RE JOHN MARK TAMANO A.C No. 12274, October 7.

2020

VS

UNITED CADIZ SUGARCANE PLANTER ASSOCIATION, INC

DOCTRINE:

Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity and due execution.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The case stemmed from a verified Complaint for the permanent revocation of Atty. John
Mark notarial commission filed by United Cadiz Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc.
Corporate Secretary Luis Alfonso R. Benedicto (Benedicto) before the Office of the
Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, and docketed as Adm. Case No. NP-
008-17.
2. Atty Tamano defense: he averred that Benedicto admitted in the pleadings he filed in the
related falsification and perjury cases that he signed the 2014 GIS. He claimed that he
found out about the unrecorded notarized UCSPAI's GIS when he received a copy of the
complaint filed against him in Adm. Case No. NP-008-17.
3. Executive Judge found that Atty. Tamaño failed to record in his notarial register the
notarized GIS of UCSPAI for the years 2010 to 2014, in violation of Section 2(a), Rule VI
of 2004.

ISSUE: whether Atty. Tamano should be suspended from the practice of law and disqualified from
being commissioned as a notary public for his failure to record notarized documents in his notarial
register?

RULING:
The Court upheld the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant and modified the penalty
imposed on Atty. Tamano. Atty. Tamano was found guilty of violating the Notarial Rules and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court emphasized the importance of recording notarized documents in the notarial register
and the duty of notaries public to observe the rules on notarial practice. Atty. Tamano's failure to
record the GIS in his notarial register was deemed inexcusable and constituted gross negligence.
The Court also noted that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and the failure
to comply with the rules on notarial practice undermines the integrity of notarial deeds.
VDA. DE ROSALES A.C. No.5645 July 2, 2002

VS

ATTY. MARIO G. RAMOS

DOCTRINE:
The notary public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon him because of his solemn
oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Manuel A. Bernardo, brother of complainant Rosalinda Bernardo Vda. de Rosales,
borrowed from Rosalinda the Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 194464 covering
Lot No. 1-B-4-H in her name.
2. Rosalinda executed an Affidavit of Loss of her title and presented the affidavit to the
Register of Deeds of Manila. the Register of Deeds informed Rosalinda that her title to the
property was already transferred to Manuel by a Deed of Absolute Sale she purportedly
executed in favor of Manuel.The document was notarized by respondent Atty. Mario G.
Ramos on 1 October 1990.
3. Rosalinda filed with the NBI a complaint for falsification of public documents against her
brother Manuel. The NBI invited respondent Atty. Ramos for questioning. The NBI
Questioned Documents Division also compared Rosalinda's signature with samples of her
genuine signature and found that the signature in the purported Deed of Absolute Sale.
4. The NBI also transmitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline photocopies of the NBI investigation report and its annexes.

ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of a violation of Notarial Law for notarizing documents without
the consent of all the parties therein?

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Ramons shall be held liable for his violations of the Notarial Law. When a notary public
certifies the due execution and delivery of the 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 that should surround the
execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further
proof of their execution and delivery.
LORETA AGUSTIN CHONG G.R No. 148280 July 10, 2007

VS

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PEDRO and ROSITA DE

GUZMAN and FORTUNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

DOCTRINE: Notarization vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is
impugned by strong, complete, and conclusive proof.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Petitioner Loreta Agustin Chong filed a Complaint for annulment of contracts and recovery
of possession against respondent-spouses Pedro and Rosita de Guzman, and Fortune
Development Corporation before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
2. She alleged that by a special power of attorney she executed in favor of Augusto, the latter
sold the subject lot to respondent-spouses under the Transfer of Rights and Assumption of
Obligation dated January 30, 1984 allegedly for ₱80,884.95 which petitioner or Augusto
never received, thus, said sale is null and void for lack of consideration and that despite
repeated demands, respondent-spouses refused to turn over the possession of the subject
lot to petitioner.
3. Respondent-spouses moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action
but it was denied by the trial court. On December 11, 1989, respondent-spouses filed their
Answer to the Complaint while respondent corporation failed to file its answer within the
reglementary period hence, it was declared in default.

ISSUE: WHETHER SPA IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE LATTER THE RIGHT TO

TRANSACT SALE

RULING:

The clear and unmistakable tenor of the Special Power of Attorney reveals that the petitioner
specifically authorized Augusto to sell the subject lot and to settle her obligations to third persons.
The Special Power of Attorney is a duly notarized document and, as such, is entitled, by law, to
full faith and credit upon its face. Notarization vests upon the document the presumption of
regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete, and conclusive proof. Rather than challenging
its validity, the petitioner admitted in open court that she signed the Special Power of Attorney
with a full appreciation of its contents and without reservation.
HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO G.R. No. L-46892 November 30. 1981

VS

AURORA O. SANTOS ET AL;

DOCTRINE: the lack of any title at the time of the execution of the deed of maybe valid as there
can be a sale of an expected.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Amparo del Rosario filed a complaint against the spouses Andres F. Santos and Aurora O.
Santos, for specific performance and damages allegedly for failure of the latter to execute
the Deed of Confirmation of Sale.
2. Amparo del Rosario died she is now substituted by the heirs named in her will still
undergoing probate proceedings. Andres F. Santos also died, on Sept. 5, 1980, and he is
substituted by the following heirs. Plaintiff fulfillment of the conditions for the execution
of the Deed of Confirmation of Sale, the release of the title of the lot and the approval of
the subdivision plan of said lot by the Land Registration Commission.
3. defendants pleaded, inter alia, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction of the court a quo over
the subject of the action and lack of cause of action allegedly because there was no
allegation as to the date of the approval of the subdivision plan, no specific statement that
the titles. The court concluded that there are no serious factual issues involved so the
motion for summary judgment may be properly granted. and rendered judgment in favor
of plaintiff.
4. The court concluded that there are no serious factual issues involved so the motion for
summary judgment may be properly granted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the
defendant's filed all appeal to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: The lower court erred in declaring that the appellants are co-owners of the lone registered
owner Teofilo Custodia?
RULING: No. The Court ruled that the appellants are owners of one-half (1/2) interest of Lot By
the terms of the Deed of Sale itself, which the Court found genuine and not infirmed, appellants
declared themselves to be owners of one-half (1/2) interest thereof. But in order to avoid appellee's
claim, they now contend that Plan Psu-206650 where said Lot I appears is in the exclusive name
of Teofilo Custodio as the sole and exclusive owner thereof and that the deed of assignment of
one-half (1/2) interest thereof executed by said Teofilo Custodio in their favor is strictly personal
between them.
FLORDELIZA E. COQUIA A.C. No. 9364. February 08, 2017

VS

ATTY. EMMANUEL E. LAFORTEZA

DOCTRINE: 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.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Coquia alleged while in office as clerk of court, Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente
Solis to falsify two documents, to wit: (1) an Agreement between Clemente Solis and
Flordeliza Coquia, and (2) a Payment agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia, and
subsequently notarized the said documents.
2. Coquia asserted that under the law, Atty. Laforteza is not authorized to administer oath on
documents not related to his functions and duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68,
Lingayen, Pangasinan. Thus, the instant complaint for disbarment for conduct unbecoming
of a lawyer.
3. Atty. Laforteza submitted his comment where he denied the allegations in the complaint.
Atty. Laforteza recalled that on January 7, 2009, while attending to his work, fellow court
employee, Luzviminda Solis, wife of Clemente, came to him. He claimed that Luzviminda
introduced said persons to him as the same parties to the subject documents.
4. The IBP-Board of Governors resolved to reversed and set aside the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead reprimanded and cautioned Atty. Laforteza
is to be careful in performing his duties as a subscribing officer.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Laforteza has violated the Notarial Law?

RULING: YES, In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Laforteza failed to comply with the rules
of notarial law. He admitted that he notarized a pre-signed subject document presented to him. He
also admitted his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who purportedly signed the
subject documents and who, as he claimed, appeared before him on January 7, 2009 as he merely
relied upon the assurance of Luzviminda that her companions are the actual signatories to the said
documents. In ascertaining the identities of the parties, Atty. Laforteza contented himself after
propounding several questions only despite the Rules' clear requirement of presentation of
competent evidence of identity such as an identification card with photograph and signature.
ARNEL S. CRUZ A.M. NO. P-02-1644. November 11, 2004

VS

ATTY. LUNINGNING Y. CENTRON

DOCTRINE: Clerks of Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or
administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Atty. Centron alleges a certain Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating
the sale of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2186, in the
name of one Joaquina Jabat. Respondent's assistance consisted in preparing and notarizing
the documents of sale.
2. Respondent took advantage of her being a lawyer to solicit the trust and confidence of the
buyers of the subject parcel of land. Respondent is involved in the disappearance of OCT
No. 2186, and she refuses to surrender the title which is in the possession of one of her
relatives.
3. Complainant prays that respondent be disbarred and removed from office. In compliance
with an Indorsement of the OCA, the respondent filed her comment denying involvement
in the preparation of the documents she was requested by the parties to notarize the same
because they cannot afford the notarial fee being charged by the notary public they earlier
approached.
4. The OCA submitted a report finding the complaint to be without basis. However, the OCA
observed that respondent violated the provisions of Section 242 of the Revised
Administrative Code as well as Section G, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court
when she notarized a deed of conveyance.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Centron should be held liable.

RULING: RULING: Yes. Section 41 as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733 and Section
242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M and N Chapter VIII of the
Manual for Clerks of Court. Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex officio,
and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the
exercise of their official functions. In the present case, it is not within Atty. Centron competence,
as it is not part of her official function and duty, to notarize the subject deed of sale. Respondent
is guilty of abuse of authority.
ZENAIDA B. TIGNO, IMELDA B. TIGNO and ARMI B. TIGNO G.R. No. 129416

VS

SPOUSES ESTAFINO AQUINO and FLORENTINA AQUINO

DOCTRINE: 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 proffered authority
of the notary public or the person pretending to be one.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Respondent spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of
contract and damages against Isidro Bustria. The complaint sought to enforce an alleged
sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a one hundred twenty thousand square meter fishpond
located in Dasci, Pangasinan.
2. 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 however, Bustria died, petitioner Zenaida B. Tigno in
substitution of her deceased father attempted to repurchase the property by filing a Motion
for Consignation.
3. Tigno filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution, which was likewise opposed by the Aquinos,
and denied by the RTC. Then, 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.
4. Meanwhile, Spouses Aquino alleged that the right to repurchase was already sold to them
by mr. Bustria. They presented former Judge Carino who notarized the same. Zenaida
Tigno objected to the admission of the deed of sale saying that it was not acknowledged by
Bustria, her father, and that it was previously unknown and was not even presented during
the Spouses Aquinos opposition to her consignation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Former Judge Carino has the capacity to notarize the document in this
present case

RULING: There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cariño, who ceased being a judge
in 1986, for his improper notarial activity. 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.
GERONIMO C. FUENTES A.M. No. MTJ-99-1204. July 28, 2008

VS

JUDGE ROMUALDO G. BUNO

DOCTRINE: MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the notarization of
documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties
FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Geronimo Fuentes alleged that he is one of the nine (9) heirs of Bernardo Fuentes, their
father, who owned an agricultural land located at San Jose, Talibon, Bohol, and that
respondent judge prepared and notarized an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous
Absolute Deed of Sale" of the said agricultural land, executed by complainant’s mother
Eulalia Credo Vda. de Fuentes.
2. aforementioned agricultural land was sold, transferred/conveyed by the heirs/vendors to
the vendee despite the fact that in his Special Power of Attorney (SPA), he merely
appointed his brother, Alejandro Fuentes to mortgage said agricultural land but not to
partition, much more to sell the same. respondent judge notarized said document as ex-
officio Notary Public, thereby abusing his discretion and authority as well as committing
graft and corruption.
3. In compliance thereto respondent judge submitted his answer, which prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint. He admitted that on December 24, 1996, while he was the
Presiding Judge of the MCTC, Talibon-Getafe, stationed at Talibon, Bohol, he notarized
an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Property with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale,
described as Document No. 1158, Series of 1996.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge truly acted in good faith when he prepared and
acknowledged the subject document.

RULING: Yes, contrary to Rule IV, Sec. 6(a) of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, the
respondent notarized the said document without the SPA of the attorney-in-fact of the vendors
which gave rise to the legal problem between the vendors and the vendee concerning the scope of
authority of the aforesaid attorney-in-fact. By failing to comply with the conditions set for SC
Circular No. 1-90 and violating the provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, the
respondent judge failed to conduct himself in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion. Any
hint of impropriety must be avoided at all cost. Judges are enjoined by the Code of Judicial Conduct
to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial
duties.
ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ A.C. No. 6294. November 17, 2004

