Heir of Herminigildo A. Unite vs. Atty. Guzman

A notary public who notarizes a document without requiring the signatory to present competent evidence of identity — and without declaring in the acknowledgment that the signatory is personally known to the notary — violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from future commission as a notary public.

Florentino S. Unite is the sole surviving heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, whose name appears on the title covering a parcel of land in Ballesteros, Cagayan. Jose Unite Torrices, complainant's cousin, executed a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale and/or Deed of Absolute Sale over that property in favor of Francisco U. Tamayo, claiming to be the sole heir of Herminigildo. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by the February 19, 2008 En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, govern the identification requirements for notarization and define "competent evidence of identity."

On December 19, 2012, respondent Atty. Raymund P. Guzman notarized a Deed of Self Adjudication with Sale and/or Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Jose Unite Torrices, who claimed to be the sole heir of Herminigildo A. Unite, in favor of Francisco U. Tamayo. The Deed covered a parcel of land located in Ballesteros, Cagayan, registered under Herminigildo's name. At the time of notarization, Torrices presented only his community tax certificate (CTC) as evidence of identity, as reflected in the Deed's acknowledgment portion.

Florentino S. Unite, complainant, asserted that he is the only surviving heir of his father Herminigildo, and that Torrices is his cousin. As a result of respondent's notarization, the Deed was recorded in the Registry of Deeds, causing the cancellation of Herminigildo's title and the issuance of a new one in Tamayo's name. On October 20, 2014, complainant filed a complaint for the annulment of the Deed and Tamayo's title, with liquidation/accounting and damages, before the Regional Trial Court of Ballesteros, Cagayan, Branch 33, docketed as Civil Case No. 33-471-2014.

Respondent denied the charges, claiming he complied with the Notarial Rules by verifying the identity of the parties from their current government identification documents with pictures and CTCs, and by inquiring from the parties, especially Torrices, their capacity to execute the Deed. Complainant replied that a CTC is no longer competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual, that the other documents Torrices presented did not cure the absence of competent evidence of identity, and that the pendency of Civil Case No. 33-471-2014 does not bar the administrative action. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that the Deed itself showed Torrices presented only his CTC, and that respondent failed to confirm the identity of the parties through competent evidence of identity as required by the Notarial Rules. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this finding but reduced the penalty to a reprimand, reasoning that respondent personally knew the affiant and the CTC would suffice.

• Incompetent Evidence of Identity: Complainant argued that a CTC is no longer considered competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual, as required by the Notarial Rules.
• Uncured Defect: Complainant maintained that the other documents presented by Torrices as proof of being the sole heir did not cure the absence of the required competent evidence of identity.
• No Bar to Administrative Action: Complainant asserted that the pendency of Civil Case No. 33-471-2014 does not bar the instant administrative action.

• Compliance with Notarial Rules: Respondent argued that he complied with the requirements of the Notarial Rules, particularly by verifying the identity of the parties to the Deed from their current government identification documents with pictures and CTCs.
• Due Inquiry into Capacity: Respondent maintained that he further inquired from the parties, especially from Torrices, their capacity to execute the Deed, and required all parties to present at least two current government identification documents.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the Deed when Torrices presented only a CTC as evidence of identity.
• Personal Knowledge Exception: Whether respondent could be excused from requiring competent evidence of identity on the ground that Torrices was personally known to him.
• Liability Under the CPR: Whether respondent's failure to properly perform his duties as a notary public also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: Yes. A CTC is not competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules because it is not among the enumerated identification documents and does not bear the photograph and signature of the individual.
• Personal Knowledge Exception: No. The acknowledgment portion of the Deed did not state that Torrices was "personally known" to respondent; it merely stated he was "known to me," which is insufficient under the Rules.
• Liability Under the CPR: Yes. Respondent's failure to properly perform his duty as a notary public constituted unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

• Competent Evidence of Identity: The act of notarization is impressed with public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credence. Under Section 2(b)(1) and (2), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is personally known to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Section 12, Rule II defines "competent evidence of identity" as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. A CTC is not included in this enumeration and does not bear the photograph and signature of the person. The Deed itself showed that Torrices presented only his CTC. While respondent claimed he required the parties to present at least two current government identification documents, the Deed belied this contention — had such documents been presented, respondent should have reflected them in the acknowledgment portion just as he reflected Torrices's CTC. By notarizing the Deed without competent evidence of identity, respondent failed to properly perform his duty as a notary public.

