City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr.

A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly observe the mandatory formalities of the Notarial Law and the Civil Code regarding the execution of wills, including the requirement of three credible witnesses, the exhibition of current residence certificates, and proper entries in the notarial register; gross negligence in these duties constitutes professional misconduct warranting suspension and revocation of commission.

The dispute arose from a will purportedly executed by Vicente Lee, Sr. in 1965, which bequeathed his entire estate to his wife Lim Hock Lee and a parcel of land to two other children, allegedly to the exclusion of complainant Manuel L. Lee. Complainant contested the will’s authenticity, alleging his father never executed it and that the signatures of the testator and witnesses were forged.

• April 10, 2000: Complainant filed a letter-complaint with the SC charging respondent with violation of the Notarial Law and legal ethics.
• July 6, 2001: Respondent filed his comment denying the allegations and claiming complainant was illegitimate and lacked cause of action.
• October 17, 2001: The SC referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• February 27, 2006: The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty and recommended a three-month suspension.
• May 26, 2006: The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification, imposing a one-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment for two years.
• February 12, 2008: The SC promulgated its decision affirming the IBP findings with modification regarding the period of disqualification.

• Complainant Manuel L. Lee is a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr.
• Respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago notarized a purported last will and testament of Vicente Lee, Sr., dated June 30, 1965.
• The will was attested by only two witnesses—Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo—instead of the three required by law.
• The acknowledgment portion of the will noted the testator’s residence certificate as dated January 5, 1962, despite the will’s execution date of June 30, 1965.
• The acknowledgment contained no notation of the residence certificates of witnesses Noynay and Grajo.
• Certification from the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) archives dated September 19, 1999 revealed that the notarial entry (Doc. 14, Page 4, Book 1, Series of 1965) corresponded to an affidavit executed by Bartolome Ramirez, not the contested will.
• Respondent claimed he crossed out a prior entry in his notarial register to accommodate the will, but presented only a photocopy of the register as proof.
• The testator and attesting witnesses were already deceased at the time of the proceedings.

• The will was spurious; the decedent never executed it, and the signatures of the testator and witnesses were forged.
• The testator’s residence certificate noted in the acknowledgment was expired (dated January 5, 1962), rendering the acknowledgment defective.
• The signatures of the testator in the will and in a genuine deed of donation were completely different, indicating forgery.
• The absence of residence certificates for the witnesses and the lack of a copy in the NCCA archives demonstrated non-compliance with notarial formalities.
• Respondent’s negligence facilitated a fraudulent disposition of the estate.

• Complainant was not a legitimate son of the decedent and lacked standing to file the complaint.
• The will was validly executed and actually notarized, corroborated by affidavits from the decedent’s common-law wife and other children.
• The complaint was filed merely to harass respondent because a prior criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman did not prosper.
• No copy existed in the NCCA archives because filing a copy of a will is not required by Article 806 of the Civil Code.
• Complainant had no valid cause of action because he failed to first file an action for declaration of nullity of the will to claim his inheritance.
• He exercised his duties as notary public with due care and complied with elementary formalities, claiming he crossed out a prior entry in his notarial register to properly enter the will.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and Civil Code by notarizing a will attested by only two witnesses instead of three?
  • Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law by failing to require the exhibition of current residence certificates from the testator and the attesting witnesses?
  • Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law by failing to make proper entries in his notarial register?
  • Whether these violations constitute professional misconduct warranting disciplinary sanctions?

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Yes. The will is void ab initio for failure to comply with Article 804 of the Civil Code, which mandates that a notarial will be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses. Acts executed against mandatory legal provisions are void under Article 5 of the Civil Code.
  • Yes. Respondent violated Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 6 of the Residence Tax Act by allowing the testator to present an expired 1962 residence certificate and by failing to require and note the residence certificates of the two attesting witnesses. These formalities are mandatory to establish identity and ensure public confidence in notarized documents.
  • Yes. Respondent violated Section 246 of the Revised Administrative Code by failing to properly enter the will in his notarial register. His reliance on a photocopy of the register to prove compliance is unavailing because secondary evidence is inadmissible without proof of the original’s execution, existence, and cause of unavailability.
  • Yes. These gross violations constitute professional misconduct under Section 20(a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1, and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for one year, his notarial commission is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from reappointment as notary public.

