Tan v. Vallejo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainants, Spouses Antonio and Josefa Perla Tan, charged respondent Atty. Maria Johanna N. Vallejo with violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. They alleged that respondent notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale on September 21, 2012, concerning their property. The documents purportedly transferred ownership to respondent's paternal uncle, Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. The complainants asserted that respondent was disqualified from notarizing these documents as the vendee was her uncle, a relative within the fourth civil degree. Furthermore, they claimed they never appeared before the respondent nor signed the documents, which were allegedly prepared solely by Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. under the pretense of facilitating a loan application. 2. Procedural History: Respondent, in her defense, stated that the complainants and her uncle presented the documents for notarization, and after explaining the terms and confirming the complainants' conformity, she affixed her signature and notarial seal. She claimed the complaint was filed four years later due to a souring relationship between the complainants and her uncle. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal for lack of merit, finding no violation as the uncle's signature did not appear on the documents. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. 3. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed whether respondent violated Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents where the vendee, her uncle, was a principal party but did not sign the documents. The Court ruled in the affirmative, holding that the uncle, as the vendee, was an indispensable party to the contract of sale, regardless of his signature on the notarized documents. The Court found that respondent's act circumvented the rule and undermined the integrity of notarization. Consequently, respondent was reprimanded and disqualified from performing any notarial act for three months.
Issue(s)
Did respondent violate Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when she notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale in favor of her uncle as vendee, considering the arguments regarding the definition of 'principal' and the importance of notarization, and what is the appropriate penalty?
Ruling
The Court ruled in the affirmative. Respondent Atty. Maria Johanna N. Vallejo was found liable for violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. She was reprimanded with a stern warning and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, or from performing any notarial act, for a period of three (3) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the interpretation of 'principal' and 'relative within the fourth civil degree', the importance of notarization, and the appropriate penalty: The Court held that respondent violated the said rule. Section 3(c) disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if the person involved is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. The Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale clearly identified Arnold C. Vallejo, Sr. as the vendee. Despite his signature not appearing on the documents, the Court emphasized that a contract of sale inherently involves two principal parties: the seller and the buyer. The vendee, therefore, is a principal party to the sale and its confirmatory document, regardless of whether their signature appears on the document itself. To allow a notary to notarize such a document would permit parties to circumvent the law by opting for unilateral deeds of conveyance, thereby eroding the integrity of the notarial system. The Court rejected the argument that the uncle was not a 'principal' because he was not a signatory, stating that the vendee is an indispensable party to a contract of sale. The prohibition against notarizing documents involving relatives within the fourth civil degree is designed to prevent undue influence and ensure impartiality, and this prohibition applies to the vendee even if they are not the signatory on the notarized document itself. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a mere routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest. Citing Jandoquile v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., the Court held that a violation of the disqualification rule under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is not a sufficient ground for disbarment, and deemed a reprimand, with disqualification from performing notarial acts for three months, as a sufficient sanction.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is disqualified from notarizing a deed of sale where the vendee is a relative by affinity within the fourth civil degree, even if the vendee's signature does not appear on the document, as the vendee is considered a principal party to the contract of sale.