Mabini vs. Kintanar

A notary public cannot be held liable for misconduct for notarizing a document executed by his or her spouse where the notarization occurred before the effectivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, because the 1917 Revised Administrative Code then in force contained no prohibition against notarizing a relative or spouse.

Respondent Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar is a lawyer and notary public, and Evangeline C. Kintanar is his wife. Complainant Roberto P. Mabini and his wife Mercedes M. Mabini acquired a parcel of land in Daraga, Albay covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 251 (1904) and later obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133716 in their names. The notarial law in force in 2002, when the challenged affidavit was notarized, was Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917; the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice had not yet taken effect.

In November 2003, Regina Alamares approached Roberto P. Mabini and his wife Mercedes M. Mabini to sell a 3,317-square-meter parcel of realty in Daraga, Albay, identified as Lot No. 1959 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 251 (1904). Regina disclosed that the title was lost but that its duplicate certificate could be secured from the Register of Deeds. Roberto and Mercedes nonetheless bought the property. Roberto later filed a petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 251 (1904), which the Regional Trial Court granted; on March 2, 2005, the Register of Deeds of Albay issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133716 in the names of Roberto and Mercedes.

In March 2012, Evangeline C. Kintanar, respondent’s wife, filed a complaint against Roberto, among other persons, for reconveyance, annulment of title, damages, with prayer for preliminary injunction or restraining order before the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City. Attached to that complaint was an Affidavit of Lost Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title executed by Evangeline and notarized by respondent on April 25, 2002, registered in his notarial book under Doc. No. 172, Page No. 35; Book No. 33, Series of 2002.

According to complainant, respondent knew that he was not authorized to notarize a document of his wife, or of any relative within the fourth civil degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity, and that the notarization therefore constituted misconduct as a lawyer and Notary Public. Respondent countered that the Affidavit appeared to have been notarized on April 25, 2002, and was thus governed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which did not prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by one’s spouse. He added that, even assuming he notarized the Affidavit, he did not violate the law because the document was a mere affidavit, not a bilateral document or contract.

The administrative Complaint was filed on the sole ground that respondent notarized a document executed by his wife. Roberto died on July 24, 2013, and his spouse Mercedes substituted him as complainant; after Mercedes died on October 26, 2013, their children substituted her.

• Notarization of Spouse’s Affidavit: Complainant maintained that respondent committed misconduct as a lawyer and Notary Public because he notarized a document executed by his wife, Evangeline, knowing that he was not authorized to notarize a document of his wife or any relative within the fourth civil degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity.
• Prohibition on Relatives: Complainant asserted that the prohibition covered relatives by affinity and consanguinity, and that respondent’s act of notarizing his wife’s affidavit fell within that prohibition.

• Governing Law at Time of Notarization: Respondent countered that the subject Affidavit appeared to have been notarized on April 25, 2002, and was thus governed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which did not prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by one’s spouse.
• Nature of Document: Respondent argued that, even assuming he notarized the Affidavit, he did not violate the law because the document was a mere affidavit, not a bilateral document or contract.

• Misconduct for Notarizing Wife’s Affidavit: Whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife’s affidavit of loss in 2002.

• Misconduct for Notarizing Wife’s Affidavit: No. At the time of the April 25, 2002 notarization, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 governed notarial practice and did not prohibit a notary public from notarizing a document executed by a relative or spouse; the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice took effect only on July 6, 2004 and did not apply retroactively.

• Misconduct for Notarizing Wife’s Affidavit: The Court began from the principle that the duties of a Notary Public are not merely ministerial; they are impressed with public interest because notarization converts a private document into a public one, which enjoys full credit on its face. Liability, however, requires a violation of the law in effect at the time of the complained act. The Court traced the governing law: the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 was repealed by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, and Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code governed notarial practice until the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice took effect. In Heirs of Pedro Alilano vs. Atty. Examen, the Court held that a notary public who notarized in 1984 an absolute deed of sale executed by his brother and the latter’s wife was competent to do so because the Revised Administrative Code did not prohibit notarizing a relative. In Ylaya vs. Atty. Gacott, the Court dismissed a charge under the 2004 Rules because the documents had been notarized in 2000 and 2001, when Chapter 11 of Act No. 2711 did not contain the prohibition against notarizing documents of parties related to the notary within the fourth civil degree by affinity or consanguinity. Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Court of Appeals likewise reiterated that the Spanish Notarial Law was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code. Applying these rulings, the notarization on April 25, 2002 was governed by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, which contained no prohibition against a notary public notarizing a document executed by his or her spouse. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including its prohibition, did not cover acts performed before its effectivity. Thus, no basis existed to hold respondent liable for misconduct.

