Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice


RESOLUTION
Acting on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on
Notarial Practice of 2004 submitted by the Sub-Committee for the Study,
Drafting and Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries
Public and the Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the
Committees on Revision of the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar
Matters, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial
Practice of 2004, with modifications, thus:chanroblesvi rtuallawli brary

2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE
RULE I
IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.
SEC. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the
following purposes:chanroblesvirtuallawl ibrary
(a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest; chan robles virtual law library
(b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and
(c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of these Rules otherwise indicates,
words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the
singular.
RULE II
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - Acknowledgment refers to an act in which an
individual on a single occasion:chanroblesvi rtuallawlibrary
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally
complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules; and -
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or
document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the
instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or
document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular
representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.
SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act
in which an individual on a single occasion: chan robles virtual law library
(a) appears in person before the notary public; chan robles virtual law library
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and chan robles
virtual law library
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the
instrument or document.
SEC. 3. Commission. - Commission refers to the grant of authority to
perform notarial acts and to the written evidence of the authority.
SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - Copy Certification refers to a notarial act in
which a notary public:chanroblesvi rtual lawlibrary
(a) is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record,
a public record, nor publicly recordable;
(b) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document;
(c) compares the instrument or document with the copy; and
(d) determines that the copy is accurate and complete.
SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - Notarial Register refers to a permanently bound
book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts
performed by a notary public. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 6. Jurat. - Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:chanroblesvi rtuallawl ibrary
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or
document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; chan robles virtual
law library
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument
or document.
SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - Notarial Act and Notarization refer
to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under these Rules.
SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. - Notarial Certificate refers to the part of, or
attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the
notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts
attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by
these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - Notary Public and Notary refer to any
person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules.cralaw
SEC. 10. Principal. - Principal refers to a person appearing before the notary
public whose act is the subject of notarization. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term regular place of work
or business refers to a stationary office in the city or province wherein the
notary public renders legal and notarial services. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase competent evidence of
identity refers to the identification of an individual based on:chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or chan robles virtual law library
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom
is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.
SEC. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - Official seal or Seal refers to a device for
affixing a mark, image or impression on all papers officially signed by the
notary public conforming the requisites prescribed by these Rules.
SEC. 14. Signature Witnessing. - The term signature witnessing refers to a
notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion: chan robles virtual law library
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or
document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and chan robles
virtual law library
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public.
SEC. 15. Court. - Court refers to the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
SEC. 16. Petitioner. - Petitioner refers to a person who applies for a notarial
commission.cralaw
SEC. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. - Office of the Court Administrator
refers to the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.cralaw
SEC. 18. Executive Judge. - Executive Judge refers to the Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of a city or province who issues a notarial
commission.cralaw
SEC. 19. Vendor. - Vendor under these Rules refers to a seller of a notarial
seal and shall include a wholesaler or retailer. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 20. Manufacturer. - Manufacturer under these Rules refers to one who
produces a notarial seal and shall include an engraver and seal maker. chan robles
virtual law library
RULE III
COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an
Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance
with these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:chanroblesvi rtuallawlibrary
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines; chan robles virtual law library
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age; chan robles virtual law library
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and
maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the
commission is to be issued; chan robles virtual law library
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances
from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving
moral turpitude.
SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every petition for a
notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the
following:chanroblesvi rtuallawli brary
(a) a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, including
the petitioner's date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax
receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP membership number;

(b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2)
executive officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
where he is applying for commission;

(c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules;
and

(d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken
within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be
retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the
photographs.
SEC. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a notarial commission shall pay
the application fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The Executive Judge shall conduct
a summary hearing on the petition and shall grant the same if:chanroblesvi rtuallawli brary
(a) the petition is sufficient in form and substance;
(b) the petitioner proves the allegations contained in the petition; and
(c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Judge that he
has read and fully understood these Rules.
The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a commission and a Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the petitioner. chan robles virtual
law library
SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. -
(a) The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city or province where the hearing shall be conducted
and posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of
the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication shall be borne by the petitioner.
The notice may include more than one petitioner.

(b) The notice shall be substantially in the following form:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for
notarial commission of (name of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at
(place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or reason to object to
the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto,
received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing.chanrobles virtual
law library chan robles virtual law library
_____________________
Executive Judge
SEC. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who has any cause or reason to
object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto.
The opposition must be received by the Executive Judge before the date of the
summary hearing. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The commissioning of a notary public
shall be in a formal order signed by the Executive Judge substantially in the
following form:chanroblesvi rtuallawli brary
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________
This is to certify that (name of notary public) of (regular place of work
or business) in (city or province) was on this (date) day of (month)
two thousand and (year) commissioned by the undersigned as a
notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending
the thirty-first day of December (year)
________________________
Executive Judge
SEC. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial
Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall be
valid for a period of three (3) months from date of issue, unless extended by
the Executive Judge.
A mark, image or impression of the seal that may be purchased by the notary
public pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to the Executive Judge for
approval prior to use.cralaw
SEC. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The
Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall substantially be in
the following form:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORIZATION
TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL
This is to authorize (name of notary public) of (city or province) who
was commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and
for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the thirty-first of December
(year) to purchase a notarial seal.chanrobles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library
Issued this (day) of (month) (year).
________________________
Executive Judge

SEC. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every person commissioned as notary
public shall have only one official seal of office in accordance with these Rules.
SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of
January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier
revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall keep and
maintain a Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction which shall contain,
among others, the dates of issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial
commissions, and the resignation or death of notaries public. The Executive
Judge shall furnish the Office of the Court Administrator information and data
recorded in the register of notaries public. The Office of the Court
Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete and updated database of such
records. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary public may file a written
application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his commission within
forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression
of the seal of the notary public shall be attached to the application.cralaw
Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the
notary public in the register of notaries public.cralaw
The notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only
be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in accordance with
these Rules. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of Commission. - The Executive
Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee mentioned in Section 3 above
of this Rule, act on an application for the renewal of a commission within thirty
(30) days from receipt thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive
Judge shall state the reasons therefor.cralaw
RULE IV
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the
following notarial acts:chanroblesvi rtuallawl ibrary
(1)acknowledgments;
(2)oaths and affirmations;
(3)jurats;
(4)signaturewitnessings;
(5)copy certifications; and
(6) any other act authorized by these Rules.
(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb
or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public
and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or
document;
(2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other
mark;
(3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other
Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and
addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and chan robles virtual law
library
(4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through
an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.
(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically
unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if:chanroblesvi rtual lawlibrary
(1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark
to sign on his behalf;
(2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document;
(3) both witnesses sign their own names ;
(4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary
in presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses); and
(5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act
outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on
certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at
the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial
jurisdiction: chan robles virtual law library
(1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office
may be administered;
(2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of
instruments or documents requiring notarization;
(3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or
document is confined for treatment; and
(4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring
notarization is under detention.
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory
to the instrument or document -
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization;
and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these
Rules.chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a
notarial act if he:chanroblesvirtuallawl ibrary
(a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; chan robles
virtual law library
(b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage,
right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided
by these Rules and by law; or
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by
affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. chan robles
virtual law library
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act
described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he
tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or
transaction is unlawful or immoral;
(b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the
notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the
consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and
(c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free
will.
SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not: chan robles virtual
law library
(a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the
notary to be false.
(b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
incomplete.chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall not
notarize:chanroblesvirtuallawl ibrary
(a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or chan robles virtual law library
(b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification.
RULE V
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For performing a notarial act, a
notary public may charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the Supreme
Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part.
chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary public may charge travel fees
and expenses separate and apart from the notarial fees prescribed in the
preceding section when traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary public
and the person requesting the notarial act agree prior to the travel.cralaw
SEC. 3. Prohibited Fees. No fee or compensation of any kind, except those
expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be collected or received for any
notarial service.cralaw
SEC. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary public shall not require
payment of any fees specified herein prior to the performance of a notarial act
unless otherwise agreed upon. chan robles virtual law library
Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary public prior to the performance
of a notarial act are not subject to refund if the notary public had already
traveled but failed to complete in whole or in part the notarial act for reasons
beyond his control and without negligence on his part.cralaw
SEC. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services
shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a
journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for
services rendered. chan robles virtual law library
A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete
schedule of chargeable notarial fees.cralaw
RULE VI
NOTARIAL REGISTER
SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep,
maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules,
a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a
permanently bound book with numbered pages. chan robles virtual law library
The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to
any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The
register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall
certify the number of pages of which the book consists.cralaw
For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding
may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the
Court Administrator. chan robles virtual law library
(b) A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given
time.cralaw
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary
shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following: chan
robles virtual law library
(1) the entry number and page number; chan robles virtual law library
(2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
(3) the type of notarial act; chan robles virtual law library
(4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;
(5) the name and address of each principal; chan robles virtual law library
(6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the
signatory is not
personally known to the notary; chan robles virtual law library
(7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the
person's identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
(9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's
regular place of work or business; and
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or
relevance.
(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and
circumstances for not completing a notarial act.
(c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of
any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the
requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized
identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection
or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded.cralaw
(d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall
keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a
brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a
consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. He
shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court.cralaw
(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in
his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of
his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries.cralaw
(f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the
notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation
thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was
made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or
note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the
same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other
fact touching the same.cralaw
(g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial
register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to,
acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show
this fact.cralaw
(h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of
any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first
ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and
shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify
for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of
certified copies herein required.cralaw
SEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of notarization, the
notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by
each:chanroblesvi rtual lawlibrary
(a) principal;
(b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and
(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the
notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign.
SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's presence, any
person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business
hours, provided;
(1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven
through competent evidence of identity as defined in these Rules;
(2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other
recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a separate, dated entry;
(3) the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and
name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and
(4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him.
(b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the
course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order.
(c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a
criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial
register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein.cralaw
SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the
notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered
unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within
ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the
case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing
a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide
a copy or number of any pertinent police report.cralaw
(b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of the
notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be
delivered to the office of the Executive Judge.cralaw
SEC. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The notary public shall supply a
certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any person
applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees.cralaw
RULE VII
SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Official Signature. In notarizing a paper instrument or document,
a notary public shall:chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
(a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as
appearing on the notary's commission; chan robles virtual law library
(b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and
(c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.
SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall
have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be
possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in
shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province
and the word Philippines and his own name on the margin and the roll of
attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across
the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on
the paper or parchment on which the writing appears.
(b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is
performed and shall be clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of
the instrument or document notarized. chan robles virtual law library
(c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be
accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him. chan
robles virtual law library
(d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost,
damaged or other otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image,
the notary public, after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency,
shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime
committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record.
Upon receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter
shall order the notary public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be
published, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is
commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public
a new Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.cralaw
(e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary public, or
the revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be
surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall be destroyed or defaced in public
during office hours. In the event that the missing, lost or damaged seal is later
found or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the notary public to the
Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to
effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death
of the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall have the
duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge.cralaw
SEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible,
permanent, and photographically reproducible mark, image or impression of
the official seal beside his signature on the notarial certificate of a paper
instrument or document.cralaw
SEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of
notarial seals may not sell said product without a written authorization from
the Executive Judge.cralaw
(b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the
Executive Judge may issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer
of notarial seals after verification and investigation of the latter's qualifications.
The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee in the amount of PhP
4,000 for the vendor and PhP 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer is
also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee.cralaw
(c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the
date of its issuance and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar
period upon payment of the authorization fee mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.cralaw
(d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon
submission of a certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge. A
notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present
to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the
Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge.cralaw
(e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate
of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal.cralaw
(f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or
impression of the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial
Seal and submit the completed Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of
the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's
commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer for four (4)
years after the sale.cralaw
(g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall
present to the vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of
name issued by the Executive Judge.cralaw
RULE VIII
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATES
SECTION 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The notarial form used for any
notarial instrument or document shall conform to all the requisites prescribed
herein, the Rules of Court and all other provisions of issuances by the Supreme
Court and in applicable laws. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. The
notarial certificate shall include the following:chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
(a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission;
(b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public;
(c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public
is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of
the notary public; and
(d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the
place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.
RULE IX
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act. - A certificate of
authority evidencing the authenticity of the official seal and signature of a
notary public shall be issued by the Executive Judge upon request in
substantially the following form: chan robles virtual law library
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT
I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive Judge), certify that (name
of notary public), the person named in the seal and signature on the
attached document, is a Notary Public in and for the
(City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic of the Philippines and
authorized to act as such at the time of the document's notarization.chanrobles virtual law
library chan robles virtual law library
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my signature and seal of
this office this (date) day of (month) (year).chanrobles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library
_________________
(official signature)
(seal of Executive Judge)
RULE X
CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLIC
SECTION 1. Change of Name and Address. -
Within ten (10) days after the change of name of the notary public by court
order or by marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or
business, the notary public shall submit a signed and dated notice of such fact
to the Executive Judge.

The notary public shall not notarize until:chanroblesvirtual lawlibrary
(a) he receives from the Executive Judge a confirmation of the new name of
the notary public and/or change of regular place of work or business; and

(b) a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained.
The foregoing notwithstanding, until the aforementioned steps have been
completed, the notary public may continue to use the former name or regular
place of work or business in performing notarial acts for three (3) months from
the date of the change, which may be extended once for valid and just cause
by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding three (3) months.
SEC. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may resign his commission by personally
submitting a written, dated and signed formal notice to the Executive Judge
together with his notarial seal, notarial register and records. Effective from the
date indicated in the notice, he shall immediately cease to perform notarial
acts. In the event of his incapacity to personally appear, the submission of the
notice may be performed by his duly authorized representative.cralaw
SEC. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The Executive Judge shall immediately
order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the
Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who
have resigned their notarial commissions and the effective dates of their
resignation.cralaw
RULE XI
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive
Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied. chan robles virtual law library
(b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose
appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who:chanroblesvi rtual lawlibrary
(1) fails to keep a notarial register;
(2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning
his notarial acts;
(3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first
ten (10) days of the month following;
(4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission;
(5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge;
(6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge
concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge;
(7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act;
(8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent
evidence;
(9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV;
(10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or
mandated by these Rules; and
(11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the
Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or
imposition of administrative sanction.
(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the
notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the
answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall
conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven,
the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the
Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In
either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall
be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.
(d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings
against a notary public, subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c)
above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b).cralaw
SEC. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge
shall at all times exercise supervision over notaries public and shall closely
monitor their activities. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 3. Publication of Revocations and Administrative Sanctions. - The
Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a








conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of
Court the names of notaries public who have been administratively sanctioned
or whose notarial commissions have been revoked.cralaw
SEC. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary public dies before fulfilling the
obligations in Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule VII, the Executive
Judge, upon being notified of such death, shall forthwith cause compliance with
the provisions of these sections. chan robles virtual law library
RULE XII
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution
of any person who:chanroblesvirtuallawli brary
(a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public; chan robles virtual law
library
(b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial
register, or official records of a notary public; and
(c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to
commit official misconduct.
SEC 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The Executive Judge concerned shall
submit semestral reports to the Supreme Court on discipline and prosecution
of notaries public.
RULE XIII
REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules, including issuances of the
Supreme Court inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or accordingly
modified. chan robles virtual law library
SEC. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take effect on the first day of
August 2004, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Philippines which provides sufficiently wide circulation.
Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004. chan robles virtual law library
Davide, Jr. C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynarez-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.cralaw




THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 7350 : February 18, 2013
PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSELLER A.
VIRAY, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
The case stemmed from a Complaint
1
filed before the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) by complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against respondent
Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asingan, Pangasinan, for allegedly notarizing a
document denominated as Affidavit of Non-Tenancy
2
in violation of the Notarial
Law. The said affidavit was supposedly executed by complainant, but the latter
denies said execution and claims that the signature and the community tax
certificate (CTC) she allegedly presented are not hers. She further claims that
the CTC belongs to a certain Christian Anton.
3
Complainant added that she did
not personally appear before respondent for the notarization of the document.
She, likewise, states that respondent's client, Rolando Dollente (Dollente),
benefited from the said falsified affidavit as it contributed to the illegal transfer
of a property registered in her name to that of Dollente.
4
?r?l1
In his Comment,
5
respondent admitted having prepared and notarized the
document in question at the request of his client Dollente, who assured him
that it was personally signed by complainant and that the CTC appearing
therein is owned by her.
6
He, thus, claims good faith in notarizing the subject
document.
In a Resolution
7
dated April 16, 2007, the OBC referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision.
After the mandatory conference and hearing, the parties submitted their
respective Position Papers.
8
Complainant insists that she was deprived of her
property because of the illegal notarization of the subject
document.
9
Respondent, on the other hand, admits having notarized the
document in question and asks for apology and forgiveness from complainant
as a result of his indiscretion.
10
?r?l1
In his report, Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa (Commissioner Funa) reported
that respondent indeed notarized the subject document in the absence of the
alleged affiant having been brought only to respondent by Dollente. It turned
out later that the document was falsified and the CTC belonged to another
person and not to complainant. He further observed that respondent did not
attempt to refute the accusation against him; rather, he even apologized for the
complained act.
11
Commissioner Funa, thus, recommended that respondent be
found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, and that he be meted the penalty of six (6) months
suspension as a lawyer and six (6) months suspension as a Notary
Public.
12
?r?l1
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVIII-
2008-166 which reads:cralawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, with modification,the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
Respondents violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice, Atty. Roseller A. Viray is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for one (1) month.
13
?r?l1
Respondent moved for the reconsideration of the above decision, but the same
was denied. The above resolution was further modified in Resolution No. XX-
2012-117, dated March 10, 2012, to read as follows:cralawlibrary
RESOLVED to DENY Respondents Motion for Reconsideration, and unanimously
MODIFY as it is hereby MODIFIED Resolution No. XVIII- 2008-166 dated April
15, 2008, in addition to RespondentsSUSPENSION from the practice of law for
one (1) month, Atty. Roseller A. Viray is herebySUSPENDED as Notary Public
for six (6) months. (Emphasis in the original)
The findings of the IBP are well taken.
Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice emphasizes the
necessity of the affiants personal appearance before the notary public:
14
?r?l1
x x x
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory
to the instrument or document
(1) is not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization;
and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the
notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.
Moreover, Section 12,
15
Rule II, of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines
the "competent evidence of identity" referred to above.
In this case, respondent admits that not only did he prepare and notarize the
subject affidavit but he likewise notarized the same without the affiants
personal appearance. He explained that he did so merely upon the assurance of
his client Dollente that the document was executed by complainant. In
notarizing the document, respondent contented himself with the presentation of
a CTC despite the Rules clear requirement of presentation of competent
evidence of identity such as an identification card with photograph and
signature. With this indiscretion, respondent failed to ascertain the genuineness
of the affiants signature which turned out to be a forgery. In failing to observe
the requirements of the Rules, even the CTC presented, purportedly owned by
complainant, turned out to belong to somebody else.
To be sure, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person
who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein.
16
Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the
document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that
the document is the partys free act or deed.
17
?r?l1
As aptly observed by the Court in Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan:
18
?r?l1
The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary
public to authenticate documents without requiring the physical presence of
affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh
whatever convenience is afforded to the absent affiants. Doing away with the
essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into
account the likelihood that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants
may not be who they purport to be. 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 purpose of this requirement is to enable
the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act
and deed.
19
?r?l1
The Court has repeatedly emphasized in a number of cases
20
the important role
a notary public performs, to wit:cralawlibrary
x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one
invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public
converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by
law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a
notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties; otherwise, the publics confidence in the integrity of a
notarized document would be undermined.
21
?r?l1
Respondents failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only
damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in
undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of
notarization.
22
He should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a
notary public but also as a lawyer.
23
The responsibility to faithfully observe and
respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more
pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath
under the Code of Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any.
24
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.
25
?r?l1
As to the proper penalty, the Court finds the need to increase that
recommended by the IBP which is one month suspension as a lawyer and six
months suspension as notary public, considering that respondent himself
prepared the document, and he performed the notarial act without the personal
appearance of the affiant and without identifying her with competent evidence
of her identity. With his indiscretion, he allowed the use of a CTC by someone
who did not own it. Worse, he allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud.
Based on existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a notary
public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties of
revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned
as a notary public for a period of two years, and suspension from the practice of
law for one year.
26
?r?l1
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of
breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDShim from the practice of law
for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission, if any;


G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995
MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, v. NEW
BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS, Respondents.chanrobles vi rtual law library
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In the Resolution of 7 September 1994, we required Atty. Icasiano
M. dela Rea of No. 42 National Road corner Bruger Subdivision,
Putatan, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila, to show cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him for making it appear
in thejurat of the petition in this case that the petitioner subscribed
the verification and swore to before him, as notary public, on 19
April 1994, when in truth and in fact the petitioner did not.chanroblesvirtualawl ibrarychanrobles vi rtual law li brary
In his Explanation of 23 December 1994 which was received by this
Court on 25 January 1995, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea admitted
having executed the jurat without the presence of petitioner
Gamido. He alleges:
Firstly, I must honestly admit that I notarized it not in his presence.
I did it in the honest belief that since it is jurat and not an
acknowledgement, it would be alrights [sic] to do so considering
that prior to April 19, 1994 and thereafter, I know Mr. Gamido since
I have been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because my
office is here only across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro
Manila but because I handled a number of cases involving prisoners
and guards of NBP as well as some of its personnels [sic]. That in
fact, I attempted to have the document personally signed by him
andPROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let all the courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
IBP and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be notified of this Decision and be it
entered into respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.
but considering that I have to strictly observe rules and regulations
of the NBP, particularly on visit, I did not pursue anymore my
intention to have it notarized before me.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles vi rtual law library
Secondly, that in notarizing the document, I honestly feel and by
heart and in good faith, that as a notary public and as a practicing
lawyer, I could modestly contribute in the orderly administration of
justice. The Gamido family use to come in the office and in fact
hiring the legal services of the undersigned but I refused to handle
since I am already pre-occupied in other cases of similar
importance. That on December 13, 1994 I receive a letter from Mr.
Gamido, last paragraph of which is read as follows:
Sanay po Atty. ay maawa kayo sa akin na nagdudusa nang walang
kasalanan. Alang alang po sa kaawa awa kong familiya, kailangan
ang aking kalinga. Ang tulong ninyo ang siyang daan upang ako ay
makaalis sa pagpapahirap nang mga taong walang puso at
kaluluwa, walang awa sa kapwa, at sa sambayanang Pilipino.
Then he apologizes to the Court and assures it that henceforth he
would be more careful and circumspect:
That I am praying for an apology to the Hon. Supreme Court if what
I did was wrong and the Hon. Supreme Court is assured that
perhaps what transpired was a wrong judgment or honest mistake.
That the Hon. Chairman and its Hon. Members are assured that
when I signed the petition not in Gamido's presence it is never
intended to do a wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but
merely in the honest and sincere belief that it is valid and legal. The
Hon. Supreme Court is assured that it is never intended for malice
or for money.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law l ibrary
This Hon. Chairman and its Hon. Members are further assured that
from hereon, I am more careful and circumspect in the exercise of
this noble and grand profession and that no amount or
consideration will sway or change this conviction. This is my
life. This is the life of my family.
Atty. dela Rea's explanation is unsatisfactory; however, his
spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in mitigation
of his liability.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law li brary
As a notary public for a long time, as evidenced by the fact that his
questioned jurat is indicated to have been entered in Book 45 of his
notarial register, he should know the similarities and differences
between a jurat and an acknowledgement.chanroblesvirtualawli brarychanrobles vi rtual law library
A jurat which is, normally in this form:
Subscribed and sworn to before me in _______________, this ____
day of ____________, affiant having exhibited to me his
Community (before, Residence) Tax Certificate No. ____________
issued at ______________ on ____________.
"is that part of an affidavit in which the officer certifies that the
instrument was sworn to before him (Theobald vs. Chicago Ry. Co.,
75 Ill. App. 208). It is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences
the fact that the affidavit was properly made (Young vs. Wooden,
265 SW 24, 204 Ky. 694)." (LORENZO M. TAADA and FRANCISCO
A. RODRIGO, Modern Legal Forms, vol. I, sixth ed., 1985 printing,
31). The jurat in the petition in the case also begins with the words
"subscribed and sworn to me."chanrobles virtual law l ibrary
To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's name; to
sign at the end of a document (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth ed.,
1279). To swear means to put on oath; to declare on oath the truth
of a pleading, etc. (Id., 1298). Accordingly, in a jurat, the affiant
must sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before
a notary public or any other person authorized to administer
oaths.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
As to acknowledgment, Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 provides:
(a) The acknowledgement shall be made before a notary public or
an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where
the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the
acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the
instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free
act and deed. The certificate shall be made under his official seal, if
he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall
so state. (See Lorenzo M. Taada and Francisco A. Rodrigo, Modern
Philippine Legal Forms, vol. II, 1964 Fifth ed., 735).
It is obvious that the party acknowledging must likewise appear
before the notary public or any other person authorized to take
acknowledgments of instruments or documents.chanroblesvirtualawl ibrarychanrobles vi rtual law library
The claim or belief of Atty. dela Rea that the presence of petitioner
Gamido was not necessary for the jurat because it is not an
acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had been his belief
since he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has
been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat.
Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or
to take acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn
duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by
public policy and are impressed with public interest.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles vi rtual law li brary
His prior acquaintance and friendship with petitioner Gamido
provides no excuse for non-compliance with his duty. If Atty. dela
Rea were faithful to his duty as a notary public and if he wanted to
accommodate a friend who was inside a prison, he could have gone
to the latter's cell since he openly admitted that he has "been in and
out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because [his] office is here only
across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila but
because [he] handled a number of cases involving prisoners and
guards of NBP as well as some of its personnels [sic]."chanrobles vi rtual law library
Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty.
Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed
to prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of
petitioner Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter
personally signed the certification of the petition and took his oath
before him when in truth and in fact the said petitioner did not.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles vi rtual law library
WHEREFORE, for grave misconduct, ATTY. ICASIANO I. DELA REA is
hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00),
without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted
under the circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.chanroblesvi rtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law l ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.


EN BANC

[A.C. No. 6655 : October 11, 2011]

PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the Court is the verified affidavit-complaint
[1]
of Pacita Caalim-
Verzonilla seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua
for allegedly falsifying a public document and evading the payment of
correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.

Complainant alleges that on September 15, 2001, respondent prepared and
notarized two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Deceased
Lope Caalim with Sale. The first deed
[2]
was for a consideration of P250,000
and appears to have been executed and signed by Lope's surviving spouse,
Caridad Tabarrejos, and her children (complainant, Virginia Caalim-Inong
and Marivinia Caalim) in favor of spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga. The
second deed
[3]
was for a consideration of P1,000,000 and appears to have
been executed by and for the benefit of the same parties as the first deed.
The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers and book
numbers in the notarial portion.

Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious because all the heirs'
signatures were falsified. She contends that her sister Marivinia does not
know how to sign her name and was confined at the Cagayan Valley Medical
Center, Tuguegarao City, at the time the deeds were allegedly signed by
her, as shown by a certification
[4]
from said hospital. The certification, dated
February 6, 2004 and signed by Dr. Alice Anghad, Medical Officer IV,
attested that Marivinia has been confined at the Psychiatry Ward of the
Cagayan Valley Medical Center since May 3, 1999 after being diagnosed of
"Substance Induced Psychosis" and "Schizophrenia, Undifferentiated Type."

Complainant further alleges that the two deeds were not presented to any of
them and they came to know of their existence only recently. She further
claims that the Community Tax Certificates
[5]
(CTCs) in her name and in the
names of her mother and her sister Marivinia were procured only by the
vendee Shirley and not by them. Complainant submits the
affidavit
[6]
executed by Edwin Gawayon, Barangay Treasurer of C-8,
Claveria, Cagayan, on August 3, 2002, attesting that the CTCs were
procured at the instance of Shirley and were paid without the complainant
and her co-heirs personally appearing before him. Gawayon stated that the
signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the CTCs are not genuine and
authentic because it can be seen with the naked eyes that the signatures are
similar in all three CTCs.

Lastly, complainant alleges that the two deeds were used by respondent and
Shirley to annul a previously simulated deed of sale
[7]
dated June 20, 1979
purportedly executed by Lope in favor of the spouses Madki and Shirley
Mipanga. Said deed was likewise a complete nullity because at that time
Shirley Mipanga was only sixteen years old and still single.

In his comment,
[8]
respondent admits having prepared and notarized the two
disputed Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate with Sale (subject
deeds), but denies any irregularity in their execution. He claims that the
preparation and notarization of the subject deeds were made under the
following circumstances:

In the morning of September 15, 2001, complainant, Caridad, Virginia and
Shirley Mipanga went to his house and requested him to prepare a deed of
sale of a residential lot located in Claveria, Cagayan. He was informed by the
parties that the agreed purchase price is P1,000,000 and was presented the
certificate of title to the property. Upon finding that the registered owner is
"Lope Caalim, married to Caridad Tabarrejos" and knowing that Lope already
died sometime in the 1980s, he asked for, and was given, the names and
personal circumstances of Lope's surviving children. He asked where
Marivinia was, but Caridad told him that Marivinia remained home as she
was not feeling well. As Caridad assured him that they will fetch Marivinia
after the deed of conveyance is prepared, he proceeded to ask the parties to
present their CTCs. Caridad and Pacita, however, told him that they have
not secured their CTCs while Virginia forgot to bring hers. So he instructed
them to get CTCs from Claveria.

An hour later, Caridad and Shirley came back with the CTCs of Caridad,
Virginia, complainant and Marivinia. After he finished typing the deed and
the details of the CTCs, Caridad said that she will bring the deed with her to
Claveria for her daughters to sign. He then told them that it was necessary
for him to meet them all in one place for them to acknowledge the deed
before him as notary public. It was agreed upon that they will all meet at the
house of the Mipangas between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on that same
day.

Respondent arrived at the Mipanga residence shortly before 12:00 noon.
There he saw Shirley, Caridad, complainant, Pacita and Marivinia with two
other persons whom he later learned were the instrumental witnesses to the
execution of the document. Upon being informed that the parties have
already affixed their signatures on the deed, he examined the document
then inquired from the heirs if the signatures appearing therein were theirs
and if they were truly selling the property for P1,000,000. The heirs
answered in the affirmative, thereby ratifying and acknowledging the
instrument and its contents as their own free and voluntary act and deed.
Thus, he notarized the document and then gave the original and two carbon
copies to Shirley while leaving two in his possession.

Respondent adds that Shirley thereafter asked him what steps were needed
to effect registration of the deed and transfer of the title in her and her
husband's name. He replied that all the unpaid land taxes should be paid
including the capital gains tax, documentary stamp taxes and estate tax to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) which will then issue the necessary
clearance for registration. When asked how much taxes are payable, he
replied that it depends on the assessment of the BIR examiner which will be
based on the zonal value or selling price stated in the deed of sale. He added
that the estate taxes due, with interests and surcharges, would also have to
be paid. Since the consideration for the sale is P1,000,000, the taxes
payable was quite enormous. Shirley asked him who between the vendor
and the vendee should pay the taxes, and he replied that under the law, it is
the obligation of the vendors to pay said taxes but it still depends upon the
agreement of the parties. He asked if there was already an agreement on
the matter, but the parties replied in the negative.

Shirley then told the vendors that they should shoulder the payment of
taxes. Caridad and her co-vendors, however, refused and said that a big
portion of the P1,000,000 paid to them was already used by them to pay
and settle their other obligations. Shirley then offered to pay one-half of
whatever amount the BIR will assess, but Caridad insisted that another
document be prepared stating a reduced selling price of only P250,000 so
that they need not contribute to the payment of taxes since Shirley was
anyway already willing to pay one-half of the taxes based on the selling
price stated in the first deed. This resulted in a heated discussion between
the parties, which was, however, later resolved by an agreement to execute
a second deed. The prospect of preparing an additional deed, however,
irritated respondent as it meant additional work for him. Thus, respondent
went home.

Later, the parties visited respondent at his house and pleaded with him to
prepare the second deed with the reduced selling price. Moved by his
humane and compassionate disposition, respondent gave in to the parties'
plea.

In the presence of all the heirs, the vendees and the instrumental witnesses,
respondent prepared and notarized the second deed providing for the lower
consideration of only P250,000. He used the same document number, page
number and book number in the notarial portion as the first deed because
according to him, the second deed was intended by the parties to supplant
the first.

Respondent denies complainant's assertions that the two deeds are
simulated and falsified, averring that as stated above, all the parties
acknowledged the same before him. Likewise, he and his clients, the
spouses Madki and Shirley Mipanga, presented the subject deeds as exhibits
in Civil Case No. 2761-S also pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 12, of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.

As to the allegation that Marivinia did not appear before him as she was
allegedly under confinement at the Cagayan Valley Medical Center on
September 15, 2001, respondent cites a medical certificate
[9]
stating that
Marivinia was confined in said hospital from May 3, 1999 to August 10,
1999. He also points out that Marivinia is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case
No. 2836-S pending before the RTC, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for
the annulment of the subject deeds, and nothing in the complaint states that
she is mentally or physically incapacitated. Otherwise, her co-plaintiffs
would have asked the appointment of a guardian for her.

By Resolution
[10]
dated August 10, 2005, this Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation
[11]
dated May 3, 2007, Commissioner Jose
Roderick F. Fernando found respondent administratively liable on account of
his indispensable participation in an act designed to defraud the
government. He recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for three months and that his notarial commission, if still
existing, be revoked and that respondent be prohibited from being
commissioned as a notary public for two years.

According to Commissioner Fernando, respondent did not offer any tenable
defense to justify his actions. As a notary, it was his responsibility to ensure
that the solemnities of the act of notarization were followed. As a lawyer, it
was likewise incumbent upon him that the document he drafted and
subsequently notarized was neither unlawful nor fraudulent. Commissioner
Fernando ruled that respondent failed on both counts since he drafted a
document that reflected an untruthful consideration that served to reduce
unlawfully the tax due to the government. Then he completed the act by
likewise notarizing and thus converting the document into a public
document.