VS

ATTY. ALEJANDRO P. ZABALA

DOCTRINE: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with

substantive public interest. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts
a private document into a public document.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The complainant alleged that the respondent notarized with unknown witnesses, a fake
deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in gross violation of his oath as a
Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon City. He was retained by a certain Demetrio C.
Marero, to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the Issuance of a Second
Duplicate Original of the Owner's copy of Original Certificate of Title.
2. On May 20, 1997, the complainant purchased the said property from Marero and had the
title transferred to him and his wife. OCT No. 4153 was then cancelled and replaced by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 330000 complainant requested a certain Mrs.
Adoracion Losloso and Mr. Nestor Aguirre to register the title in the former's name.
However, they were unable to do so because the property was already registered in the
name of Antipolo Properties, Inc.
3. respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land covered by OCT No. 4153,
executed by Cirila Tapales and Pedro Sumulong in favor of the complainant and his wife.
Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title of the land, subject of the Deed
of Sale which was notarized by respondent, with damages against the complainant and his
wife.
4. Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he did not have to go beyond the
documents presented to him for notarization. As long as these requirements are met, the
documents may be notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized the Deed of Sale,
he had no way of knowing whether the persons who appeared before him were the real
owners of the land or were merely poseurs.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Zabala has neglected was negligent in his conduct of notary public
RULING: YES, 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 the truth of what are stated therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated
because what are stated therein are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn
to. Otherwise, their representative's names should appear in the said documents as the ones who
executed the same. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal
or immoral arrangements.
MANUEL L. LEE A.C. No. 5281. February 12, 2008

VS

ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO

DOCTRINE: The formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree
of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. A notary public, especially
a lawyer, is bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. The complainant averred that his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the
contested will. Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano
Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution. Complainant also
questioned the absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses
Noynay and Grajo.
2. He alleged that their signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from their
respective voters’ affidavits. further asserted that no copy of such purported will was on
file in the archives division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)
3. The respondent in his comment claimed that the complaint against him contained false
allegations: (1) that complainant was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the
will in question was fake and spurious.the last will was validly executed and actually
notarized by the respondent per affidavit of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente
Lee, Sr.
4. The investigating commissioner found the respondent guilty of a violation of pertinent
provisions of the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised Administrative Code. Thus, the
investigating commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the
suspension of the respondent for a period of three months.

ISSUE: Is Atty. Tambago has violated Notarial Law?

RULING: Yes, notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is required by law to be subscribed
at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed to by
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will in
question was attested by only two witnesses. In this circumstance alone, the will must be
considered void. This aligns with the rule that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory
or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME AC No. 10783, October 14, 2015

VS

ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO

DOCTRINE: the act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public
must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the
notarial system.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Bartolome alleged that Basilio, a notary public in Tarlac City, notarized a document entitled
"Joint Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and Aggregate Landholdings purportedly subscribed and
sworn to before him by Loreto M. Tañedo and Ramon T. Lim and supposedly recorded as
Doc. No. 375, Page No. 75, Book No. X, Series of 2007 in his notarial register even though
Tañedo had already passed away.
2. In his Answer/Comment Basilio admitted having notarized the Joint Affidavit but claimed
that, prior to the notarization, he verified the identities of the persons who appeared before
him through their respective Social Security System (SSS) identification cards and driver's
licenses
3. During the clarificatory hearing, Basilio, who undisputedly notarized the Joint Affidavit,
admitted his failure to: (a) record the subject document in his notarial book; (b) submit a
copy of the same to the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (RTC); and (c) have the
notarization revoked or recalled.

ISSUE: whether the IBP correctly found Basilio liable for violation of the Notarial Rules.

RULING: YES, the act of notarization is impressed with public interest. As such, a notary public
must observe the highest degree of care in complying with the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties in order to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity of the
notarial system. In the present case, Basilio, as duly found by the IBP, failed to faithfully comply
with his duties as a notary public. Basilio affixed his official signature and seal on the notarial
certificate of the Joint Affidavit without properly identifying the person/s who signed the same.
His claim that he verified the identities of the affiants through their respective SSS identification
cards and driver's licenses cannot be given any credence considering the ostensible lack of their
details on the face of the certificate.
DOLORES L. DELA CRUZ ET AL A.C. No. 7781. September 12, 2008

VS

ATTY. JOSE R. DIMAANO, JR

DOCTRINE: Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a
document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally
appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. In their complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr., They
alleged that the respondent notarized a document denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement
of the Estate with Waiver of Rights purportedly executed by them and their sister, Zenaida
V.L. Navarro.
2. According to the complainants, the respondent had made untruthful statements in the
acknowledgment portion of the notarized document when he made it appear, among other
things, that complainants "personally came and appeared before him" and that they affixed
their signatures on the document in his presence.
3. In his answer, the respondent admitted having a hand in the preparation of the document in
question but admitted having indeed notarized it. He explained that he notarized the
document in good faith relying on the representation and assurance of Zenaida Navarro.
4. The Commission concluded that with the respondent’s admission of having notarized the
document in question against the factual backdrop as thus established, a clear case of
falsification and violation of the Notarial Law had been committed when he stated in the
Acknowledgment that: Before me, on this 16th day of July 16, 2004 at Manila, personally
came and appeared the above-named persons with their respective Community Tax
Certificates as follows: who are known to me to be the same persons who executed the
foregoing instrument and they acknowledge to me that the same is their own free act and
deed.

