This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-09-01 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| One of the obligations of a notary public is to authenticate documents acknowledged before him, certifying the truth thereof under his seal of office.[15] When acknowledging a document, it is required that the person who signed or executed the same, appears in person before the notary public and represents to the latter that the signature on the document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the document, declaring the same as his free and voluntary act and deed.[16] Thereafter, the notary public affixes his notarial seal on the instrument which certifies the due execution of the document, and resultantly, converts a private document into a public document which on its face, is entitled to full faith and credit.[17] | |||||
|
2011-10-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Gonzales v. Ramos,[14] we elucidated on how important and sacrosanct the notarial act is: By affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, the respondent converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a public document. Such act is no empty gesture. The principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents. When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgement executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[15] | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Here, Atty. Crispulo Ducusin notarized the deed of sale that Riñoza acknowledged as his free act and deed on June 17, 1989. By signing and affixing his notarial seal on the deed, Atty. Ducusin converted it from a private document to a public document.[33] As such, the deed of sale is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. And since Riñoza, the executor of the deed, is already dead, the notarized deed of absolute sale is the best evidence of his consent to the sale of the Utod sugarland to the Destreza spouses. Parenthetically, it is not disputed that the Destrezas immediately and openly occupied the land right after the sale and continuously cultivated it from then on. | |||||
|
2008-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In this case, Atty. Bongon failed to ascertain the identities of the parties; he notarized the Deed of Sale and stated that Primitiva Nangyo personally appeared before him yet she had long been dead. Respondent has clearly failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his functions as a notary public. By notarizing the questioned deed, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. [8] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that these acts and omissions were established through respondent's own admission that he notarized the document even if Maximina Pantoja did not affix her thumbmark in his presence, and that complainant did not appear before him to sign the deed. The Investigating Commissioner also considered respondent's testimony in Civil Case No. DNA-574.[8] Citing Gonzales v. Ramos,[9] Commissioner Herbosa recommended that the notarial commission of respondent be revoked; and that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. | |||||
|
2006-03-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Notarization converts a private document into a public document.[12] However, the non-appearance of the parties before the notary public who notarized the document does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties' transaction void ab initio.[13] Thus:x x x Article 1358 of the New Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. Failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate a contract. Where a contract is not in the form prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This is consistent with the basic principle that contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all essential requisites are present.[14] Hence, the Lease Contract is valid despite Mayor Perez's failure to appear before the notary public. | |||||
|
2006-02-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 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.[11] | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| A document should not be notarized unless the persons who are executing it are the very same ones who are personally appearing before the notary public. The affiants should be present to attest to the truth of the contents of the document[15] and to enable the notary to verify the genuineness of their signature.[16] Notaries public are enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious document. In fact, it is their duty to demand that the document presented to them for notarization be signed in their presence.[17] Their function is, among others, to guard against illegal deeds. | |||||