On June 26, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
Commissioner Fernando's report and recommendation but imposed a higher
penalty on respondent. Its Resolution No. XVII-2007-285 reads:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A;" and, finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
Respondent's violation of Notarial Law and for his participation to a
transaction that effectively defrauded the government, Atty. Victoriano G.
Pascua is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years
and SUSPENSION of his Notarial Commission for two (2) years
with Warning that a similar violation in the future will be dealt with
severely.
[12]


The above resolution is well taken.

By respondent's own account of the circumstances surrounding the
execution and notarization of the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis
for disciplining him as a member of the bar and as notary public.

Respondent did not deny preparing and notarizing the subject deeds. He
avers that the true consideration for the transaction is P1,000,000 as
allegedly agreed upon by the parties when they appeared before him for the
preparation of the first document as well as the notarization thereof. He then
claimed to have been "moved by his humane and compassionate disposition"
when he acceded to the parties' plea that he prepare and notarize the
second deed with a lower consideration of P250,000 in order to reduce the
corresponding tax liability. However, as noted by Commissioner Fernando,
the two deeds were used by respondent and his client as evidence in a
judicial proceeding (Civil Case No. 2671-S), which only meant that both
documents still subsist and hence contrary to respondent's contention that
the second deed reflecting a lower consideration was intended to supersede
the first deed.

As to the charge of falsification, the Court finds that the documents annexed
to the present complaint are insufficient for us to conclude that the subject
deeds were indeed falsified and absolutely simulated. We have previously
ruled that a deed of sale that allegedly states a price lower than the true
consideration is nonetheless binding between the parties and their
successors in interest.
[13]
Complainant, however, firmly maintains that she
and her co-heirs had no participation whatsoever in the execution of the
subject deeds. In any event, the issues of forgery, simulation and fraud
raised by the complainant in this proceeding apparently are still to be
resolved in the pending suit filed by the complainant and her co-heirs for
annulment of the said documents (Civil Case No. 2836-S).

With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did
not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains
and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability
for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful
purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the
actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the
Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. His act clearly
violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhich
reads:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
X x x x

Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at
defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a
mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing
such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit
upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and
purpose.

In Gonzales v. Ramos,
[14]
we elucidated on how important and sacrosanct
the notarial act is:
By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the
Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document.
Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to
authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution
and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document
the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to
be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which
should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize
such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and
delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon
its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able
to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and
appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy
and fidelity.
[15]


Moreover, while respondent's duty as a notary public is principally to
ascertain the identity of the affiant and the voluntariness of the declaration,
it is nevertheless incumbent upon him to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangement or at least refrain from being a party to its
consummation.
[16]
Rule IV, Section 4 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in
fact proscribes notaries public from performing any notarial act for
transactions similar to the herein document of sale, to wit:
SEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial
act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he
tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if:

(a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or
transaction is unlawful or immoral;

x x x x

In this case, respondent proceeded to notarize the second deed despite
knowledge of its illegal purpose. His purported desire to accommodate the
request of his client will not absolve respondent who, as a member of the
legal profession, should have stood his ground and not yielded to the
importunings of his clients. Respondent should have been more prudent and
remained steadfast in his solemn oath not to commit falsehood nor consent
to the doing of any.
[17]
As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any
act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the
public in the integrity of the legal profession.
[18]


Respondent also failed to comply with Section 2, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice when he gave the second document the same document
number, page number and book number as the first:
SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - x x x

x x x x

(e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in
his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s
of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left
between entries.

X x x x

Respondent admitted having given the second deed the same document
number, page number and book number as in the first deed, reasoning that
the second deed was intended to supplant and cancel the first deed. He
therefore knowingly violated the above rule, in furtherance of his client's
intention of concealing the actual purchase price so as to avoid paying the
taxes rightly due to the Government.

Even assuming that the second deed was really intended to reflect the true
agreement of the parties and hence superseding the first deed they had
executed, respondent remains liable under the afore-cited Section 2(e)
which requires that each instrument or document, executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before the notary public shall be given a number
corresponding to the one in his register. Said rule is not concerned with the
validity or efficacy of the document or instrument recorded but merely to
ensure the accuracy and integrity of the entries in the notarial register.

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct showing any
fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor.
[19]
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
herefore. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, of for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for
a willful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.

X x x x

In Gonzales, the notary public who notarized the document despite the non-
appearance of one of the signatories was meted the penalties of revocation
of his notarial commission and disqualification from re-appointment for two
years. The notary in Gonzales was likewise suspended from the practice of
law for one year. Said penalty was in accord with the cases of Bon v.
Ziga,
[20]
Serzo v. Flores,
[21]
Zaballero v. Montalvan
[22]
and Tabas v.
Mangibin.
[23]
The Court found that by notarizing the questioned deed, the
respondent in Gonzales engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
[24]


In the instant case, we hold that respondent should similarly be meted the
penalty of suspension and revocation of his notarial commission for having
violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. In line withcurrent
jurisprudence, and as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, the
revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from re-
appointment as notary public for two years is in order.

With respect, however, to his suspension from the practice of law, we hold
that the one-year suspension imposed in Gonzales and the other cases is not
applicable considering that respondent not only failed to faithfully comply
with the rules on notarial practice, he also violated his oath when he
prepared and notarized the second deed for the purpose of avoiding the
payment of correct amount of taxes, thus abetting an activity aimed at
defiance of the law. Under these circumstances, we find the two-year
suspension recommended by the IBP Board of Governors as proper and
commensurate to the infraction committed by respondent.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby REVOKED,
and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that any similar act or
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in the personal
records of the respondent.

Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta,
Abad, Mendoza, Sereno, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Bersamin and Perez, JJ., on official leave.
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. NO. 5377 : June 15, 2006]
VICTOR LINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB
and JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment
1
filed by Victor Lingan against
Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on November 16, 2000.
Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified
certain public documents.
The case has its roots in a complaint for annulment of title with
damages
2
filed by Isaac Villegas against complainant with the
Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case
No. 5036. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping
3
of the complaint as notary
public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book
No. CLXXII; Series of 1996. Complainant alleges that this document
was falsified because according to the records of the National
Archives, the document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book
No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib's notarial
register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.
4

