Notarial Law Personal Appearance Requirement and Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court has consistently held that notarization is not a mere routine act. It converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. For this reason, the requirement that parties personally appear before the notary public is absolute — and failure to comply carries serious consequences, including suspension from the practice of law.

In Spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita v. Atty. Allan Latras (A.C. No. 7169, March 11, 2019), the Court reaffirmed this principle and penalized a lawyer-notary who notarized a deed without the parties appearing before him.

The Facts of the Case

The complainants, spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita, obtained a loan from Ester Servacio to finance the construction of their commercial building. As security, they executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over their commercial land and building for P11 million.

The spouses later alleged that Servacio and Atty. Allan Latras — who acted as Servacio's counsel and notary public — fraudulently substituted the first page of the deed with a Deed of Absolute Sale for only P2 million. They claimed that Atty. Latras notarized the document without their knowledge and without their personal appearance in his office.

Atty. Latras denied the substitution and argued that the spouses failed to prove fraud. He further claimed that one of the spouses asked for dispensation of their appearance, and that as long as there was affirmation of the document's contents, the notarization substantially complied with the law.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Latras violated the notarial law by notarizing the deed without the spouses personally appearing before him, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors. The Court found Atty. Latras administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Court cited Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules, which require that:

• The acknowledging party must appear in person before the notary public;
• The party must be personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity; and
• The party must represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed for the purposes stated in the document.

The Court emphasized that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization.

Atty. Latras admitted that he notarized the deed without the spouses' presence. His defense — that he merely followed the instruction of one spouse and that he verified their signatures through witnesses — was rejected.

The Court stressed that talking to the spouses over the phone or verifying signatures through witnesses does not satisfy the personal appearance requirement. The purpose of the requirement is to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party.

Citing Agagon v. Bustamante (565 Phil. 581 [2007]), the Court reminded that notarization is invested with substantive public interest. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and notaries must observe utmost care in complying with the elementary formalities of their duties.

The Court also noted that the spouses failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to substantiate their claim of fraud and forgery against Atty. Latras. The charge of conspiracy therefore failed.

The Penalty

The Court suspended Atty. Latras from the practice of law for six (6) months, revoked his notarial commission (if presently commissioned), and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

The Court warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Personal appearance is non-negotiable. A notary public cannot notarize a document unless the signatory personally appears before him or her, regardless of any instruction or assurance to the contrary.
• Substantial compliance is not enough. Verifying signatures through witnesses or communicating with the party by phone does not cure the absence of personal appearance.
• Notarization carries public interest. A notarial document is presumed authentic and admissible without further proof. Notaries who fail to observe the formalities undermine public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.
• Lawyers face serious consequences. Violating the notarial rules can result in suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from future commission.
• A lawyer cannot hide behind a client's instruction. Following a client's request to notarize a document without the party's presence does not absolve the lawyer from administrative liability.

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