Talisic vs. Rinen

A notary public, including one acting ex-officio, must personally verify the identity and ensure the personal appearance of all signatories before notarizing a document; the failure to do so, together with material inconsistencies in the notarial record, constitutes a breach of the exacting standards of notarial practice and warrants revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from future commission. The act of notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, invests it with evidentiary weight, and engages public interest in a substantial degree; therefore, the notary must observe the utmost care in performing the duties of the office, and may not delegate the responsibility of ensuring the genuineness of the parties’ signatures and the voluntariness of their act.

Aurora Corpuz owned a 3,817-square-meter parcel of land in Infanta, Quezon, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4875. She died on May 7, 1987, survived by her spouse Celedonio Talisic and their three children: Arlene Talisic Villarazo, Wilberto Talisic, and Alvin Corpuz Talisic. On April 7, 1994, an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale purportedly executed by the heirs was notarized by Atty. Primo R. Rinen, who was then the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Real, Quezon, acting as notary public ex-officio. The deed served as the basis for transferring title to Spouses Benjamin Durante and Eleonor Laviña. After Celedonio died on November 2, 2000, the children discovered the transfer. Wilberto claimed that his signature and those of his siblings were forged, and that even his name was erroneously written as “Wilfredo” in the deed. He filed the present administrative complaint charging Atty. Rinen with falsification.

• The Deed and Alleged Forgery: Aurora Corpuz died on May 7, 1987, leaving a parcel of land in Langgas, Infanta, Quezon, to her spouse Celedonio and their three children, Arlene, Wilberto, and Alvin. On April 7, 1994, an Extra Judicial Partition with Sale was executed, purportedly by the heirs, conveying the property to Spouses Benjamin Durante and Eleonor Laviña. The deed was acknowledged before Atty. Primo R. Rinen, then the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Real, Quezon, acting as notary public ex-officio. After Celedonio’s death on November 2, 2000, Wilberto learned of the transfer. Wilberto alleged that his father’s signature was genuine, but his own signature and those of his siblings were forged; his name was also misspelled as “Wilfredo” in the instrument.

• Atty. Rinen’s Defense: Atty. Rinen denied any participation in forgery. He claimed that the Spouses Durante and the Talisic heirs approached him in his office for the preparation and notarization of the deed. His clerk of court prepared the document; upon its completion, the clerk ushered the parties into his office for the administration of oath. Atty. Rinen maintained that the deed included a certification stating that no notary public was available to expedite the transaction, and that notarial fees were paid and covered by an official receipt from the Municipal Treasurer of Real, Quezon. He asserted that he acted in his capacity as notary public ex-officio and relied on his clerk in the performance of the attendant duties.

• Findings of the Investigating Commissioner: Investigating Commissioner Abelita found no evidence that Atty. Rinen committed forgery, but determined that he was negligent. Atty. Rinen admitted that the deed was prepared in his office and acknowledged before him, yet he failed to require the parties to present documents to prove their identity. The acknowledgment portion left the details of the community tax certificates of Wilberto and his sister unspecified. In addition, material inconsistencies appeared in the deed’s dates: the execution was dated 1994, the notarization was marked 1995, and the document was entered in the notarial book as belonging to the Series of 1992.

• Forgery and Falsification: Wilberto maintained that his and his siblings’ signatures on the Extra Judicial Partition with Sale were forged, and that his name was incorrectly written as “Wilfredo,” indicating that the document was falsified and the notarization facilitated the fraudulent transfer of his mother’s property.

• Deficient Notarization: Wilberto argued that Atty. Rinen failed to perform the basic duty of a notary public to verify the identities and the personal appearance of the parties executing the deed, thus enabling the use of forged signatures to strip the heirs of their inheritance.

• Lack of Participation in Forgery: Atty. Rinen denied forging any signatures and maintained that the parties—the Spouses Durante and the Talisic heirs—voluntarily appeared before him on April 7, 1994, to have the deed prepared and acknowledged.

• Reliance on Clerk of Court: Atty. Rinen contended that the actual preparation of the deed was performed by his clerk of court, and that he merely administered the oath after the clerk presented the parties to him, implying that the verification of identity was handled by his subordinate.

• Performance of Duty as Ex-Officio Notary Public: Atty. Rinen pointed out that he was then the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court and acted as a notary public ex-officio; he issued the certification that no other notary public was available, collected notarial fees with an official receipt, and thus believed he had satisfied the requisites of notarization.

• Verification of Identity and Personal Appearance: Whether Atty. Rinen violated the standards of notarial practice by failing to personally verify the identities of all signatories to the deed and to ensure their actual personal appearance before him.

• Effect of Ex-Officio Capacity: Whether a judge acting as notary public ex-officio may rely on court personnel to verify the identity of the parties and is exempt from the strict personal verification required of regular notaries public.

• Consequence of Inconsistencies in the Notarial Record: Whether the material discrepancies among the dates of execution, notarization, and entry in the notarial book constitute negligence warranting administrative sanction.

• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the recommended sanction of revocation of notarial commission and one-year disqualification from notarial practice is proper under the circumstances.

• Verification of Identity and Personal Appearance: The failure to verify the identity of all parties was established by the respondent’s admission and by the blank spaces in the acknowledgment portion for the community tax certificate details of Wilberto and his sister. A notary public is duty-bound to ensure that the persons who sign the document are the very same individuals who personally appeared to attest to its contents and truth. The presence of the parties enables the notary to verify the genuineness of the signatures; the omission of that verification constituted a breach of the exacting standard of due diligence required of a notary public. Without proof of identity, the notarization is fatally defective and undermines public confidence in notarized instruments.

• Effect of Ex-Officio Capacity: The fact that Atty. Rinen was a trial court judge at the time of notarization did not relieve him of compliance with the same standards and obligations imposed upon other commissioned notaries public. He could not delegate the core notarial duties to his clerk of court, especially the duty to ensure that the parties were truly present and acting voluntarily. The responsibility to verify identity and overseer the acknowledgment is personal to the notary public and cannot be transferred to subordinates. Being a judge ex-officio simply adds another layer of authority and responsibility; it does not dilute the rigorous duties attached to the notarial function.

• Consequence of Inconsistencies in the Notarial Record: The discrepancies—execution dated 1994, notarization dated 1995, and entry in the notarial book as Series of 1992—showed a lack of care and attention in the performance of notarial acts. These inconsistencies further attested to a negligent discharge of the notary’s responsibilities and reinforced the conclusion that the respondent did not observe the required “utmost care” in handling the deed, to the detriment of the document’s integrity and evidentiary value.

• Appropriate Penalty: The revocation of Atty. Rinen’s notarial commission (should he currently hold one) and his disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year were deemed commensurate to the violations. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest; its trivialization through carelessness justifies a stern sanction to protect the public and maintain the reliability of public instruments. A warning that repetition will merit a more severe sanction was added to deter future misconduct.

• Duty of Personal Appearance and Verification of Identity — Before notarizing a document, a notary public must require the personal appearance of the signatories and must verify their identities. The notary should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same individuals who personally appeared to attest to the contents and truth of the statements therein. The presence of the parties is necessary to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signatures. This duty is personal and cannot be delegated to subordinates or court personnel. Failure to discharge it renders the notarization defective and subjects the notary to disciplinary action.

• Notarization as a Public Act — Notarization is not a routinary or meaningless act; it is invested with substantive public interest. A notarial certificate converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Because of this transformative legal effect, notaries public must observe the basic requirements of their duties with the utmost care. Any failure to do so undermines public confidence in the integrity of public instruments.

• _Judge as Notary Public _Ex-Officio__ — A judge acting as notary public ex-officio is held to the same stringent standards as any commissioned notary public. The judicial office does not diminish the obligation to personally ascertain the identity and presence of the parties, nor does it permit reliance on subordinate court personnel to perform the core notarial functions. The obligation to verify identity, ensure voluntariness, and maintain accurate records remains strictly personal to the notary-judge.

• “[F]aithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.” — This passage underscores the non-negotiable nature of the notary’s duty to ensure the solemnity and truthfulness of the statements made under oath.

• “The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree x x x.” — This excerpt encapsulates the rationale for imposing strict standards on notarial acts, linking the evidentiary weight of a notarized document to the integrity of the process.

• “A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed will enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.” — The controlling formulation of the duty of personal appearance and identity verification, cited from Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, is repeatedly applied in the resolution.

• “Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.” — Reinforcing the gravity of the notarial function and the limited circle of persons permitted to discharge it.

• Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236 (2006) — Controlling precedent that squarely defined the duty of a notary public to require the personal appearance of signatories to verify the genuineness of their signatures; applied to hold Atty. Rinen liable for failing to verify identity.

• Linco v. Lacebal, A.C. No. 7241, October 17, 2011, 659 SCRA 130 — Cited for the principle that faithful observance of the legal solemnity of the oath is sacrosanct, and that notarization is not an empty routine but an act invested with public interest; reinforced the necessity of strict compliance.

• Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, 486 Phil. 254 (2004) — Quoted for the definition of the legal effects of notarization and the substantial public interest it engages; used to explain the conversion of a private document into a public one.

• Maria v. Cortez, A.C. No. 7880, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 87 — Referenced for the statement that a notary public’s function should not be trivialized and that notarial powers must be exercised with accuracy and fidelity.

• The decision does not cite a specific article or section of a statute, but the obligations enforced are rooted in the Notarial Law (Act No. 2103, as amended) and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court relied on its own jurisprudence interpreting the notarial standards, specifically the requirements that a notary public must: (a) ensure the personal appearance of the affiants; (b) verify their identity through competent evidence, such as community tax certificates; and (c) record the transaction accurately in the notarial register. The blank community tax certificate details in the acknowledgment were treated as evidence of non-compliance with the identity verification requirement under the governing notarial rules.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes A. Sereno (Chairperson), Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. concurred.

• None.