The trial court decided Civil Case No. 5036 in favor of
complainant
5
and, as a result, the plaintiff there, through
respondent Calubaquib, appealed it to the Court of Appeals, where
it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55837.
On file with the records of this case is a special power of
attorney
6
dated September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas
appointing respondent Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to "enter
into a compromise agreement under such terms and conditions
acceptable to him" which was notarized by respondent Baliga and
entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of
1996.
7
Complainant alleged that this special power of attorney was
also falsified because, according to respondent Baliga's notarial
register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996
pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan,
8
dated August 26,
1996.
In addition, on January 2, 1995, respondent Baliga filed a petition
for reappointment as notary public for and in Tuguegarao, Cagayan,
which was notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his
notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No. CXXX,
Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No. CXXX was for
the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was a
cancellation of real estate mortgage dated January 11, 1996.
In his answer,
9
respondent Baliga admitted the incorrectness of the
entries and simply attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith
of his secretary to whom he had left the task of entering all his
notarial documents.
Respondent Calubaquib's comment,
10
however, contained a much
lengthier account of the alleged events leading up to this case, the
bulk of which was meant to cast complainant and his motives in a
sinister light. In a nutshell, he made it appear that the reason for
the complaint was that he (respondent) thwarted a fraudulent
attempt by complainant to grab a parcel of land. He also stated that
complainant had filed a case for falsification of documents against
him with the Ombudsman but it was dismissed.
In the end, however, he (like his co-respondent Baliga) admitted to
the mistaken entries and also ascribed the same to his "legal
assistants." Similarly, by way of defense, he pointed out that the
Notarial Law "provides that only contracts need to have their copies
included in the notarial records. It does not require affidavits,
verifications or subscriptions of petitions which are mere allegations
of facts to be entered in the Notarial Register, despite widespread
practice to the contrary."
Upon receipt of respondents' comments, we referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In the course of the proceedings before the IBP, complainant
alleged that respondent Calubaquib, with the help of respondent
Baliga and several other persons, was trying to deprive him
(complainant) of a parcel of land he had bought from Isaac Villegas'
mother-in-law. According to complainant, respondent impersonated
Villegas, who was in hiding due to several civil and criminal cases
pending against him, by forging his signature in all documents and
pleadings related to the civil case filed against him (complainant).
He pointed to the incorrect notarial entries as proof of this
falsification.
He presented in evidence a motion for withdrawal
11
filed in the
Court of Appeals, apparently by Villegas, disavowing any
involvement in the case filed by respondent Calubaquib.
To further buttress his allegations of falsification, complainant
pointed out that respondent Calubaquib seemed unable to physically
produce Villegas. For example, when the Ombudsman ordered him
to produce Villegas, respondent Calubaquib merely presented an
affidavit
12
supposedly executed by Villegas and sworn to before a
"highly regarded [Department of Justice] official."
In the IBP's report and recommendation,
13
dated December 7,
2001, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala found respondents
"liable for inexcusable negligence" and recommended the revocation
of the commission of respondents Calubaquib and Baliga as notaries
public for two years from receipt of the final decision. Commissioner
Maala's report did not touch on complainant's allegations of forgery.
When the IBP resolved
14
to adopt Commissioner Maala's report and
recommendation, both complainant
15
and respondent Baliga
16
filed
motions for reconsideration
17
with this Court. Respondent
Calubaquib opposed
18
complainant's motion for reconsideration.
In his motion for reconsideration, complainant assailed the penalty
recommended by the IBP as grossly inadequate. Reiterating his
allegation of forgery, he attached documents bearing Villegas'
allegedly forged signature as well as documents with his supposed
real signature
19
for comparison.
In his opposition/comment, respondent Calubaquib refuted
complainant's scathing accusations of fraud and abuse of his public
position, and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. In his
motion for reconsideration, respondent Baliga decried the penalty
imposed as disproportionate to the infraction he had committed.
The respondents having admitted responsibility for the notarial
entries, the question now is whether these were the product of a
mere mistake or evidence of larger scheme to defraud complainant
whose allegations, if true, are serious enough to merit the
disbarment of both respondents.
The missing link, as it were, between the admitted infractions of
respondents and the nefarious machinations alleged by complainant
is whether or not the latter was able to prove that Villegas'
signature on the documents notarized by respondents was in fact
forged.
Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive
and convincing evidence. Mere allegation thereof is not
evidence.
20
One who alleges forgery has the burden of proving the
same.
21
We find that complainant failed to discharge this burden.
Complainant alleged mainly that Villegas could not possibly have
signed the documents in question because he was a fugitive from
justice, with "several civil and criminal cases pending against him."
Assuming this allegation to be true, it proved nothing. The mere fact
that Villegas was a fugitive from justice did not preclude the
possibility that he might have secretly met with his lawyer for
purposes of filing a suit. It would have been different had
complainant presented evidence that Villegas was, at the time the
questioned documents were executed, definitely somewhere else.
But the bare argument that Villegas' being a fugitive rendered it
impossible for him to sign some documents was simply too nebulous
to inspire belief.
As additional evidence, complainant presented, as attachments to
his motion for reconsideration, a number of documents purportedly
bearing Villegas' real signature, the latest of which was the motion
to withdraw allegedly filed by Villegas himself. However, the
veracity of the last of those documents was vigorously contested by
an affidavit also purportedly filed by Villegas. The two documents,
both notarized, effectively cancelled each other out, absent some
other credible proof.
It is true that there were dissimilarities between the signatures
purportedly belonging to Villegas and his genuine signature on
the conforme of the general power of attorney
22
executed by his wife
in favor of his mother-in-law. However, the fact of forgery cannot
be presumed simply because there are dissimilarities between the
standard and the questioned signatures.
23
If complainant was so
sure the signatures were fake, he should have submitted them for
expert analysis to the National Bureau of Investigation, the
Philippine National Police or some other handwriting expert. The
records are bereft of any such analysis or even any attempt to have
the signatures examined.
Furthermore, all the documents on which the contested signature
appeared were notarized. Notarial documents carry the presumption
of regularity. To contradict them, the evidence presented must be
clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant.
24
Complainant's uncorroborated theory of an entire
conspiracy of lawyers and government officials beholden to
respondent Calubaquib did not constitute such evidence.
The forgery of Villegas' signature having remained unproven, we
can only hold respondents liable for their omissions that have
actually been proved.
In this respect, we find that the recommendations of IBP
Commissioner Maala adopted by the IBP were supported by the
evidence on record, particularly the documents themselves as well
as the respondents' own admission.
In response, on the other hand, to respondents' feeble attempts to
deflect the blame from themselves and onto their staff, we call their
attention to Sections 245, 246 and 249(b) of the Notarial Law.
25

Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law provided:
SEC. 245. Notarial Register. Every notary public shall keep a
register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall
be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a
certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person
applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore. (emphasis
supplied)
x x x
SEC. 246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall
enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the
person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument,
the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath,
or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by him for
his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the
instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as
part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief
description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a
consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar
year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to,
or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in
his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or
pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line
shall be left between entries.
x x x
In this connection, Section 249(b) stated:
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. The following
derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public shall, in the
discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be sufficient ground
for the revocation of his commission:
x x x
(b) The failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in
his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner
required by law.
x x x
From the language of the subsection, it is abundantly clear that the
notary public ispersonally accountable for all entries in his notarial
register. Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the
violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their
secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists
despite our open condemnation.
26
Respondents, especially
Calubaquib, a self-proclaimed "prominent legal practitioner," should
have known better than to give us such a simple-minded excuse.
We likewise remind respondents that notarization is not an empty,
meaningless or routinary act but one invested with substantive
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest
necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act
must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the
courts and the administrative offices in general.
27

Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further proof
of its authenticity.
28
Notaries public must therefore observe utmost
care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
29

Being not only lawyers but also public officers, respondents should
have been acutely aware of their responsibilities. Respondents' acts
did not amount to mere simple and excusable negligence. Having
failed to perform their sworn duty, respondents were squarely in
violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
30
and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefore. A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to
do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo I.
Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga are hereby found guilty of
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of their lawyer's oath. They are both
orderedSUSPENDED from the practice of law
for ONE YEAR effective immediately, with a warning that another
infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Their present commissions as notaries public, if any, are
hereby REVOKED, withDISQUALIFICATION from reappointment
as notaries public for a period of two years.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records of
Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the
Court Administrator and Office of the Bar Confidant for
dissemination to all courts nationwide.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 129416 : November 25, 2004]
ZENAIDA B. TIGNO, IMELDA B. TIGNO and ARMI B.
TIGNO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ESTAFINO AQUINO and
FLORENTINA AQUINO and the HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
The controversy in the present petition hinges on the admissibility
of a single document, a deed of sale involving interest over real
property, notarized by a person of questionable capacity. The
assailed ruling of the Court of Appeals, which overturned the
findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court, relied primarily on the
presumption of regularity attaching to notarized documents with
respect to its due execution. We conclude instead that the
document has not been duly notarized and accordingly reverse the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are as follow:
On 11 January 1980, respondent spouses Estafino and Florentina
Aquino (the Aquinos) filed a complaint for enforcement of contract
and damages against Isidro Bustria (Bustria).
1
The complaint sought
to enforce an alleged sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a one
hundred twenty thousand (120,000) square meter fishpond located
in Dasci, Pangasinan. The property was not registered either under
the Land Registration Act or under the Spanish Mortgage Law,
though registrable under Act No. 3344.
2
The conveyance was
covered by a Deed of Sale dated 2 September 1978.
Eventually, Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise
agreement, whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the
sale, and the Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to
repurchase the same property after the lapse of seven (7) years.
Upon submission, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch
VII, approved and incorporated the compromise agreement in a
Decision which it rendered on 7 September 1981.
Bustria died in October of 1986.
3
On 1 December 1989, petitioner
Zenaida B. Tigno (Tigno), in substitution of her deceased father
Isidro Bustria,
4
attempted to repurchase the property by filing a
Motion for Consignation. She deposited the amount of Two Hundred
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the trial court, now
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55 at Alaminos, Pangasinan. On
18 December 1989, the Aquinos filed an opposition, arguing that
the right to repurchase was not yet demandable and that Tigno had
failed to make a tender of payment. In an Order dated 10 October
1999, the RTC denied the Motion for Consignation.
5

In June of 1991, Tigno filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution, which
was likewise opposed by the Aquinos, and denied by the RTC. Then,
on 6 September 1991, Tigno filed an action for Revival of
Judgment,
6
seeking the revival of the decision in Civil Case No. A-
1257, so that it could be executed accordingly.
7
The Aquinos filed
an answer, wherein they alleged that Bustria had sold his right to
repurchase the property to them in a deed of sale dated 17 October
1985.
8

