FERGUSON v. ATTY. RAMOS

Nenita De Guzman Ferguson Vs. Atty. Salvador P. Ramos

A.C. No. 9209

April 18, 2017

FACTS:

On November 25, 2007, the complainant purchased a house and lot located in San Rafael, Bulacan for ₱800,000.00. Without her knowledge, the seller obtained a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to transfer the title of the said property to her name, but the seller was unaware that the said CLOA was void ab initio as the subject land was not an agricultural land and there existed a 10-year prohibition to transfer the subject land.

In 2009, the complainant filed a petition for the cancellation of the CLOA before the DAR Office, represented by Atty. Ramos, who was the Chief Legal Officer of DAR-Provincial Office in Bulacan. The complainant withdrew the petition before the DAR and filed the case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos City (RTC).

Upon receipt of the Answer, complainant found out that it was strikingly similar to the one filed by the defendants in the DAR, which was prepared by Atty. Ramos; that complainant discovered that the Deed of Sale, dated April 24, 2009, which became the basis of the transfer of title was fraudulently altered as it only covered the sale of the land, not the house and• lot, and the price indicated was only ₱188,340.00, not the amount of ₱800,000.00 that complainant actually paid.

Complainant’s signature and her husband, Douglas Ferguson were forged. Atty. Ramos notarized the deed of Sale without their presence. The complainant and her husband neither appeared, executed nor acknowledged any document before Atty. Ramos as they never met him in person.

Atty. Ramos denied that he represented the defendants in• the case before the DAR but he admitted that he notarized their Answer. With respect to the charge of falsification of the April 24, 2009 Deed of Sale and the notarization of the aforementioned deed, Atty. Ramos likewise denied any participation and countered that his signature as a notary public was forged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Salvador P. Ramos is guilty of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice.

HELD:

Atty. Ramos is guilty of violating the law on notarial practice. Section1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states, the acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgements of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is• his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

The importance of the affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which specifically provides that 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.

The afore-quoted rules clearly mandate that a notary public, before notarizing a document, should require the presence of the very person who executed the same. Thus, he certifies that it was the same person who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were stated therein. The presence of the parties to the deed is necessary to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the affiant.