Notarial Duties: False Acknowledgment and Record-Keeping Violations Cost a Lawyer His Commission

The Supreme Court has long treated the notarial office as a public trust, one that demands strict compliance with the Rules on Notarial Practice. In Boers v. Calubaquib (A.C. No. 10562, August 1, 2017), the Court underscored the serious consequences of betraying that trust. A notary public who acknowledged a deed without the supposed signer's presence, and who failed to record the document in his notarial register, was suspended from the practice of law for two years, had his notarial commission revoked, and was perpetually disqualified from ever being commissioned again.

The case serves as a clear reminder that notarization is not a mere rubber-stamping exercise. It is a solemn act that protects the integrity of documents and the public's reliance on them.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, Jean Marie S. Boers, and her siblings co-owned parcels of land in Tuguegarao City. In 2008, Boers discovered that an adverse claim had been annotated on their property. The claim was based on a Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land on Installment Basis dated October 16, 1991, which bore her signature and was notarized by respondent Atty. Romeo Calubaquib on the same date.

Boers insisted she could not have signed the deed or appeared before Calubaquib on that date because she was in Canada. She presented her passport showing she left the Philippines on December 20, 1990, and a Philippine visa valid only until February 7, 1991. She also noted that the notarization lacked her residence certificate number or any other competent form of identification.

A verification with the National Archives revealed that the deed did not appear in Calubaquib's notarial file. Although the deed was acknowledged as Doc. No. 143, Page No. 30, Book No. LIX, Series of 1991, the document corresponding to that entry was actually an Affidavit executed by another person.

Notably, Calubaquib's own evidence confirmed Boers' claim. He submitted a joint affidavit from Boers' aunt and cousin stating that Boers was no longer in the country when the document was brought for notarization. The Court also noted that Calubaquib had previously been sanctioned in Lingan v. Calubaquib for failing to record a notarized certification of forum shopping.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Calubaquib violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by (1) acknowledging a deed without the personal appearance of the signatory, and (2) failing to record the deed in his notarial register.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and imposed a harsher penalty due to Calubaquib's prior offense.

Personal appearance is indispensable. Under Rule II, Section 1 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, acknowledgment requires that the individual personally appear before the notary public, be identified through competent evidence, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. The Court cited Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio to emphasize that "a party acknowledging must appear before the notary public." This requirement protects against illegal arrangements and ensures that signatures are genuine and documents are not spurious.

Calubaquib clearly violated this rule. Boers proved she was out of the country, and Calubaquib's own evidence admitted this fact.

Mandatory recording is non-negotiable. Rule VI of the Rules requires a notary public to keep a notarial register and record every notarial act at the time of notarization. Quoting Vda. de Rosales v. Ramos, the Court explained that the notarial registry is the official record of a notary's acts. If a document does not appear in the registry, doubt is engendered that it was truly notarized. Failure to record is "tantamount to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when in fact it was not."

The certification from the National Archives showed the deed was not recorded, and Calubaquib offered no explanation.

Prior offense aggravated the penalty. Because Calubaquib had already been suspended for a similar violation, the Court imposed a harsher sanction than in comparable cases.

Practical Takeaways

• A notary must never acknowledge a document without the signer's physical presence. Verifying identity through competent evidence is not enough; the person must actually appear.
• Every notarial act must be recorded in the notarial register at the time of notarization. Failure to do so can render a document suspect and trigger administrative liability.
• Notarization converts a private document into a public one. This evidentiary value is precisely why strict compliance matters.
• Prior administrative sanctions will be treated as aggravating circumstances. Repeat offenders face significantly harsher penalties.
• For parties to documents, verifying notarization records can protect against fraud. Checking the National Archives or the notary's register may reveal irregularities.

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