• Mandatory Formalities in Notarization — Formalities prescribed by the Notarial Law are mandatory and cannot be disregarded considering the importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents. A notary public must observe these with utmost care and fidelity to prevent fraud and maintain public confidence.
• Two-fold Purpose of Acknowledgment in Notarial Wills — Acknowledgment before a notary public serves to: (1) safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise; and (2) assure that the estate is administered according to the testator’s intent. This requires the signatory to declare to the notary that the instrument is his free act and deed.
• Secondary Evidence Rule — Under Rule 130, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, a photocopy is inadmissible to prove the contents of an original document unless the proponent first proves the original’s execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith.
• Strict Construction of Will Formalities — The solemnities surrounding will execution are designed to close the door on bad faith and fraud, guarantee truth and authenticity, and avoid substitution of wills. Defects in these mandatory solemnities render the will invalid.

• "The object of solemnities surrounding the execution of wills is to close the door on bad faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills and testaments and to guarantee their truth and authenticity."
• "The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public. They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged before him had presented the proper residence certificate... These formalities are mandatory and cannot be disregarded, considering the degree of importance and evidentiary weight attached to notarized documents."
• "A notary public, especially a lawyer, is bound to strictly observe these elementary requirements."
• "Notaries public must observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of notarized deeds will be undermined."
• "The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land."
• "While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship."

• Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252 (2004) — Controlling precedent establishing that notaries must certify residence certificates and that these formalities are mandatory given the evidentiary weight of notarized documents.
• Azuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122880 (2006) — Cited for the definition of acknowledgment and the two-fold purpose of acknowledgment in notarial wills (safeguarding testator’s wishes and assuring proper estate administration).
• Bon v. Ziga, A.C. No. 5436 (2004) and Zaballero v. Montalvan, A.C. No. 4370 (2004) — Cited to emphasize the duty of notaries to observe utmost care and fidelity in performing notarial duties.
• Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, A.C. No. 6139 (2003) and Guerrero v. Hernando, 160-A Phil. 725 (1975) — Cited as basis for revocation of notarial commission due to dereliction of duty.
• Tan Tiong Bio v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 6634 (2007) — Cited as authority for perpetual disqualification from reappointment as notary public.

• Civil Code, Article 783 — Defines a will as an act permitting a person to control the disposition of his estate after death.
• Civil Code, Article 804 — Requires a notarial will to be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses.
• Civil Code, Article 805 — Prescribes formalities for execution and attestation of wills.
• Civil Code, Article 806 — Mandates acknowledgment before a notary public; explicitly states the notary is not required to retain a copy or file with the Clerk of Court (distinguishing wills from other notarized documents regarding archival requirements).
• Civil Code, Article 5 — Acts executed against mandatory or prohibitory laws are void.
• Revised Administrative Code, Section 246 — Lists the specific entries required in a notarial register (nature of instrument, parties, witnesses, date, fees, consecutive number, description).
• Revised Administrative Code, Section 251 — Requires notation of residence certificate numbers, place of issue, and date on every document acknowledged before a notary public.
• Revised Administrative Code, Section 249(b) and (f) — Grounds for revocation of notarial commission include failure to make proper entries in the notarial register and failure to make proper notation regarding cedula certificates.
• Commonwealth Act No. 465 (Residence Tax Act), Section 6 — Imposes duty on notaries to require exhibition of residence certificates showing payment of taxes.
• Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 20(a) — Duty of attorneys to maintain allegiance to the Republic and obey the laws.
• Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 5 — Requirements for admissibility of secondary evidence when original is unavailable.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1 — Duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01 — Prohibition against engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

• N/A (Puno, CJ, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concurred without separate opinions).