ISSUE: Should Atty Dimaano be disbarred on grounds of violation of the Notarial Law?

RULING: NO, KAWAWA NAMAN KASE, malupitan review sa bar, tas ito lang aabotin mo, of
course No. Atty Dimaano’s notarial commission if still existing is revoked and is disqualified from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of 2 years, as well as suspended from the
practice of law for a period of 1 year and warned that repetition of the same negligent act shall be
dealt with more severely. Notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial
seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and
personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein.
LIBRADA A. LADRERA A.C. No. 10315, January 22, 2020

VS

ATTY. RAMIRO S. OSORIO

DOCTRINE: It is a basic requirement in notarizing a document that the principal must be present
before the notary public to personally attest to its voluntariness and due execution. This
requirement gives effect to the act of acknowledgment

1. complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Ramiro Osorio notarized the following
documents: (1) Deed of Absaloute Sale (2) Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note
(3) Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights In all three (3)
documents, her name and that of her daughter Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar were indicated as
buyers of a property purportedly owned by respondent's client Dalia. however, neither she
nor her daughter executed these documents.
2. his comments, Atty. Osorio counters that complainant was the direct beneficiary of the
questioned documents as she even used them as evidence in the ejectment case Rousan
filed against her and her daughter. She even refused to return the property to his client
despite demand. Contrary to complainant's claim that she personally appeared before him
for the purpose of subscribing the documents.
3. Commissioner Gomos found that respondent failed to observe due care as notary public
when he notarized the documents despite the following deficiency lack of the required
notarial acknowledgment on the deeds of conveyance, attachment of a mere jurat thereto
is improper.
ISSUE: Whether in discharging the duties and functions of a duly commissioned notary public,
Atty. Osorio violated the Rules on Notarial Practice?

RULING: YES, it is a basic requirement in notarizing a document that the principal must be
present before the notary public to personally attest to its voluntariness and due execution. This
requirement gives effect to the act of acknowledgment as defined under Section 1, Rule II of the
Notarial Rules Acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or
document; 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. Here, the complainant asserts
that Atty. Osorio notarized the documents although neither she nor her daughter Kumar personally
appeared before him to subscribe the same in April 2009. As proof, the complainant submitted a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) stating that Kumar left the
Philippines on November 3, 2006, hence, could not have possibly personally appeared before Atty.
Osorio when the documents were supposedly notarized in April 2009.
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014

VS

ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE

DOCTRINE: While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident of notarizing documents in a

place outside of or beyond the authority granted by its notarial commission, partakes of malpractice
of law and falsification.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent, previously of the Public

Attorney’s Office for malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been registered as a
notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of the document
entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva.
2. respondent to file his Commentwhich he eventually submitted after proper service. In said
pleading, the respondent admitted that he indeed notarized the acknowledgment of the
subject document but denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at that time.
3. In response, the complainant filed a Reply asserting that he has the legitimate right to file
the administrative complaint against respondent for his unlawful act of notarization, which
is not an act of harassment as respondent claims.

ISSUE: whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for practicing notary
public outside his prescribed Jurisdiction

RULING: Yes, As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, the respondent, who
himself admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the City of Pasig and the
Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999, could not
notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment in the City of Marikina, as said notarial act is
beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of
a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice: 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 court
is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules
of Court. While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission,
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
ORLANDO S. CASTELO ET AL A.C. No. 11165, February 06,
2017

VS.

ATTY. RONALD SEGUNDINO C. CHING

DOCTRINE:
FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Complainants Orlando S. Castelo Et al received summons from the Metropolitan Trial

