When Notarizing Two Deeds for the Same Property Becomes a Lawyer’s Undoing

---

A notary public’s job is not merely to witness signatures. In a recent Supreme Court decision, a lawyer learned this the hard way: he notarized two deeds of sale covering the same property but showing different purchase prices—one for the real amount, another for a lower amount to reduce taxes. The Court found this to be a serious ethical breach, suspending him from the practice of law for two years and revoking his notarial commission.

The case, Mendoza v. Santiago, Jr. (A.C. No. 13548, June 14, 2023), is a stark reminder that notarization carries substantive public interest. When a notary public converts a private document into a public document, that document becomes admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. It is entitled to full faith and credit. A notary who abuses this power undermines public confidence in the entire legal system.

What Happened in This Case

The dispute began with a parcel of land in Makati City. After the original owner died, her heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement, and one heir, John Alexander Barlaan, ended up with title to the property. He later sold 147 square meters to Monette Abac Ramos.

Here is where the trouble started. Two deeds of absolute sale were executed for the same 147-square-meter property:

• The First Deed of Sale, dated November 26, 2014, stated a price of P3,130,000.00.
• The Second Deed of Sale, dated March 12, 2015, stated a price of P1,500,000.00.

Both deeds were notarized by the same lawyer, Atty. Cesar R. Santiago, Jr. The second deed—with the lower price—was the one submitted to the Register of Deeds and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The lower amount became the basis of the tax liability.

When the buyer later filed an ejectment case against relatives occupying the property, she attached her judicial affidavit stating she actually paid P3,130,000.00. The discrepancy was exposed.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether a lawyer who notarizes two deeds of sale for the same property, with different stated considerations, violates the rules on notarial practice and the lawyer’s code of conduct.

The Supreme Court answered with a clear yes.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found that Atty. Santiago notarized the two deeds precisely to minimize his client’s tax liability. This, the Court said, violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the lawyer’s ethical duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility (now superseded by the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, or CPRA).

The Court cited its earlier ruling in Lopez v. Ramos (A.C. No. 12081, November 24, 2020), which involved nearly identical facts. In that case, the Court explained that a notary who drafts and notarizes an instrument with a false consideration assists in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. The lawyer in Lopez was suspended for two years, his notarial commission was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary for two years.

The Court also cited Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua, where a lawyer prepared and notarized two deeds of extra-judicial settlement with different considerations to evade taxes. The same penalties were imposed.

Under the CPRA, violation of the notarial rules—when attended by bad faith—is considered a serious offense. The sanctions for a serious offense include suspension from the practice of law for more than six months, revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary for at least two years, or a fine. The exact section numbers of the CPRA are not reproduced in the decision text available here, but the Court applied these principles directly.

Why Notarization Is Not a Mere Formality

The Court took the opportunity to remind all notaries public that notarization is “not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.” Quoting Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos (499 Phil. 345 [2005]), the Court stressed that a notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe the basic requirements of the job with utmost care. Otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of documents would be undermined.

A notary public is expected to guard against illegal or immoral arrangements—or at the very least, refrain from being a party to their consummation. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits notaries from performing notarial acts for transactions that are illegal or immoral.

Practical Takeaways

• Never notarize two documents with different stated considerations for the same transaction. Doing so to reduce taxes is a serious ethical violation, not a mere technical lapse.
• A notary’s duty goes beyond verifying identity. The notary must also ensure the document is not part of an illegal or fraudulent scheme.
• Tax evasion through understated sale prices is not a gray area. The Court treats it as defiance of the law and a mockery of the notarial oath.
• The penalties are severe. A lawyer found guilty of this offense faces suspension from practice, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned again for two years.
• Notarization converts a private document into a public one. This gives the document evidentiary weight, and with that power comes a duty of care that cannot be waived for a client’s convenience.

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