• Personal Knowledge Exception: Under Section 2(b), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, a notary public may be excused from requiring competent evidence of identity only if the signatory is "personally known" to the notary. The acknowledgment portion of the Deed did not state that Torrices was "personally known" to respondent; it merely stated that Torrices was "known to me." The phrase "personally known" contemplates the notary public's personal knowledge of the signatory's personal circumstances independent and irrespective of any representations made by the signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization. It entails awareness gained through firsthand observation or experience, which eliminates the need for documentary identification. The IBP Board of Governors' finding that respondent personally knew the affiant was rejected: if respondent truly personally knew Torrices, there would have been no need for him to require the parties to present government identification documents and conduct further interviews, as he claimed in his Answer.

• Liability Under the CPR: As a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. By notarizing the Deed without competent evidence of identity, respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. His failure resulted not only in damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of the office of a notary public and degrading the function of notarization. He is thus liable both as a notary public and as a lawyer, warranting the modified penalty of immediate revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspension from the practice of law for six months.

• Notarization as a Public Function — Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is entitled to full faith and credence. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the notarial system. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to and should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions. The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent liable for failing to verify the identity of the signatory through competent evidence of identity.

• Competent Evidence of Identity — Under Section 12, Rule II of the Notarial Rules, as amended, "competent evidence of identity" refers to identification based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual (e.g., passport, driver's license, PRC ID, NBI clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, GSIS e-card, SSS card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, OWWA ID, OFW ID, seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, NCWDP certification, DSWD certification); or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. A CTC is not competent evidence of identity because it is not included in this list and does not bear the photograph and signature of the person.

• Personal Knowledge in Notarization — The phrase "personally known" contemplates the notary public's personal knowledge of the signatory's personal circumstances independent and irrespective of any representations made by the signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization. It entails awareness, understanding, or knowledge of the signatory's identity and circumstances gained through firsthand observation or experience, which serves as a guarantee of the signatory's identity and eliminates the need for documentary identification. The acknowledgment must expressly state that the signatory is "personally known" to the notary; the phrase "known to me" is insufficient.

• "Time and again, the Court has emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with public interest. Notarization converts a private document to a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage articulates the foundational rationale for the stringent requirements imposed on notaries public, explaining why failure to observe notarial rules is treated as a serious administrative offense.

• "The phrase 'personally known' contemplates the notary public's personal knowledge of the signatory's personal circumstances independent and irrespective of any representations made by the signatory immediately before and/or during the time of the notarization." — This defines the canonical formulation of "personal knowledge" in the context of notarial practice, distinguishing it from mere acquaintance or representations made at the time of notarization, and clarifying that the acknowledgment must expressly use the phrase "personally known."

• "By notarizing the Deed notwithstanding the absence of the competent evidence of identity required by the Notarial Rules, respondent undoubtedly failed to properly perform his duty as a notary public." — This states the ratio decidendi connecting the factual finding (only a CTC was presented) to the legal conclusion (violation of the Notarial Rules), establishing that the Deed's own acknowledgment portion is the controlling evidence of what transpired during notarization.

• Gaddi vs. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that notarization converts a private document to a public document entitled to full faith and credence.
• Bartolome vs. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015) — Cited for the principle that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties, and that notaries should not take part in illegal transactions.
• Sultan vs. Macabanding, 745 Phil. 12 (2014) — Cited alongside Bartolome for the principle that notaries must inform themselves of the facts they certify to and must not allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
• Baysac vs. Aceron-Papa, A.C. No. 10231, August 10, 2016, 800 SCRA 1 — Cited for the rule that a community tax certificate or cedula is not a valid and competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules.
• Agbulos vs. Viray, 704 Phil. 1 (2013) — Cited alongside Baysac for the proposition that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity because it does not bear the photograph and signature of the person.
• Jandoquile vs. Revilla, Jr., 708 Phil. 337 (2013) — Cited for the definition of "personally known" as contemplating personal knowledge of the signatory's circumstances independent of representations made at the time of notarization.
• Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1 (2015) — Cited for the principle that a lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
• Bon vs. Ziga, 473 Phil. 148 (2004) — Cited as basis for the modified penalty of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law.

• Section 2(b)(1) and (2), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the signatory is in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary or otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to hold respondent liable for notarizing the Deed without competent evidence of identity.
• Section 12, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (as amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, February 19, 2008) — Defines "competent evidence of identity" as identification based on at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or the oath or affirmation of credible witnesses. Applied to determine that a CTC is not competent evidence of identity.
• Section 1(b)(8), Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that the notary public's failure to identify the principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence is ground for administrative sanctions.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to hold respondent liable as a lawyer for his negligent notarization, which undermined the integrity of the notarial system.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.