When Can Judges Notarize Documents? The Villareal Case on Ex-Officio Notaries

The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Villareal v. Diongzon (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1520) clarifies an important limit on the powers of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges. While these judges may act as notaries public "ex officio," their authority is not unlimited. This case explains exactly when a judge may notarize documents—and what happens when a judge steps beyond those bounds.

The Facts of the Case

Reimbert Villareal owned three parcels of corn and coconut land in Leyte. Between 1984 and 1987, he mortgaged these properties to Felix Sy through three separate real estate mortgages. In October 1988, Villareal and his wife executed a "Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale" covering the same properties—essentially a sale with the right to repurchase—for ₱150,000.

The notary public for this deed was Judge Alejandro Diongzon, then presiding judge of the 11th Municipal Circuit Trial Court at Villaba-Tabango, Leyte. He notarized the document in his capacity as notary public ex officio.

Years later, in 1995, Villareal gathered coconuts from the land. Rosita Sy, who had signed for Felix Sy in the transaction, filed qualified theft charges against him. Villareal then filed an administrative complaint against Judge Diongzon, alleging dishonesty and unauthorized notarization.

The Issue

The Supreme Court examined two charges: (1) whether Judge Diongzon misled Villareal about the difference between a mortgage and a pacto de retro sale, and (2) whether the judge's notarization of the deed was unauthorized.

The Ruling

The Court dismissed the dishonesty charge. Evidence showed Villareal himself, along with Rosita Sy, approached the judge's office to have a deed of pacto de retro sale prepared and supplied the terms and conditions. The Court found it improbable that Villareal—a college graduate who had executed three prior mortgages—did not understand the document he signed.

However, the Court found Judge Diongzon liable for unauthorized notarization.

The Limits of Ex-Officio Notary Powers

Under Circular No. I-90, MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio only for documents connected with their official functions. They may not prepare or acknowledge private documents like deeds of sale, contracts, or conveyances that bear no direct relation to their judicial duties.

The rule provides one exception: judges assigned to municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public may perform any act within a regular notary's competency, provided that (1) notarial fees go to the government, and (2) the notarized document contains a certification attesting to the lack of lawyers or notaries in that area.

In this case, there was no showing of a scarcity of lawyers or notaries in Villaba-Tabango, and no certification was made. The deed of pacto de retro sale was a private document, so the judge acted beyond his authority.

The Court also noted that Judge Diongzon notarized a document where the vendee, Felix Sy, did not personally appear. Rosita Sy signed on his behalf without a special power of attorney. Parties must personally appear before a notary public to verify their identity.

The Penalty

Despite the violation, the Court considered mitigating circumstances: Judge Diongzon had served as a judge for nearly 32 years without any prior administrative complaint, and he acted in good faith based on his understanding of the old Judiciary Act. Upon learning of Circular No. I-90, he immediately surrendered his notarial books.

The Court fined him ₱1,000 with a warning that similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges are not regular notaries. An MTC or MCTC judge's ex-officio notary power covers only documents related to official court functions—not private transactions like deeds of sale.
• The exception is narrow. A judge may notarize private documents only where no lawyers or notaries exist in the area, and even then, the document must state this fact.
• Personal appearance matters. A notary must require the parties to personally appear and confirm their identity. Signing on behalf of another requires proper authorization.
• Good faith helps but does not excuse. A judge's honest mistake may reduce the penalty, but it does not erase liability for unlawful notarization.
• For property owners. Before having a judge notarize a private deed, verify that the judge has authority to do so. An improperly notarized document can create complications in proving ownership and enforcing rights.

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