Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices vs. Atty. Haxley M. Galano

A notary public who notarizes an instrument without requiring the personal appearance of the signatories—particularly when those signatories are already deceased—commits a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from reappointment.

On July 23, 2012, Atty. Haxley M. Galano, a commissioned Notary Public for the Province of Cagayan, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale involving a 7,303-square-meter parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4993(S) in Ballesteros, Cagayan. The deed named Dominga Unite Torrices, married to Miguel G. Torrices, as vendor, and Felipe U. Tamayo as vendee, for a consideration of P200,000.00. The Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices contested the deed’s validity, asserting that Dominga died on June 6, 1974, and Miguel died in the early 1970s, making their alleged personal appearance before the notary impossible. The heirs further accused Atty. Galano of conspiring with the vendees to make it appear that the deceased vendors were still alive at the time of notarization.

• Nature of the Action: A petition for disbarment initiated by the Heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices, represented by sole heir Miguel B. Torrices, against Atty. Haxley M. Galano.

• The Notarized Instrument: Atty. Galano notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 23, 2012, purportedly executed between Dominga Unite Torrices (married to Miguel G. Torrices) as vendor and Felipe U. Tamayo (married to Divina Tamayo) as vendee. The property covered was a 7,303-square-meter parcel under Original Certificate of Title No. P-4993(S) – Free Patent No. 367865, located at Barangay Fugu, Ballesteros, Cagayan, sold for P200,000.00. The deed was entered in Atty. Galano’s Notarial Register as Doc. No. 1130, Page No. 226, Book No. XXIII, Series of 2012.

• Deaths of the Alleged Vendors: Dominga Unite Torrices died on June 6, 1974. Her husband, Miguel G. Torrices, died in the early 1970s. Their death certificates formed part of the records. The heirs contended that Atty. Galano conspired with the vendees to make it appear that the deceased spouses were still alive and personally appeared before him for the notarization.

• Respondent’s Default: Atty. Galano did not file an answer to the disbarment petition. The IBP proceeded based on the complaint and supporting evidence.

• Violation of Notarial Rules and Code of Professional Responsibility: Petitioner argued that Atty. Galano violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer’s Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale where the supposed vendors had been dead for decades, thereby making it appear that they personally appeared and executed the document. Petitioner further alleged that Atty. Galano conspired with the vendees to perpetrate this falsehood.

• N/A — Atty. Galano failed to file an answer; no responsive pleading or arguments appear of record.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Galano is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer’s Oath by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the signatories, who were already deceased.

• Administrative Liability: Atty. Galano was found guilty. The conferment of a notarial commission carries the correlative duty to perform notarial acts with utmost care to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. Notarization converts a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit, making the physical presence of the parties indispensable under Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The prohibition in Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the same Rules explicitly forbids performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence at the time of notarization or is not personally known or properly identified. Atty. Galano transgressed these fundamental requirements by notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of Dominga and Miguel, and by falsely stating in the acknowledgment that they personally appeared before him on July 26, 2012—an impossibility given their deaths decades earlier. Such falsehood constitutes a violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath. The established jurisprudence uniformly disciplines notaries who notarize documents in the absence of the signatories, especially when they are deceased. The penalty recommended by the IBP (three years’ suspension) was modified to two years, considering the gravity of the offense but consistent with precedents, with the additional sanctions of revocation of the notarial commission and perpetual disqualification from reappointment.

• Requirement of Personal Appearance in Notarization — The physical presence of the signatory before the notary public at the time of notarization is an indispensable requirement under Section 1 (Acknowledgment) and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A notary public must ensure that the parties appearing are the same persons who executed the instrument, that they signed freely and voluntarily, and that the document reflects their true agreement. These purposes cannot be achieved absent the parties’ physical presence. Notarizing a document without the required personal appearance, especially when the signatories are deceased, constitutes a breach of duty and a falsehood in violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Public Interest Character of Notarization — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest because it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit. This elevated status demands the highest degree of care and fidelity from notaries public to preserve the sanctity and reliability of notarized documents.

• “[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, but one that is invested with substantive public interest.” — This passage captures the ratio that the conferral of public faith upon notarized documents imposes a stringent duty on notaries, and that failure to observe the basic requirements cannot be treated lightly.

• “[N]otaries public must observe the basic requirements in the performance of their duties with utmost care and diligence. Those who fail to abide by the rules must be sanctioned accordingly.” — The statement underscores the disciplinary imperative that arises from the public-trust character of the notarial function.

• “[A] Notary Public must require the presence of the parties executing the instrument. In addition, the Notary Public must ensure that the parties appearing in the document are the same persons who executed it, that they signed freely and voluntarily, and that the provisions embodied in the instrument express their true agreement. These may not be achieved unless the parties are physically present before the Notary Public.” — This excerpt synthesizes the core duties of a notary public regarding personal appearance, identity verification, and voluntariness.

• De Jesus v. Atty. Sanchez-Maliit, 738 Phil. 480 (2014) — Cited for the principle that the conferment of a notarial commission embodies the duty to observe basic requirements with utmost care to avoid erosion of public confidence in notarized documents.

• Lustestica v. Atty. Bernabe, 643 Phil. 1 (2010) — Referenced in De Jesus for the same principle on the public interest in notarization.

• Atty. Bartolome v. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015) — Cited for the rule that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit.

• Anudon v. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421 (2015) — Relied upon for the requirements of personal appearance and verification.

• Atty. Linco v. Atty. Lacebal, 675 Phil. 160 (2011); Magaway v. Atty. Avecilla, 791 Phil. 385 (2016); Atty. Bartolome v. Atty. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015); Ang v. Atty. Gupana, 26 Phil. 127 (2014) — Collected as exemplars of the consistent line of cases where the Court sternly disciplined notaries public who notarized instruments despite the signatories being already deceased.

• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Applied because Atty. Galano made a false statement in the acknowledgment that the deceased spouses personally appeared before him.

• Section 1, Rule on Acknowledgment, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Defines acknowledgment as an act requiring the individual to appear in person before the notary public, be personally known or identified through competent evidence, and represent that the signature was voluntarily affixed. Violated by Atty. Galano’s failure to secure the required personal appearance.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibits a person from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence. This provision was directly contravened.

• Lawyer’s Oath — Breached by the respondent’s commission of falsehood and his failure to discharge his notarial duties with fidelity.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred.