Disbarment for Notarizing Falsified Deed with Dead Donors

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a meaningless routine act. It transforms a private document into a public one, giving it full faith and credit. When a lawyer notarizes a falsified document without verifying the identities of the signatories, the consequences can be severe—including permanent disbarment.

In Lustestica v. Bernabe (A.C. No. 6258, August 24, 2010), the Court disbarred a lawyer and perpetually disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing a Deed of Donation whose purported donors were already dead at the time of execution. The case underscores the heavy responsibilities that come with a notarial commission and the high standards expected of every lawyer.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Luzviminda R. Lustestica filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe. The complaint alleged that Bernabe notarized a Deed of Donation of real property on August 5, 1994, purportedly executed by Benvenuto H. Lustestica (the complainant's father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, as donors, in favor of Cecilio R. Lustestica and Juliana Lustestica as donees.

The problem: both donors were already dead at the time of the notarization. Benvenuto died on September 7, 1987, and Cornelia died on September 24, 1984. The respondent admitted these facts in his Answer but claimed he had no knowledge that the real donors were dead. He said he exerted efforts to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. The IBP found Bernabe grossly negligent and recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of his notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment for two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

The Issue

The core issue was whether Bernabe committed falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and his duties as a notary public when he notarized the Deed of Donation despite the non-appearance of the donors, who were already deceased.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP's findings but modified the penalty, finding the recommended sanction too light. The Court noted that this was Bernabe's second offense. In a prior case (A.C. No. 6963), he had already been suspended for one year and disqualified from notarial practice for two years for notarizing a document in the absence of one of the affiants.

The Court emphasized that a notary public must observe the basic requirements of the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103) with utmost care. Under Section 1 of the law, the notary must certify that the person acknowledging the instrument is known to him and is the same person who executed it. The notary must also require the presentation of residence certificates and enter their numbers, places, and dates of issue in the certification.

In this case, the respondent's Acknowledgment in the Deed of Donation contained blank spaces where the residence certificate numbers should have been. This clearly showed he failed to perform this legal duty. The Court found that Bernabe falsely represented in his Acknowledgment that the persons who appeared before him were "known to him" to be the same persons who executed the deed, when in fact he did not know them and did not ascertain their identities.

The Court held Bernabe liable for violating the Notarial Law and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court disbarred him from the practice of law, ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and perpetually disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.

Why Disbarment Was Imposed

The Court cited several precedents where lawyers were disbarred for similar misconduct, particularly when it was a second offense. In Maligsa v. Cabanting, the Court disbarred a lawyer for failing to subscribe to the sacred duties of a notary public, considering his prior suspension. In Flores v. Chua, a lawyer was disbarred for making false representations that a vendor appeared before him when he notarized a forged deed of sale.

The Court stressed that while Bernabe did not appear to have participated in the falsification itself, his gross negligence in failing to ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him was a serious breach. His admission that he did not personally know the parties, combined with the blank spaces in the Acknowledgment, showed that he did not even require the parties to produce documents proving their identities.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a serious duty. A notary public must personally verify the identity of every person who appears before them. This is not a mere formality but a legal obligation with substantive public interest.
• Never notarize without proper identification. Require presentation of residence certificates, government-issued IDs, or other competent evidence of identity. Record the details in the acknowledgment.
• Death of a party makes notarization impossible. If a party to a document is deceased, they cannot personally appear before a notary. Notarizing such a document constitutes gross negligence and dishonest conduct.
• Repeat offenses carry severe penalties. A lawyer with a prior administrative record faces harsher sanctions. In this case, a second offense led to disbarment and perpetual disqualification from notarial practice.
• Ignorance is not a defense. Claiming lack of knowledge that the donors were dead did not excuse the respondent's failure to perform his basic duties as a notary.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.