• Non-retroactivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including the prohibition against notarizing documents where the parties are related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree by affinity or consanguinity, took effect on July 6, 2004. They do not apply to notarial acts performed before that date. The Court applied this to the April 25, 2002 notarization and held that the 2004 prohibition could not be retroactively applied to respondent.
• Notarial practice under Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 — From the repeal of the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code until the effectivity of the 2004 Rules, notarial practice was governed by Chapter 11 of Act No. 2711. That law did not prohibit a notary public from notarizing a document executed by a relative or spouse. Because respondent’s act fell within that period, no violation was shown.
• Notarial duties are impressed with public interest, but liability requires a law in force at the time of the act — Notarization is not a merely ministerial act; it converts a private document into a public document that enjoys full credit on its face. Nevertheless, a lawyer cannot be held liable for violating notarial duties when the law in effect at the time of the complained act provided no prohibition. The Court applied this principle to dismiss the complaint.

• "However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation of his duties as Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench." — This states the ratio decidendi: liability for notarial misconduct depends on the law in force when the notarial act was performed.
• "Considering the foregoing, there is indeed no basis to hold respondent liable for misconduct for notarizing his wife's Affidavit in 2002." — This is the Court’s direct conclusion applying the governing-law analysis to the facts.
• "The notarial law in force in the years 2000-2001 was Chapter 11 of Act No. 2711 (the Revised Administrative Code of 1917) which did not contain the present prohibition against notarizing documents where the parties are related to the notary public within the 4th civil degree, by affinity or consanguinity. Thus, we must likewise dismiss the charge for violation of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC." — Quoted from Ylaya vs. Atty. Gacott, this passage supplies the controlling precedent that the 1917 Revised Administrative Code contained no prohibition against notarizing relatives.
• "As discussed, the 1917 Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial Law. In turn, the provisions anent notarial practice embodied in the Revised Administrative Code were superseded by the passage of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This only means that any prohibition enumerated in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice does not cover the acts made by a Notary Public earlier, including those executed in 2002." — This passage explains the statutory succession and the non-retroactive effect of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Heirs of Pedro Alilano vs. Atty. Examen, 756 Phil. 608 (2015) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on it to hold that the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 was repealed by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code, and that a notary public who notarized a relative’s deed in 1984 was not liable because the Revised Administrative Code did not prohibit notarizing a relative.
• Ylaya vs. Atty. Gacott, 702 Phil. 390 (2013) — Followed. The Court cited it to show that documents notarized in 2000 and 2001 were not covered by the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and that Chapter 11 of Act No. 2711 did not contain the prohibition against notarizing relatives within the fourth civil degree by affinity or consanguinity.
• Aznar Brothers Realty Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 95 (2000) — Cited to reiterate that the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code and that Chapter 11 governed notarial practice at the time the subject deed was notarized in 1964.
• Spouses Chambon vs. Atty. Ruiz, A.C. No. 11478, September 5, 2017 — Cited for the principle that the duties of a Notary Public are not merely ministerial acts, are impressed with public interest, and that notarization converts a private document into a public document enjoying full credit on its face.

• Chapter 11, Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code of 1917) — Governed notarial practice at the time of the April 25, 2002 notarization. It did not prohibit a notary public from notarizing a document executed by a relative or spouse, so respondent’s act did not violate the law then in force.
• Section 3(c), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Contains the prohibition against notarizing documents where the parties are related to the notary public within the fourth civil degree by affinity or consanguinity. The Court held that this prohibition took effect on July 6, 2004 and did not apply retroactively to the 2002 notarization.
• Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 — The Court noted that this law was repealed by the 1917 Revised Administrative Code and was not the governing notarial law when respondent notarized the affidavit in 2002.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Jardeleza, and Tijam, JJ., concur.