ARTEMIO T. REALINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO M.

VILLAMOR, Respondent. [A.C. No. 1924. December 29, 1978.]

Facts of the Case: Respondent, a notary public, was requested by complainant and one Romeo
Closa to prepare a deed of sale conveying a residential lot belonging to complainant as vendor, in
favor of Closa, as vendee. Although the vendor did not sign the document, because the balance
of the agreed price had not yet been paid, respondent notarized the document, upon being
prevailed by the vendee, a close friend, who promised to pay the balance. Later, respondent
learned that the transaction did not go through because the subject of the unsigned document was
sold by complainant to another. Subsequently, respondent was charged with malpractice as a
notary public. As an explanation why the complaint was filed against him, respondent states that
he is the private prosecutor in a case where complaints son is accused of murder, and that
complainant must have thought that respondent was an obstacle to complaints proposal to settle
the murder charge amicably with the aggrieved parties.
Ruling: It appears that good faith characterized the act of the respondent in affixing his signature
and his notarial seal on the unsigned document in question. The complainant has obviously taken
advantage of the oversight of the respondent and the trust that the latter had reposed on one he
thought to be his friend in order to settle the change of murder against his son.
Doctrine: NOTARIAL OFFICER MUST DEMAND THAT A DOCUMENT BE SIGNED IN
HIS PRESENCE. It is the duty of the notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in
his presence, for a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and
for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary
formalities in the performance of their duties. And where a notary public, in good faith, omitted
to require the parties to sign the document in his presence, he may be reprimanded and warned to
be more careful in exercising his duties as a notary public.
The Supreme Court reprimanded and admonished respondent to be more careful hereafter, and
warned him that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely.