Spouses Antonio and Josefa Perla Tan vs. Atty. Maria Johanna N. Vallejo

A notary public is disqualified from notarizing a deed of sale when the vendee is a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity, even if the vendee did not sign the deed and only the vendors signed it, because the vendee is a principal party to the contract of sale.

Complainants Spouses Antonio and Josefa Perla Tan were the vendors named in a Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale over property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62471. Respondent Atty. Maria Johanna N. Vallejo is a notary public, and Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr., the vendee named in those documents, is her paternal uncle. The governing rule is Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the notary is a relative by consanguinity or affinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree.

Complainants Spouses Antonio Tan and Josefa Perla Tan were the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62471. Respondent Atty. Maria Johanna N. Vallejo is a notary public, and Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. is her paternal uncle, being the brother of her father. On September 21, 2012, respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale. The Deed of Absolute Sale stated that complainants, as vendors, sold, conveyed, and transferred the property to Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr., as vendee, for Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000). The Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale, also dated September 21, 2012, stated that complainants confirmed the sale of the land to Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. and that they had been paid the full consideration. The documents bore the signatures of complainants but not that of Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr.

According to complainants, they never appeared before respondent nor signed the documents before her, and they had no participation in their preparation. They alleged that Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. alone prepared the documents, visited their home, and persuaded them to sign under the pretense that he would only use the documents to facilitate his loan application. They charged respondent with violating Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC because the vendee, Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr., is her uncle, a relative within the fourth civil degree. They filed their Joint Complaint-Affidavit dated March 3, 2016.

Respondent countered that on September 21, 2012, complainants and her uncle went to her law office in Turod Norte, Cordon, Isabela, and presented the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale for notarization. Seeing that only complainants signed the documents, without her uncle's signature, she acceded. After reading and explaining the terms of the documents to complainants and following their conformity, she affixed her signature and notarial seal. She did not hear from complainants again until four years later, when they instituted the complaint. She asserted that complainants initiated the complaint only because their relationship with her uncle had turned sour, and that they were pulling her into the issue to harass her uncle and his family. Complainants even approached her mother and told her they would drop the charge if she could convince Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. to settle their dispute.

The IBP-CBD found that the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale bore only the signatures of complainants, without the signature of respondent's uncle. That finding was adopted by the IBP-Board of Governors.

• Disqualification Under Section 3(c): Complainants argued that respondent violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC because she notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale in favor of Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr., her uncle and a relative within the fourth civil degree.
• Absence of Personal Appearance and Participation: Complainants maintained that they never appeared before respondent nor signed the documents before her, and that they had no participation in the preparation of the documents.
• Pretense of Loan Application: Complainants alleged that Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. alone prepared the documents, visited their home, and persuaded them to sign under the pretense that he would only use the documents to facilitate his loan application.

• No Disqualification Because Uncle Not a Signatory: Respondent countered that she did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because her uncle was not a signatory to the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale; only complainants signed the documents.
• Regular Notarization: Respondent asserted that complainants and her uncle went to her law office, presented the documents, and asked her to notarize them; after reading and explaining the terms and following complainants' conformity, she affixed her signature and notarial seal.
• Harassment and Soured Relations: Respondent argued that complainants initiated the complaint only because their relationship with her uncle turned sour, and that they were pulling her into the issue to harass her uncle and his family; they approached her mother and said they would drop the charge if she could convince Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. to settle their dispute.

• Notarial Disqualification: Whether respondent violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when she notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale in favor of her uncle as vendee whose signature did not appear on the documents.

• Notarial Disqualification: Yes. Respondent violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC because the vendee, her uncle, was a relative within the fourth civil degree and remained a principal party to the sale despite not signing the documents. The penalty is reprimand and disqualification from notarial commission for three months.

• Notarial Disqualification: Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. The Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale named Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. as vendee, and respondent admitted he was her uncle, the brother of her father, hence a relative within the fourth civil degree. Respondent claimed the prohibition did not apply because her uncle did not sign the documents and only complainants did. That argument was rejected. Under Article 1458 of the New Civil Code, a contract of sale has two principal parties: the seller/vendor who obligates himself to transfer ownership and deliver a determinate thing, and the buyer/vendee who obligates himself to pay a certain amount. A contract of sale is consensual; consent is essential and is manifested by the meeting of the offer and acceptance of the thing and cause. There can be no contract in the true sense without agreement or mutual assent, and every contract of sale presupposes two principal parties. Thus, although the deed was unilateral in that only the vendors signed it, the vendee remained a principal party; without the vendee, there could be no contract of sale. The role of the vendee is as important and indispensable as that of the vendors, regardless of the unilateral nature of the deed. It was also inaccurate to say the uncle did not participate at all, since respondent admitted he came to her office with complainants for the notarization. Notarizing a document where one contracting party was her relative within the fourth civil degree was a clear circumvention of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accepting respondent's argument would set a dangerous precedent that would erode the integrity of the notary system, as parties could opt for a unilateral deed of conveyance to do indirectly what the law prohibits directly. Notarization is not an empty, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe utmost care, and respondent failed to do so. As for penalty, Jandoquile vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr. held that violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV is not a sufficient ground to disbar absent deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, gross immoral conduct, or any other serious ground under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Maria vs. Cortez had imposed reprimand and six months' disqualification from notarial commission, and the Court in Jandoquile considered such less severe punishment sufficient. As a first-time offender, respondent was given the less severe penalty of reprimand and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if presently commissioned, for three months.

