Notarial Duty and Identification Validity of Notarization Based on Laws at Time of Execution

The Supreme Court recently clarified a crucial point for notaries public: the validity of a notarization is judged by the law in effect at the time of notarization, not by rules enacted later. In In re: Decision Dated September 26, 2012 in OMB-M-A-10-023-A, etc. Against Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan (A.C. No. 9676, April 2, 2018), the Court dismissed an administrative complaint against a lawyer who notarized a deed using only Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) as identification, because that was sufficient under the law at the time.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when the Office of the Ombudsman noted that a Deed of Partition submitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform was notarized by Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan on July 23, 2003. The problem: one of the signatories, Alejandro F. Camilo, had died on August 23, 2001 — nearly two years before the notarization.

The Supreme Court treated this as an administrative complaint against Diuyan. In his defense, Diuyan admitted notarizing the deed in his capacity as District Public Attorney. He explained that eight persons appeared before him with the deed, presented their CTCs, answered his questions affirmatively, and signed the document in his presence. The parties were indigent farmers who had no other identification.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Diuyan guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require a notary to identify a document signer through competent evidence of identity, such as a government-issued ID. The IBP recommended revoking his notarial commission and suspending him from the practice of law.

The Issue

The central question was whether Diuyan should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition based solely on the affiants' CTCs.

The Ruling: Apply the Law in Effect at the Time of Notarization

The Supreme Court ruled in Diuyan's favor, finding nothing irregular with his act of notarizing the deed based on the affiants' CTCs. The Court emphasized a fundamental principle: a lawyer cannot be held liable for violating duties as a notary public when the law in effect at the time of the complained act does not prohibit the conduct.

The Court noted that Diuyan notarized the deed on July 23, 2003, before the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice took effect. The applicable law at that time was the notarial law under the Revised Administrative Code (Act No. 2711), which required that a notary certify that the parties presented their proper residence certificates (cedula). Commonwealth Act No. 465 similarly required the exhibition of residence certificates when acknowledging documents before a notary public.

The Court found that Diuyan complied with these requirements. The eight individuals presented themselves as the affiants, showed their CTCs, and signed the deed in his presence. Nothing on the face of the deed was irregular enough to alert him to ask probing questions. The Court also noted that the Ombudsman itself had found the deed's purpose — dividing a collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award into individual titles for farmer-beneficiaries — to be valid under DAR rules.

The Significance of This Ruling

This case illustrates a key principle in administrative law: laws are generally applied prospectively. A notary public's conduct must be evaluated under the rules that were in force at the time of the notarized act, not under rules adopted later. Applying the 2004 Rules retroactively to a 2003 notarization would be unfair and legally erroneous.

The case also clarifies the evidentiary standard for notarization before the 2004 Rules took effect. Under the old law, presenting a CTC was sufficient proof of identity for notarization purposes. The stricter identification requirements — such as requiring government-issued IDs — came only with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Practical Takeaways

• Know which rules apply. A notary's duties are determined by the law in effect at the time of notarization. Always verify the applicable rules before assessing compliance.
• Keep records of identification. Even when the law permits CTCs, a notary should document what identification was presented and note it in the notarial record.
• Exercise diligence on the face of the document. While the law sets minimum standards, a notary should still be alert to any irregularity that would warrant further inquiry.
• The 2004 Rules changed the standard. Today, notaries must require competent evidence of identity, typically a government-issued ID, under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Prospective application of laws. Administrative liability is judged under the law in force at the time of the act, not under later-enacted rules.

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