Court, Branch 22, Manila (MeTC) for an ejectment case filed against them by Leonida
Delen and Spouses Nestor Delen and Julibel Delen who alleged that they were the owners
of the house and lot. The subject property was then the residence of the Castelo heirs, and
was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Manila
in the name of the Delens.
2. the Castelo heirs discovered that the previous title covering the subject property, TCT No.
240995, which was in the name of the Castelo heirs' parents, Spouses Benjamin Castelo
and Perzidia S. Castelohad been cancelled by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. The Deed
was purportedly executed by the Spouses Castelo and the Delens, and was notarized by
Respondent Atty. Ronald Segundino C. despite the fact that Perzidia S. Castelo died on
May 4, 2009.
3. With this discovery, the Castelo heirs filed on June 2, 2014 with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) this administrative case against Atty. Ching based on the latter's gross
negligence in notarizing the Deed. Atty. Ching, for his part, denied having notarized the
Deed. He countered that he did not know the Spouses Castelo and the Delens, and that the
Deed presented by the Castelo heirs had been falsified. Atty. Ching continued that his
purported signature in the Deed was forged.
4. After due proceedings, Commissioner rendered a Report and Recommendation on
December 3, 2014, finding that Atty. Ching was grossly negligent in notarizing the Deed.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ching is guilty of gross negligent in notarizing the Deed.

RULING: Yes, The Supreme Court affirmed Commissioner Robles’ observation. Giving Atty.
Ching the benefit of the doubt, the court cannot skip to notice the fact that Atty. Ching still failed
in insuring the necessary requirements as regards those which were supposed to be entered in the
notarial books. This also meant that Atty. Ching failed to secure properly his instruments, so that
persons would not have opportunity to forge notarizing documents with his signature affixed
therein. With there facts taken into considerations, the SC found Atty. Ching guilty of gross
negligence in notarizing Deed.
FELIPE B. ALMAZAN, SR A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014

VS

ATTY. MARCELO B. SUERTE-FELIPE

DOCTRINE: While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident of notarizing documents in a
place outside of or beyond the authority granted by its notarial commission, partakes of malpractice
of law and falsification.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent, previously of the Public

Attorney’s Office for malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a
notary public and/or lawyer, alleging that the latter, despite not having been registered as a
notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of the document
entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva.
2. respondent to file his Commentwhich he eventually submitted after proper service. In said
pleading, the respondent admitted that he indeed notarized the acknowledgment of the
subject document but denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at that time.
3. In response, the complainant filed a Reply asserting that he has the legitimate right to file
the administrative complaint against respondent for his unlawful act of notarization, which
is not an act of harassment as respondent claims.
ISSUE: whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for practicing notary
public outside his prescribed Jurisdiction
RULING: Yes, As the Investigating Commissioner correctly observed, the respondent, who
himself admitted that he was commissioned as notary public only in the City of Pasig and the
Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998-1999, could not
notarize the subject document’s acknowledgment in the City of Marikina, as said notarial act is
beyond the jurisdiction of the commissioning court, the RTC of Pasig. The territorial limitation of
a notary public’s jurisdiction is crystal clear from Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice: 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 court
is made, unless either revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules
of Court. While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent’s act of notarizing
documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission,
partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO G.R. No. 225696 April 8, 2019

VS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

DOCRTINE: Notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for
this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary formalities
in the performance of their duties

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. accused, ATTY. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO taking advantage of his being a notary

public for Laoag City and Ilocos Norte, together with TERESITA C. SALIGANAN,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
executed by Severino C. Cabrales in favor of the accused TERESITA C. SALIGANAN.
2. Upon learning of the probate proceedings, Fernando Cabrales a son of Severino, secured a
copy of the purported Last Will and Testament. He claimed that the signature in the
document was not Severino's. The document was notarized by Atty. Constantino and
registered in Book No. 31, Page No. 71 of Atty. Constantino's Notarial Register, series of
2001. The witnesses who signed it were Rosalinda Cu (Cu), Dr. Justino Balintona and his
wife Mary Balintona and Dr. Eliezer John Asuncion.
3. In his defense, Atty. Constantino alleged that Severino had been of sound mind and could
walk with a cane when he started visiting Atty. Constantino to prepare his Last Will and
Testament. Atty. Constantino had advised him to bring a listing of his assets and properties,
with which Severino complied.
4. the trial court found Atty. Constantino liable for making it appear that Dr. Asuncion
appeared before him and witnessed the execution of the Last Will and Testament. It ruled
that Atty. Constantino should have been aware of the legal consequences to leaving Dr.
Asuncion's name on the document despite his absence.

ISSUE: whether or not there is reasonable doubt that petitioner Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino was
guilty of falsifying a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING: Yes, Notaries public are cautioned to take due care in notarizing documents to ensure
the public's confidence in notarized documents. notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply
with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise the confidence of the
public in the integrity of this form of conveyancing would be undermined . Under the Rules on
Evidence, notarized documents are clothed with the presumption of regularity/