for respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale on March 27,
convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability. 1996.
Even a sale of real property, though not contained in a public
instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding, ISSUE: Who are supposed to be present during the notarization of a
for even a verbal contract of sale or real estate; produces legal deed?
effects between the parties. Consequently, when there is a
defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and RULING:
convincing evidentiary standard originally attached to a duly-  A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test persons who signed the same are the very same persons who
the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. executed and personally appeared before the said notary public
 Nevertheless, the defective notarization of the deed does not to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.
affect the validity of the sale of the house.  The presence of the parties to the deed making the
 Although Article 1358 of the Civil Code states that the sale of acknowledgment will enable the notary public to verify the
real property must appear in a public instrument, the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.
formalities required by this article is not essential for the  A notary public is enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or
validity of the contract but is simply for its greater efficacy or spurious document. The function of a notary public, is among
convenience, or to bind third persons, and is merely a coercive others, to guard against any illegal deed.
means granted to the contracting parties to enable them to
reciprocally compel the observance of the prescribed form.