Trust issues and the notarial act

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

One of the ironies in the practice of law is the continuing desecration of the notarial act by lawyers commissioned to notarize documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the granting courts.

It is the notarial act  -one of the most solemn acts in the practice of law- that churns out a public document from an otherwise simple private writing, agreement or contract.

The most basic of all requirements in notarization is the personal appearance of the signatory before the notary public. (Of course, recently, because of the pandemic, the Supreme Court allowed on-line appearance for a notarial act as prescribed under A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC which took effect on March 24, 2025).

Without need for sleuthing, a simple check around government offices that require notarization of documents would reveal law offices that provide “quick notarizations.”

Recently, the Supreme Court imposed a 2-year suspension on the notarial commission of a lawyer who was found to have several offices providing notarizations without a thorough verification of the identities of the signatories. As it turned out, at the time of notarization of  an Extrajudicial Settlement, the supposed signatories were located in different parts of the Philippines and some were abroad.

It was also in this case where the Supreme Court explained that the suspension should start at the time of receipt of decision and not at any time before, even if the lawyer is willing to “voluntarily desist” from practicing law. Thus:

As a final note, the Court reiterates its pronouncement in Valdez v. Atty. Hipe that administrative suspension is lifted instantly upon the filing of a sworn statement of compliance, and that no further confirmation from the Court is required. For this purpose, the Court tasked the Office of the Bar Confidant to carefully note and record the filings of such sworn statements of compliance. Further, any finding or report contrary to the statements made by suspended lawyers under oath shall constitute a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or even disbarment. (Canonoy v. Guibone, A.C. No. 11444, February 18, 2026).

                Given that many law offices have “branch” or “satellite” offices which were strategically created to provide “quick notarizations,” in case of irregularities resulting from short-cuts in the process, what would its effect be on the document that was notarized?

The rule is settled that “The irregular notarization- or, for that matter, the lack of notarization- does not necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the document.

                Errors in, or even absence of, notarization on a deed of mortgage will not invalidate an already perfected mortgage agreement. If anything, these would only depreciate the evidentiary value of the said written deed, as the same would be demoted from a public document to a private one.”(Pastora Ganancial v. Betty Cabugao, G.R. No. 203348, July 6, 2020).

Too, in another case, it was held that “A document or instrument which does not appear in the notarial records or without a copy of it therein, suggests that the document or instrument was not really notarized.  Without registration, a document or instrument while signed by the Notary Public cannot be treated as duly notarized. It cannot be treated as a public document and as such, is not entitled to the presumption of regularity. The document or instrument does not have for its benefit that which is due to public documents, that is that genuineness and due execution need not be proved. Irregular notarization reduces the evidentiary value of a document to a private document which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence.” (De Joya, et al. v.  Madlangbayan, et al., G.R. No. 228999, April 28, 2021).

Yet, at the other end the spectrum, are notarized documents containing false or forged signatures or entries. What does the law make of these falsified entries? Will the notarization of a falsified document cure its defect?

The answer is, no.

“In Spouses Salonga v. Spouses Concepcion, it was held that the notarization of a document does not guarantee its validity because it is not the function of the notary public to validate an instrument that was never intended by the parties to have any binding effect, nor is it conclusive of the true agreement of the parties thereto. Simply stated, the existence, veracity, and authenticity of a notarized written deed of sale do not conclusively determine whether all the essential requisites of a contract are present.” (Pablo Uy v. Heirs of Julieta Uy-Renales, G.R. No. 227460, December 5, 2019). Similarly, it was concluded that “It is settled that while notarization creates a presumption of regularity regarding the authenticity and proper execution of a contract, it does not alter the status of a void contract.” (Chua v. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 263632 and 264110, January 22, 2025).

The trust reposed by law upon a notarized document may be profound; but it has limits. A document once notarized becomes a public document that is endowed with a presumption of regularity. Yet in the same breath, notarization serves as a mere veneer which can easily be scraped off when there is proof that the document is really void as in cases of forged signatures that are affixed on the same.

Trust, indeed, may be valuable. But just like in anything, always be careful who to trust.

(The author is the senior partner of ETRIII Law Firm which is based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is “Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition]” which has been on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. In 2026, he published his second major legal textbook titled “Comprehensive Reviewer on Persons and Family Relations.” His website is etriiilaw.com).