Among the witnesses presented by the Aquinos during trial were
Jesus De Francia (De Francia), the instrumental witness to the deed
of sale, and former Judge Franklin Cario (Judge Cario), who
notarized the same. These two witnesses testified as to the occasion
of the execution and signing of the deed of sale by Bustria.
Thereafter, in their Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, the
Aquinos offered for admission as their Exhibit No. "8," the deed of
sale (Deed of Sale)
9
purportedly executed by Bustria. The admission
of the Deed of Sale was objected to by Tigno on the ground that it
was a false and fraudulent document which had not been
acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that its existence was
suspicious, considering that it had been previously unknown, and
not even presented by the Aquinos when they opposed Tigno's
previous Motion for Consignation.
10

In an Order dated 6 April 1994, the RTC refused to admit the Deed
of Sale in evidence.
11
A Motion for Reconsideration praying for the
admission of said exhibit was denied in an Order dated 27 April
1994.
12

Then, on 18 August 1994, a Decision was rendered by the RTC in
favor of Tigno. The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the
authenticity of the Deed of Sale, characterizing the testimonies of
De Francia and Cario as conflicting.
13
The RTC likewise observed
that nowhere in the alleged deed of sale was there any statement
that it was acknowledged by Bustria;
14
that it was suspicious that
Bustria was not assisted or represented by his counsel in connection
with the preparation and execution of the deed of sale
15
or that
Aquino had raised the matter of the deed of sale in his previous
Opposition to the Motion for Consignation.
16
The RTC then stressed
that the previous Motion for Execution lodged by Tigno had to be
denied since more than five (5) years had elapsed from the date the
judgment in Civil Case No. A-1257 had become final and executory;
but the judgment could be revived by action such as the instant
complaint. Accordingly, the RTC ordered the revival of the judgment
dated 7 September 1981 in Civil Case No. A-1257.
17

The Aquinos interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
18
In the
meantime, the RTC allowed the execution pending appeal of its
Decision.
19
On 23 December 1996, the Court of Appeals Tenth
Division promulgated a Decision
20
reversing and setting aside the
RTC Decision. The appellate court ratiocinated that there were no
material or substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies of
Cario and De Francia that would taint the document with doubtful
authenticity; that the absence of the acknowledgment and
substitution instead of a jurat did not render the instrument invalid;
and that the non-assistance or representation of Bustria by counsel
did not render the document null and ineffective.
21
It was noted that
a notarized document carried in its favor the presumption of
regularity with respect to its due execution, and that there must be
clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to
contradict the same. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the
RTC erred in refusing to admit the Deed of Sale, and that the
document extinguished the right of Bustria's heirs to repurchase the
property.
After the Court of Appeals denied Tigno's Motion for
Reconsideration,
22
the present petition was filed before this Court.
Tigno imputes grave abuse of discretion and misappreciation of
facts to the Court of Appeals when it admitted the Deed of Sale. He
also argues that the appellate court should have declared the Deed
of Sale as a false, fraudulent and unreliable document not
supported by any consideration at all.
The general thrusts of the arguments posed by Tigno are factually
based. As such, they could normally lead to the dismissal of this
Petition for Review. However, while this Court is not ordinarily a
trier of facts,
23
factual review may be warranted in instances when
the findings of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court
are contrary to each other.
24
Moreover, petitioner raises a
substantial argument regarding the capacity of the notary public,
Judge Cario, to notarize the document. The Court of Appeals was
unfortunately silent on that matter, but this Court will take it up
with definitiveness.
The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S.
MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of October
1985 at Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the
same parties who executed the foregoing instrument.
FRANKLIN CARIO
Ex-Officio Notary Public
Judge, M.T.C.
Alaminos, Pangasinan
There are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, the
document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an
acknowledgment. A jurat is a distinct creature from an
acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has
executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court
and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of an
affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before
him.
25
Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act,
26
which has
been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree No.
1529,
27
the Deed of Sale should have been acknowledged before a
notary public.
28

But there is an even more substantial defect in the notarization, one
which is determinative of this petition. This pertains to the authority
of Judge Franklin Cario to notarize the Deed of Sale.
It is undisputed that Franklin Cario at the time of the notarization
of the Deed of Sale, was a sitting judge of the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Alaminos.
29
Petitioners point out, citing Tabao v.
Asis,
30
that municipal judges may not undertake the preparation
and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other
acts of conveyance which bear no relation to the performance of
their functions as judges.
31
In response, respondents claim that the
prohibition imposed on municipal court judges from notarizing
documents took effect only in December of 1989, or four years after
the Deed of Sale was notarized by Cario.
32

Respondent's contention is erroneous. Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to
perform the functions of notaries public ex officio under Section 76
of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the
Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
33
However, as far back as 1980 in Borre v.
Moya,
34
the Court explicitly declared that municipal court judges
such as Cario may notarize only documents connected with the
exercise of their official duties.
35
The Deed of Sale was not
connected with any official duties of Judge Cario, and there was no
reason for him to notarize it. Our observations as to the errant
judge in Borre are pertinent in this case, considering that Judge
Cario identified himself in the Deed of Sale as "Ex-Officio Notary
Public, Judge, MTC:"
[A notary ex officio] should not compete with private law
practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing
business.
In the instant case, it was not proper that a city judge should
notarize documents involving private transactions and sign the
document in this wise: "GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, Notary Public Ex-
Officio, City Judge" (p. 16, Rollo, Annex D of Complaint). In doing
so, he obliterated the distinction between a regular notary and a
notary ex officio.
36

There are possible grounds for leniency in connection with this
matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 permits notaries public
ex officio to perform any act within the competency of a regular
notary public provided that certification be made in the notarized
documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in
such municipality or circuit. Indeed, it is only when there are no
lawyers or notaries public that the exception applies.
37
The facts of
this case do not warrant a relaxed attitude towards Judge Cario's
improper notarial activity. There was no such certification in the
Deed of Sale. Even if one was produced, we would be hard put to
accept the veracity of its contents, considering that Alaminos,
Pangasinan, now a city,
38
was even then not an isolated backwater
town and had its fair share of practicing lawyers.
There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cario, who
ceased being a judge in 1986, for his improper notarial activity.
Perhaps though, formal sanction may no longer be appropriate
considering Judge Cario's advanced age, assuming he is still
alive.
39
However, this Decision should again serve as an affirmation
of the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents
not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to
the exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90.
Most crucially for this case, we should deem the Deed of Sale as not
having been notarized at all. The validity of a notarial certification
necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer. If the
notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a document,
but does so anyway, then the document should be treated as
unnotarized. The rule may strike as rather harsh, and perhaps may
prove to be prejudicial to parties in good faith relying on the
proferred authority of the notary public or the person pretending to
be one. Still, to admit otherwise would render merely officious the
elaborate process devised by this Court in order that a lawyer may
receive a notarial commission. Without such a rule, the notarization
of a document by a duly appointed notary public will have the same
legal effect as one accomplished by a non-lawyer engaged in
pretense.
The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect.
Notarization of a private document converts such document into a
public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof
of its authenticity.
40
Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to
the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and
the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not
qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon
the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.
41

On the other hand, what then is the effect on the Deed of Sale if it
was not notarized? True enough, from a civil law perspective, the
absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily
invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil
Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or
extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a
public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to
observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid.
Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in Article
1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the
transaction, but required merely for convenience.
42
We have even
affirmed that a sale of real property though not consigned in a
public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and
binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a
verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal effects between
the parties.
43

