Title
Heir of Unite vs. Guzman
Case
A.C. No. 13636
Decision Date
Feb 22, 2023
Atty. Guzman found guilty of notarizing a fraudulent deed, violating Notarial Rules and CPR, resulting in a two-year suspension and perpetual disqualification as notary public.
notarization rules violation
fraudulent registration
illegal transfer of ownership
A

Case Summary (A.C. No. 13636)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Complainants filed an administrative complaint (January 27, 2015) seeking disbarment of Atty. Guzman for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1, Rule 1.01), the Lawyer’s Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC). Complainants also filed a civil action (January 15, 2015) in the RTC, Ballesteros, Cagayan for annulment of the Deed of Donation and related titles.

Factual Allegations Regarding the Deed of Donation

The notarized Deed of Donation described the donor as Jose U. Torrices, donor’s wife Lolita B. Torrices, and donee Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices. The acknowledgment portion as entered by respondent stated the parties were “known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument,” but the instrument did not record competent proof of identity: under Jose was only a TIN and under Lolita and Cecile there were no entries.

Complainants’ Allegations of Fraud and Identity Irregularities

Complainants alleged the Deed of Donation and earlier transfers were products of fraud and collusion: Jose had allegedly fraudulently registered TCT No. T-20432(S) by virtue of a defectively notarized Deed of Donation, and then transferred portions of the property to relatives and buyers. A Bureau of Immigration certification (July 21, 2017) was introduced by complainants indicating a “Rosario, Cecile Yvonne Torrices” had travel records abroad on November 24, 2010, which was asserted to contradict the deed’s notation that Cecile accepted the donation on that date.

Respondent’s Denials and Proffered Evidence

Respondent admitted notarizing the Deed of Donation and a Deed of Absolute Sale but denied misconduct, contending he required each party to present two current government-issued IDs bearing photograph and signature. He submitted an Affidavit of Jose U. Torrices (June 1, 2015) stating he presented identification and was interviewed by respondent at the time of notarization; Jose attached copies of his PRC license and GSIS ID to that affidavit.

IBP–CBD and IBP–BOG Findings and Recommendations

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines–Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended revocation of respondent’s notarial commission and a one-year disqualification from commissioning, finding violations of Section 1 (pars. 2 and 5), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because the Deed lacked competent evidence of identity and respondent failed to prove personal knowledge of the signatories. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) initially imposed a six-month suspension but later granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case; an extended resolution (July 2, 2022) then concluded respondent substantially complied, accepting personal knowledge of Jose and discounting the BI certification due to a name discrepancy.

Legal Standard for Notarial Identification

The Court reiterated that notarization is a public act that transforms private documents into public documents entitled to full faith and credit; therefore, notaries must strictly observe requirements. Under Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary must not perform a notarial act if the affiant is not physically present or is not personally known to the notary and not identified by competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines competent evidence of identity as at least one current government-issued ID bearing the photograph and signature or, alternatively, the oath of one credible witness personally known to the notary or two credible witnesses who are not privy and who produce documentary identification.

Court’s Analysis of the Notarial Act

The Court found the Deed’s acknowledgment defective: it did not contain competent proofs of identity for Lolita and Cecile and did not state that Jose was personally known to respondent, thereby failing the strict requirements that would excuse documentary identification. The Court emphasized that “personally known” requires personal knowledge independent of representations made at or immediately before notarization; the acknowledgment did not reflect such personal knowledge. The Court treated prior similar materially defective acknowledgments involving Jose and respondent as highly relevant.

Evaluation of Jose’s Affidavit and Belated Identification

The Court concluded Jose’s belated affidavit and attached IDs did not cure the defective notarization. If respondent had required and examined competent IDs at the time, the acknowledgment would have reflected them. The late submission of identification documents, years after the notarization, demonstrated an afterthought and did not exculpate respondent. Moreover, no identification was produced for Lolita and Cecile, a fatal omission.

Consideration of Bureau of Immigration Certification

The Court agreed with the IBP-BOG in giving no credence to the BI certification because the name in the BI record (“Rosario, Cecile Yvonne Torrices”) materially differed from the name of the donee in the Deed (“Cecile Yvonne B. Torrices”), and complainants did not reconcile or correct the discrepancy.

Relevance of Prior Administrative Decisions Against Respondent

The Court noted respondent had previously been found administratively liable twice for similar failures to secure competent evidence of identity when notarizing instruments executed by the same Jose (A.C. Nos. 12061 and 12062). In those cases, the Court suspended respondent for six months, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from commissioning for two years. Those prior rulings establish a pattern of repeated noncompliance and emphasize that respondent’s practice had persistently permitted defective notarizations.

Legal Conclus

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms