Notarial Duty: Ensuring Authenticity and Preventing Misrepresentation in Legal Documents

In a 1997 resolution, the Supreme Court reminded all notaries public that notarization is a duty impressed with public interest, not a mere routine act. The case of Arrieta v. Llosa (A.C. No. 4369, November 28, 1997) involved a lawyer who notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale even though some of the named vendors had already died. The Court suspended him for six months, emphasizing that a notary's certification carries legal consequences that cannot be taken lightly.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Pike P. Arrieta sought the disbarment of Atty. Joel A. Llosa for certifying under oath a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 24, 1993. The complaint alleged that the respondent notarized the deed even though three of the vendors — Edelina T. Bonilla, Jesus T. Bonilla, and Leonardo P. Toledano — were already dead before the deed was executed.

Death certificates showed that Jesus T. Bonilla died on August 22, 1992, and Leonardo P. Toledano died on November 1, 1992. Edelina T. Bonilla allegedly died on or about June 11, 1992.

In his defense, the respondent admitted notarizing the deed but claimed he first verified the authenticity of the signatures, the identities of the signatories, and the voluntariness of the execution. He said he asked for their residence certificates to confirm their identities.

Interestingly, the complainant later moved to dismiss the case, saying it was a product of misunderstanding and that everything was in order. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended dismissal, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

The Issue

The central question was whether a notary public may be held administratively liable for certifying a document when some of the purported signatories were already dead at the time of notarization.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for six months.

The Court cited Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, which requires that the person acknowledging an instrument must personally appear before the notary public. The notary must certify that the person is known to him, that he is the same person who executed the instrument, and that he acknowledged it as his free and voluntary act.

The Court found it impossible — both physically and legally — for the deceased vendors to have personally appeared before the respondent. By affixing his notarial seal, the respondent converted a private document into a public one, proclaiming to the world that all parties personally appeared before him, that they were known to him, and that they voluntarily executed the deed.

Why Notarization Matters

The Court stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. It is invested with substantial public interest. A notarized document is admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

Notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in performing their duties. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity of these documents would be undermined. The Court also noted that the respondent's claim of an "urgent situation" was no excuse — lawyers are required to obey the law at all times.

Practical Takeaways

• Personal appearance is mandatory. A notary must ensure that all parties to a document personally appear before him or her. Notarizing a document for someone who is deceased or absent is a grave violation of notarial law.
• Verification is a real duty. A notary must actually verify the identity of the signatories and confirm that they executed the document voluntarily. This is not a mere formality.
• Notarization changes a document's legal status. Once notarized, a private document becomes public and is admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. This is why accuracy matters.
• Complaints cannot be easily withdrawn. Even if the complainant withdraws the case, the Supreme Court may still proceed because the integrity of the legal profession is at stake.
• First offenses may still merit suspension. While the Court did not impose the ultimate penalty of disbarment, it suspended the respondent for six months, warning that another infraction would be dealt with more severely.

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