Still, the Court has to reckon with the implications of the lack of
valid notarization of the Deed of Sale from the perspective of the
law on evidence. After all, the case rests on the admissibility of the
Deed of Sale.
Clearly, the presumption of regularity relied upon by the Court of
Appeals no longer holds true since the Deed of Sale is not a
notarized document. Its proper probative value is governed by the
Rules of Court. Section 19, Rule 132 states:
Section 19. Classes of documents. For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last
wills and testaments; andcralawlibrary
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents
required by law to be entered therein.
All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Deed of Sale, invalidly notarized as it was, does not fall under
the enumeration of public documents; hence, it must be considered
a private document. The nullity of the alleged or attempted
notarization performed by Judge Cario is sufficient to exclude the
document in question from the class of public documents. Even
assuming that the Deed of Sale was validly notarized, it would still
be classified as a private document, since it was not properly
acknowledged, but merely subscribed and sworn to by way of jurat.
Being a private document, the Deed of Sale is now subject to the
requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132, which states:
Section 20. Proof of private document. Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting
of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which is
claimed to be.
The Deed of Sale was offered in evidence as authentic by the
Aquinos, who likewise insist that its enforceability militates against
Tigno's claim. Correspondingly, the burden falls upon the Aquinos to
prove its authenticity and due execution. The Court of Appeals
clearly erred in not appreciating the Deed of Sale as a private
document and in applying the presumption of regularity that
attaches only to duly notarized documents, as distinguished from
private documents.
Did the RTC err then in refusing to admit the Deed of Sale? We hold
that it did not. Section 20, Rule 132 provides ample discretion on
the trier of fact before it may choose to receive the private
document in evidence. The RTC wisely refused to admit the Deed of
Sale, taking great lengths as it did to explain its doubts as to its
veracity. The RTC was not convinced of the proffered proof by the
Aquinos, and the exercise of its sound discretion as the primary trier
of fact warrants due respect.
The most telling observation of the RTC relates to the fact that for
the very first time respondents alleged the existence of the Deed of
Sale when they filed their answer to petitioner's current action to
revive judgment.
44
Prior to the initiation of the present action, Tigno
had tried to operationalize and implement the Compromise
Agreement through two judicial means: consignation and execution
of judgment. The Aquinos duly opposed these prior attempts of the
petitioner to exercise the right to repurchase, but they did not raise
then the claim that such right to repurchase was already
extinguished by the Deed of Sale. Tigno attempted to exercise the
right to repurchase only a few years after the execution of the Deed
of Sale to which respondents themselves were signatories. Thus, it
is incredulous that the Aquinos did not invoke the Deed of Sale
when they opposed in court petitioner's successive attempts at
consignation and execution of judgment. The Deed of Sale, if in
existence and valid, would have already precluded Tigno's causes of
action for either consignation or execution of judgment. The only
believable conclusion, as drawn by the RTC, was that the Deed of
Sale had yet to be created when petitioner moved in 1990 for
consignation and execution of judgment an existential anomaly if we
were to agree with the respondents that such document had been
signed and notarized back in 1985.
The dubiousness in origin of the Deed of Sale is not alleviated by
the other observations of the RTC. It also pointed to certain
incredible aspects in the Aquinos' tale of events. It noted that no
receipts were ever presented by the respondents to evidence actual
payment of consideration by them to Bustria, despite the allegation
of the respondents that the amount was covered by seven (7)
receipts.
45
The Aquinos claimed that Bustria kept all the receipts, an
assertion which the RTC found as unbelievable, citing ordinary
human nature to ask for receipts for significant amounts given and
to keep the same.
46
In itself, the absence of receipts, or any proof of
consideration, would not be conclusive since consideration is always
presumed. However, given the totality of the circumstances
surrounding this case, the absence of such proof further militates
against the claims of the Aquinos.
We can appreciate in a similar vein the observation of the Court of
Appeals that Bustria did not bother to seek his lawyer's assistance
as regards the execution of the Deed of Sale, considering that the
subject property had previously been fiercely litigated. Although the
Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the document would not
be rendered null or ineffective due to the lack of assistance of
counsel, the implausibility of the scenario strikes as odd and
therefore reinforces the version found by the RTC as credible.
The Court likewise has its own observations on the record that
affirm the doubts raised by the Court of Appeals. Isidro Bustria, who
would die in 1986, was already ninety-three (93) years old when he
allegedly signed the Deed of Sale in 1985. Still, the Aquinos
asserted before the RTC that Bustria traveled unaccompanied from
his home in Dasol, Pangasinan, passing through two towns to
Alaminos, to execute the Deed of Sale. Without discrediting the
accomplishments of nonagenarians capable of great physical feats,
it should be acknowledged as a matter of general assumption that
persons of Bustria's age are typically sedentary and rarely so
foolhardy as to insist on traveling significant distances alone.
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. Bustria's signature in the 1981
Compromise Agreement is noticeably shaky which is not surprising,
considering that it was subscribed when Bustria was eighty-nine
(89) years old. However, Bustria's signature on the Deed of Sale,
which if genuine was affixed when he was already ninety-three (93)
years old, is remarkably steady in its strokes. There are also other
evident differences between Bustria's signature on the Deed of Sale
and on other documents on the record.
Admittedly, these doubts cast above arise in chief from an
appreciation of circumstantial evidence. These have to be weighed
against the findings of the Court of Appeals that the fact that
Bustria signed the Deed of Sale was established by the respective
testimonies of witnesses De Francia and Judge Cario. In its own
appreciation of these testimonies, the RTC alluded to notable
inconsistencies in their testimonies. As a final measure of analysis,
the Court shall now examine whether the appellate court was in
error in reversing the conclusion of the RTC on these testimonies.
The inconsistencies cited by the RTC were that De Francia testified
that Judge Cario himself prepared and typed the Deed of Sale in
his office, where the document was signed,
47
while Judge Cario
testified that he did not type the Deed of Sale since it was already
prepared when the parties arrived at his office for the signing.
48
On
this point, the Court of Appeals stated with utter nonchalance that a
perusal of the record revealed no material or substantial
inconsistencies between the testimonies of Judge Cario and De
Francia.
Strangely, the appellate court made no comment as to the
inconsistency pointed out by the RTC as to who prepared the Deed
of Sale. If the only point of consideration was the due execution of
the Deed of Sale, then the Court of Appeals should have properly
come out with its finding. Other variances aside, there are no
contradictions in the testimonies of Judge Cario and De Francia on
the question of whether or not Bustria signed the Deed of Sale.
However, as earlier established, the Deed of Sale is a private
document. Thus, not only the due execution of the document must
be proven but also its authenticity. This factor was not duly
considered by the Court of Appeals. The testimonies of Judge Cario
and De Francia now become material not only to establish due
execution, but also the authenticity of the Deed of Sale. And on this
point, the inconsistencies pointed out by the RTC become crucial.
The matter of authenticity of the Deed of Sale being disputed, the
identity of the progenitor of this all-important document is a
material evidentiary point. It is disconcerting that the very two
witnesses of the respondent offered to prove the Deed of Sale, flatly
contradict each other on the basis of their own personal and sensory
knowledge. Worse, the purported author of the Deed of Sale
disavowed having drafted the document, notwithstanding the
contrary testimony grounded on personal knowledge by the
documentary witness.
Establishing the identity of the person who wrote the Deed of Sale
would not ordinarily be necessary to establish the validity of the
transaction it covers. However, since it is the authenticity of the
document itself that is disputed, then the opposing testimonies on
that point by the material witnesses properly raises questions about
the due execution of the document itself. The inconsistencies in the
testimonies of Judge Cario and De Francia are irreconcilable. It is
not possible to affirm the testimony of either without denigrating
the competence and credibility of the other as a witness. If Judge
Cario was truthful in testifying that he did not write the Deed of
Sale, then doubt can be cast as to the reliability of the notarial
witness De Francia. It takes a leap of imagination, a high level of
gumption, and perverse deliberation for one to erroneously assert,
under oath and with particularities, that a person drafted a
particular document in his presence.
However, if we were to instead believe De Francia, then the
integrity of the notary public, Judge Cario, would be obviously
compromised. Assuming that Judge Cario had indeed authored the
Deed of Sale, it would indeed be odd that he would not remember
having written the document himself yet sufficiently recall notarizing
the same. If his testimony as to authorship of the document is
deemed as dubious, then there is all the reason to make a similar
assumption as to his testimony on the notarization of the Deed of
Sale.
These inconsistencies are not of consequence because there is need
to indubitably establish the author of the Deed of Sale. They are
important because they cast doubt on the credibility of those
witnesses of the Aquinos, presented as they were to attest to the
due execution and authenticity of the Deed of Sale. The Court of
Appeals was clearly in error in peremptorily disregarding this
observation of the RTC.
As a result, we are less willing than the Court of Appeals to impute
conclusive value to the testimonies of de Francia and Judge Cario.
The totality of the picture leads us to agree with the trial court that
the Deed of Sale is ineluctably dubious in origin and in execution.
The Court deems as correct the refusal of the RTC to admit the
Deed of Sale, since its due execution and authenticity have not been
proven. The evidence pointing to the non-existence of such a
transaction is so clear and convincing that it is sufficient even to
rebut the typical presumption of regularity arising from the due
execution of notarial documents. However, for the reasons stated
earlier, the Deed of Sale is ineluctably an unnotarized document.
And the lower court had more than sufficient basis to conclude that
it is a spurious document.
Since the validity of the Deed of Sale has been successfully assailed,
Tigno's right to repurchase was not extinguished at the time of the
filing of the Petition for revival of judgment, as correctly concluded
by the RTC. The Court of Appeals being in error when it concluded
otherwise, the reinstatement of the RTC Decision is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
23 December 1996 and Resolution dated 9 June 1997 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49879 is REVERSED, and the Decision
dated 18 August 1994 of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos,
Pangasinan, Branch 55, in Civil Case No. A-1918 is REINSTATED.
Costs against respondents.
SO ORDERED.