• Notarial Disqualification Based on Relationship to a Principal — Under Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if the notary is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. The Court applied this to a notary who notarized a deed of sale in favor of her paternal uncle, a relative within the fourth civil degree.
• Vendee as Principal Party in a Contract of Sale — Article 1458 of the New Civil Code establishes that a contract of sale has two principal parties: the vendor, who obligates himself to transfer ownership and deliver a determinate thing, and the vendee, who obligates himself to pay a price certain. A contract of sale is consensual, and consent is essential. Even if the deed is unilateral and signed only by the vendors, the vendee remains a principal party; without the vendee, there can be no contract of sale. Thus, a notary related to the vendee within the fourth civil degree is disqualified from notarizing the deed.
• Circumvention of Notarial Disqualification — A notary cannot avoid the disqualification rule by relying on the absence of the relative-principal's signature. Otherwise, parties could use a unilateral deed of conveyance to do indirectly what the law prohibits directly, eroding the integrity of the notarial system.
• Notarization as a Matter of Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, routinary act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must therefore observe utmost care in performing notarial duties.
• Penalty for Violation of the Notarial Disqualification Rule — A violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground for disbarment absent deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, gross immoral conduct, or another serious ground under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. For a first-time offender, the less severe penalty of reprimand and disqualification from notarial commission for three months is appropriate.

• "SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: (a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; (b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree." — States the disqualification rule applied to respondent, specifically the fourth civil degree relationship to a principal.
• "Without the vendee, there can be no contract of sale to speak of. The role of the vendee as a party to the sale is as important and indispensable as the role of the vendors themselves, regardless of the unilateral nature of the deed of sale where the signatures of the vendors are the only ones appearing on the document." — Articulates the ratio for treating the vendee as a principal party despite the absence of his signature.
• "To accept her argument that the prohibition did not attach to her because her uncle's signature did not appear on the sale documents would definitely set a dangerous precedent that will erode the integrity of the system of notary in the country. For then, parties could simply opt for a unilateral deed of conveyance with the end in view of doing indirectly what the law prohibits them from doing directly." — Explains why the Court rejected respondent's interpretation as a circumvention of the notarial disqualification rule.
• "As a first time offender, we deem it appropriate to impose on respondent the less severe penalty of reprimand, with disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act if respondent is presently commissioned as a notary public, for a period of three (3) months." — States the penalty imposed for the violation.

• Jandoquile vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 9514, 708 Phil. 337, 341 (2013) — Cited for the penalty; held that violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground to disbar absent deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, gross immoral conduct, or another serious ground under Section 27, Rule 138, and that a less severe penalty may suffice.
• Maria vs. Cortez — Cited in Jandoquile vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr.; the Court there reprimanded Cortez and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for six months for notarizing a special power of attorney without the alleged signatories appearing before him. The decision used it to support a less severe penalty than disbarment.
• Guerrero vs. Giron, A.C. No. 10928, December 9, 2020 — Cited in footnote for the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notary public must observe utmost care in performing notarial duties.
• ACE Foods, Inc. vs. Micro Pacific Technologies Co., Ltd., 723 Phil. 742, 751 (2013) — Cited for the rule that a contract of sale is a consensual contract.
• Heirs of Intac, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 373, 383 (2012) — Cited for the rule that consent is an essential element of a contract of sale.
• Sps. Silos vs. Philippine National Bank, 738 Phil. 156, 181 (2014) — Cited for the rule that there can be no contract in the true sense in the absence of agreement or mutual assent of the parties.

• Section 3(c), Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) — Disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the notary is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. Applied to respondent because the vendee, Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr., was her uncle within the fourth civil degree.
• Article 1458, New Civil Code — Defines a contract of sale as one where one party obligates himself to transfer ownership and deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Used to establish that a sale has two principal parties, the vendor and the vendee, and that the vendee remains a principal even if the deed is unilateral and signed only by the vendors.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Referenced through Jandoquile vs. Atty. Revilla, Jr. as the provision listing serious grounds for disbarment. The violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV was held not to fall under such serious grounds absent deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, gross immoral conduct, or similar conduct, so disbarment was not imposed.

Leonen (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.