Notarizing Without the Parties: Administrative Liability for Falsified Acknowledgment

---

A notary public's signature and seal carry immense weight in Philippine law. Notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. But this power comes with a strict duty: the notary must personally verify that the persons signing the document are the very same individuals who appear before them. When a lawyer fails this duty, the Supreme Court does not hesitate to impose administrative sanctions.

In Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio (A.C. No. 6139, November 11, 2003), the Court disciplined a notary public who acknowledged a deed of sale without the parties actually appearing before her. The case underscores that notarization is never an empty routine—it is a sacred function impressed with public interest.

The Facts of the Case

Dominador Cabanilla sold his right over a 34-square-meter portion of his house to Rodolfo Sabangan for P20,000.00. When Rodolfo brought the already-signed Deed of Sale dated February 22, 1988, Dominador noticed that the document appeared to convey not only the portion of the house but also the lot on which it stood. He wrote notations on the deed requesting changes, but the document was never revised.

The deed was then notarized by respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio. The acknowledgment portion listed not only Dominador but also several of his children as "vendors," even though they were not parties to the deed on its first page. Dominador later claimed that neither he nor his children ever appeared before the notary public.

Years later, Dominador filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against the respondent, alleging that the signatures on the deed were forgeries and that the notary falsely stated the parties appeared before her.

The Sole Issue

The only issue before the Court was whether the respondent notarized the deed of sale without Dominador and his children appearing before her. The Court found that she did.

The Ruling: Notarization Requires Personal Appearance

The Court affirmed the IBP's recommendation and imposed disciplinary sanctions. Under the notarial law cited in the decision, a notary public must certify that the person acknowledging a document is known to him and is the same person who executed it. To "acknowledge before" a notary means to avow or own as genuine, and "before" means in front of or ahead of the notary. A party acknowledging must personally appear. The Court also noted that the notarial law requires the parties to present their residence certificates, and the notary must enter the number, place of issue, and date of each certificate as part of the certification.

The Court cited three glaring defects that should have stopped any conscientious notary:

First, the deed contained patent defects on its face. Dominador had encircled words and wrote "Please change" on the margin, indicating that the document did not reflect the true agreement. A meticulous notary should have refrained from notarizing the deed and advised the parties to revise it.

Second, the only vendor appearing on page 1 of the deed was Dominador. The names of his children did not appear there. Yet the acknowledgment on page 2 certified that they were also vendors. There was no deed or instrument for them to acknowledge.

Third, the respondent failed to require the parties to show their residence certificates to verify their identities. The acknowledgment showed incomplete entries—some spaces contained names or illegible signatures instead of residence certificate numbers. This violated the requirement that the notary enter the number, place of issue, and date of each residence certificate.

The Consequences

The Court rejected the respondent's defenses. She could not seek refuge in the complainant's delay in filing the complaint or in his alleged ill motive. The Court's disciplinary authority cannot be defeated by delay or by the complainant's motivations.

The Court found that the respondent violated Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and Rule 1.01, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By acknowledging that the parties personally appeared before her when they did not, she also violated Rule 10.01 and her lawyer's oath to do no falsehood.

The penalties were severe: revocation of her notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization requires personal appearance. A notary must verify that the persons signing the document are the same individuals who appear before them. This is not a mere formality—it is a legal requirement.
• A notary must check the document for defects. If a deed contains apparent alterations, corrections, or requests for revision, the notary should refuse to notarize it until it is properly fixed.
• Residence certificate details must be complete. The notary must enter the number, place of issue, and date of each residence certificate presented. Gaps or illegible entries signal a failure of duty.
• False statements in an acknowledgment carry serious consequences. A lawyer who falsely certifies that parties appeared can face notarial revocation, disqualification, and suspension from practice.
• Delay in filing a complaint does not bar disciplinary action. The Court's power to discipline lawyers serves the public interest and cannot be defeated by the complainant's timing or motives.

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