HEIRS OF ODYLON UNITE TORRICES, REPRESENTED BY SOLE HEIR MIGUEL B. TORRICES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HAXLEY M. GALANO, RESPONDENT.

Heirs of Torrices versus Galano

The Case

This is a disbarment proceeding brought by the heirs of Odylon Unite Torrices against Attorney Haxley Galano, a commissioned notary public. The complainants accuse the respondent of notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale that purported to be executed by persons who had long been dead. The case matters because it tests the fundamental duty of a notary public to require the physical presence of the parties who sign a document, and it reminds us that notarization is an act invested with substantive public interest, not an empty, routinary act.

Procedural History

The complainants filed a Petition for Disbarment directly with the Supreme Court, charging Attorney Galano with violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Lawyer's Oath, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The respondent failed to submit his answer to the petition. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, where Commissioner Eduardo Robles issued a Report and Recommendation finding that Attorney Galano violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the deed without requiring the presence of the signatories. The Commissioner also found that the respondent committed a violation of the Revised Penal Code by falsely affirming that the parties physically appeared before him. The Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for three years. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation. The case then came before the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Facts

On July 23, 2012, Attorney Galano, acting in his capacity as a commissioned notary public in the Province of Cagayan, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale. The deed purported to be executed between Dominga Unite Torrices, married to Miguel Torrices, as vendor, and Felipe Tamayo, married to Divina Tamayo, as vendee. The property involved was a parcel of land covered by an Original Certificate of Title, located in Barangay Fugu, Ballesteros, Cagayan, containing an area of 7,303 square meters, sold for 200,000 pesos. The deed was entered in the respondent's notarial register.

The heirs of Torrices questioned the authenticity of the deed because the alleged vendor, Dominga, died on June 6, 1974, while her husband Miguel, whose signature also appeared on the deed, passed away in the early 1970s. The heirs accused Attorney Galano of conspiring with the vendees by making it appear that Dominga and Miguel were still alive when the deed was notarized. The death certificates of both individuals were attached to the records, establishing that they had been dead for nearly forty years before the date of notarization.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Galano is administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing a deed in the absence of the purported signatories.
• Whether or not Attorney Galano is administratively liable for violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice defines the act of acknowledgment and highlights the requirement of personal appearance. It provides:

SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. — "Acknowledgment" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document; (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.

This provision bears directly on the case because it establishes that personal appearance before the notary is the very essence of a valid acknowledgment.

Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice states the prohibition against performing notarial acts in the absence of the signatories. It provides:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions. (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document— (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

This provision is central because the respondent notarized the deed even though the signatories were dead and could not possibly have been in his presence.

Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

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.

This provision applies because the respondent committed falsehoods by stating in the notarial acknowledgment that the deceased parties personally appeared before him.

Ruling

The Supreme Court agreed with the finding that Attorney Galano is administratively liable, but modified the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent transgressed the most fundamental rules in the notarization of documents. He notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the purported vendor Dominga and her husband Miguel, whose signatures falsely appeared on the document. The Court emphasized that a notary public must require the presence of the parties executing the instrument, and 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 embody their true agreement.

On the second issue, the Court found that the respondent committed falsehoods by stating in the notarial acknowledgment that Dominga and Miguel personally appeared before him on July 26, 2012, which was utterly impossible considering that they had been dead for decades prior to that date. The Court noted that in a long line of cases, it has sternly disciplined notaries public who notarized instruments notwithstanding the fact that the persons whose signatures appeared thereon were already dead. The Court stressed that notaries public must dutifully abide by the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and must avoid committing falsehoods or consenting to the doing of any.

Doctrine

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest, as it converts a private document into a public instrument admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notary public must require the physical presence of the parties executing an instrument, and must verify that they are the same persons who executed it, that they signed freely and voluntarily, and that the provisions embody their true agreement. Notarizing a document in the absence of the signatories, especially when those signatories are already dead, constitutes a grave breach of notarial duty and a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found Attorney Haxley Galano guilty of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale in the absence of the affiants, suspended him from the practice of law for two years, revoked his notarial commission if still existing, and perpetually disqualified him from reappointment as a notary public.

Remember This

Remember that a notary public who notarizes a document without the physical presence of the signatories, particularly when those signatories are dead, commits a fundamental violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Lawyer's Oath. Examiners like to use this case to test whether you know that personal appearance is the indispensable requirement for a valid acknowledgment, and that notarization carries substantive public interest that demands utmost care and diligence.