Navigating Land Registration: Understanding the Supreme Court's Ruling on Corporate Ownership and Public Land

The Supreme Court recently reminded notaries public that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. In a decision dated October 14, 2020, the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for two years and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for failing to verify the identities of parties to a document he notarized.

The case of Spouses Virginia and Ramon Aldea v. Atty. Renato C. Bagay (A.C. No. 12733) arose from a disbarment complaint filed against a notary public who notarized an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale. The document allegedly transferred ownership of a parcel of land in Limay, Bataan, to third parties, but the complainant claimed her signature was forged and that she never appeared before the notary public.

The Facts

Spouses Dominador and Maura Libang died in 1996 and 2000, respectively, leaving a 7,214-square-meter parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5690. Their legitimate daughter, Virginia Libang Aldea, inherited part of the property.

Virginia later discovered an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, notarized by Atty. Bagay on May 28, 2010, which purportedly transferred ownership of the property to another couple. Virginia claimed her signature was forged and that she did not appear before Atty. Bagay to acknowledge the document. She also noted that one of the other heirs named in the document, Leonida Cabulao, had died as early as 1990.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Bagay violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the document without the affiants personally appearing before him and without properly verifying their identities.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Bagay administratively liable. The Court emphasized that a notarized document is converted from a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence and entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in performing their duties.

Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity.

Section 12, Rule II of the same Rules defines competent evidence of identity as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses.

Atty. Bagay admitted notarizing the document but claimed good faith, saying he did not know any of the parties. However, the Court found he merely relied on community tax certificates, which are not competent evidence of identity under the Rules. The Court noted that reliance on community tax certificates alone is a punishable indiscretion.

The Court also noted that Atty. Bagay had been previously disciplined in Angeles, Jr. v. Bagay (A.C. No. 8103, December 3, 2014) for notarizing documents while he was outside the country. Despite the stern warning in that case, he again violated the Rules.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a serious legal act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its execution.

• Personal appearance is mandatory. A notary public cannot notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before the notary at the time of notarization.

• Community tax certificates are not enough. Notaries must require competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID with photograph and signature.

• Good faith is not a defense. A notary's claim of good faith does not excuse failure to comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Repeated violations carry heavier penalties. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

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