A.C. No. 7186 - ROMEO A. ZARCILLA AND MARITA BUMANGLAG, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR..

Ruling

Accordingly, We decline to rule herein whether or not the respondent had committed the supposed falsification of the subject affidavit in the absence of the prior determination thereof in the appropriate proceeding. [29] We, however, noted that Atty. Quesada Violated the notarial law for his act of notarizing the: (1) Deed of Sale [30] dated April 12, 2002 purportedly executed by and between the spouses Maximo F. Quezada and Gloria D. Quezada, the buyers, and complainant Zarcilla's parents, the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla; and the (2) Joint Affidavit [31] dated March 20, 2002 purportedly executed by the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla for the reconstitution of TCT No. T-18490, when in both occasions the spouses Tarcela Zarcilla and Perfecto Zarcilla could no longer execute said documents and appear before Atty. Quesada since they have long been deceased as evidenced by their death certificates. Tarcela Zarcilla died on January 9, 1988, while Perfecto Zarcilla died on March 4, 2001. [32] Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice stresses the necessity of the affiant's personal appearance before the notary public: x x x (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. Thus, a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed the same is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. Here, Atty. Quesada's act of notarizing the deed of sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a fraud. This is more evident when he certified in the acknowledgment thereof that he knew the vendors and knew them to be the same persons who executed the document. When he then solemnly declared that such appeared before him and acknowledged to him that the document was the vendor's free act and deed despite the fact that the vendors cannot do so as they were already deceased, Atty. Quesada deliberately made false representations, and was not merely negligent. Thus, by his actuations, Atty. Quesada violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the deed of sale without all the affiant's personal appearance. His failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the fun