20

-2004 Rules on Notarial Practice A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, July 6, 2004; Amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC February 19,2008Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaA.M. No. 02-8-13-SC February 19, 2008RE: 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE -The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Sub Committee on the Revision of the Rules Governing Notaries Public, to AMEND Sec. 12 (a). Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:Sirs/Mesdames:Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 19, 2008."A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC-Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Sub Committee on the Revision of the Rules Governing Notaries Public, to AMEND Sec. 12 (a). Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:Rule IIDEFINITIONSxxx"Sec. 12. Component Evidence of Identity. The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an individual based on:(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, drivers license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voters ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seamans book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; orVery truly yours.MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA (sgd)Clerk of CourtRepublic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice RESOLUTIONActing on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 submitted by the Sub-Committee for the Study, Drafting and Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries Public and the Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the Committees on Revision of the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar Matters, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, with modifications, thus:2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULE I IMPLEMENTATIONSECTION 1. Title. - These Rules shall be known as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. SEC. 2. Purposes. - These Rules shall be applied and construed to advance the following purposes: (a) to promote, serve, and protect public interest; (b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the rules governing notaries public; and (c) to foster ethical conduct among notaries public. SEC. 3. Interpretation. - Unless the context of these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. RULE II DEFINITIONSSECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - Acknowledgment refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an integrally complete instrument or document; (b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and - (c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that he has executed the instrument or document as his free and voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that capacity.SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term Affirmation or Oath refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and (c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.SEC. 3. Commission. - Commission refers to the grant of authority to perform notarial acts and to the written evidence of the authority. SEC. 4. Copy Certification. - Copy Certification refers to a notarial act in which a notary public: (a) is presented with an instrument or document that is neither a vital record, a public record, nor publicly recordable; (b) copies or supervises the copying of the instrument or document; (c) compares the instrument or document with the copy; and (d) determines that the copy is accurate and complete.SEC. 5. Notarial Register. - Notarial Register refers to a permanently bound book with numbered pages containing a chronological record of notarial acts performed by a notary public. SEC. 6. Jurat. - Jurat refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.SEC. 7. Notarial Act and Notarization. - Notarial Act and Notarization refer to any act that a notary public is empowered to perform under these Rules. SEC. 8. Notarial Certificate. - Notarial Certificate refers to the part of, or attachment to, a notarized instrument or document that is completed by the notary public, bears the notary's signature and seal, and states the facts attested to by the notary public in a particular notarization as provided for by these Rules. SEC. 9. Notary Public and Notary. - Notary Public and Notary refer to any person commissioned to perform official acts under these Rules. SEC. 10. Principal. - Principal refers to a person appearing before the notary public whose act is the subject of notarization. SEC. 11. Regular Place of Work or Business. - The term regular place of work or business refers to a stationary office in the city or province wherein the notary public renders legal and notarial services. SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.SEC. 13. Official Seal or Seal. - Official seal or Seal refers to a device for affixing a mark, image or impression on all papers officially signed by the notary public conforming the requisites prescribed by these Rules. SEC. 14. Signature Witnessing. - The term signature witnessing refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary public.SEC. 15. Court. - Court refers to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. SEC. 16. Petitioner. - Petitioner refers to a person who applies for a notarial commission. SEC. 17. Office of the Court Administrator. - Office of the Court Administrator refers to the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court. SEC. 18. Executive Judge. - Executive Judge refers to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of a city or province who issues a notarial commission. SEC. 19. Vendor. - Vendor under these Rules refers to a seller of a notarial seal and shall include a wholesaler or retailer. SEC. 20. Manufacturer. - Manufacturer under these Rules refers to one who produces a notarial seal and shall include an engraver and seal maker. RULE III COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules. To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner: (1) must be a citizen of the Philippines; (2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age; (3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued; (4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and (5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.SEC. 2. Form of the Petition and Supporting Documents. - Every petition for a notarial commission shall be in writing, verified, and shall include the following: (a) a statement containing the petitioner's personal qualifications, including the petitioner's date of birth, residence, telephone number, professional tax receipt, roll of attorney's number and IBP membership number; (b) certification of good moral character of the petitioner by at least two (2) executive officers of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where he is applying for commission; (c) proof of payment for the filing of the petition as required by these Rules; and (d) three (3) passport-size color photographs with light background taken within thirty (30) days of the application. The photograph should not be retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name at the bottom part of the photographs.SEC. 3. Application Fee. - Every petitioner for a notarial commission shall pay the application fee as prescribed in the Rules of Court. SEC. 4. Summary Hearing on the Petition. - The Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing on the petition and shall grant the same if: (a) the petition is sufficient in form and substance; (b) the petitioner proves the allegations contained in the petition; and (c) the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the Executive Judge that he has read and fully understood these Rules.The Executive Judge shall forthwith issue a commission and a Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in favor of the petitioner. SEC. 5. Notice of Summary Hearing. - (a) The notice of summary hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the hearing shall be conducted and posted in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. The cost of the publication shall be borne by the petitioner. The notice may include more than one petitioner. (b) The notice shall be substantially in the following form: NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that a summary hearing on the petition for notarial commission of (name of petitioner) shall be held on (date) at (place) at (time). Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto, received by the undersigned before the date of the summary hearing. _____________________ Executive JudgeSEC. 6. Opposition to Petition. - Any person who has any cause or reason to object to the grant of the petition may file a verified written opposition thereto. The opposition must be received by the Executive Judge before the date of the summary hearing. SEC. 7. Form of Notarial Commission. - The commissioning of a notary public shall be in a formal order signed by the Executive Judge substantially in the following form: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ______________ This is to certify that (name of notary public) of (regular place of work or business) in (city or province) was on this (date) day of (month) two thousand and (year) commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending the thirty-first day of December (year) ________________________ Executive JudgeSEC. 8. Period Of Validity of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall be valid for a period of three (3) months from date of issue, unless extended by the Executive Judge. A mark, image or impression of the seal that may be purchased by the notary public pursuant to the Certificate shall be presented to the Executive Judge for approval prior to use. SEC. 9. Form of Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. - The Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal shall substantially be in the following form: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF_____________ CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A NOTARIAL SEAL This is to authorize (name of notary public) of (city or province) who was commissioned by the undersigned as a notary public, within and for the said jurisdiction, for a term ending, the thirty-first of December (year) to purchase a notarial seal. Issued this (day) of (month) (year). ________________________ Executive Judge SEC. 10. Official Seal of Notary Public. - Every person commissioned as notary public shall have only one official seal of office in accordance with these Rules. SEC. 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. SEC. 12. Register of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall keep and maintain a Register of Notaries Public in his jurisdiction which shall contain, among others, the dates of issuance or revocation or suspension of notarial commissions, and the resignation or death of notaries public. The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the Court Administrator information and data recorded in the register of notaries public. The Office of the Court Administrator shall keep a permanent, complete and updated database of such records. SEC. 13. Renewal of Commission. - A notary public may file a written application with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his commission within forty-five (45) days before the expiration thereof. A mark, image or impression of the seal of the notary public shall be attached to the application. Failure to file said application will result in the deletion of the name of the notary public in the register of notaries public. The notary public thus removed from the Register of Notaries Public may only be reinstated therein after he is issued a new commission in accordance with these Rules. SEC. 14. Action on Application for Renewal of Commission. - The Executive Judge shall, upon payment of the application fee mentioned in Section 3 above of this Rule, act on an application for the renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. If the application is denied, the Executive Judge shall state the reasons therefor. RULE IV POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF NOTARIES PUBLICSECTION 1. Powers. - (a) A notary public is empowered to perform the following notarial acts: (1) acknowledgments; (2) oaths and affirmations; (3) jurats; (4) signature witnessings; (5) copy certifications; and (6) any other act authorized by these Rules.(b) A notary public is authorized to certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if: (1) the thumb or other mark is affixed in the presence of the notary public and of two (2) disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; (2) both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark; (3) the notary public writes below the thumb or other mark: "Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory by mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of witnesses) and undersigned notary public"; and (4) the notary public notarizes the signature by thumb or other mark through an acknowledgment, jurat, or signature witnessing.(c) A notary public is authorized to sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if: (1) the notary public is directed by the person unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his behalf; (2) the signature of the notary public is affixed in the presence of two disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the instrument or document; (3) both witnesses sign their own names ; (4) the notary public writes below his signature: Signature affixed by notary in presence of (names and addresses of person and two [2] witnesses); and (5) the notary public notarizes his signature by acknowledgment or jurat.SEC. 2. Prohibitions. - (a) A notary public shall not perform a notarial act outside his regular place of work or business; provided, however, that on certain exceptional occasions or situations, a notarial act may be performed at the request of the parties in the following sites located within his territorial jurisdiction: (1) public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths of office may be administered; (2) public function areas in hotels and similar places for the signing of instruments or documents requiring notarization; (3) hospitals and other medical institutions where a party to an instrument or document is confined for treatment; and (4) any place where a party to an instrument or document requiring notarization is under detention.(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.

SEC. 3. Disqualifications. - A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: (a) is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized; (b) will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration, except as provided by these Rules and by law; or (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degreeSEC. 4. Refusal to Notarize. - A notary public shall not perform any notarial act described in these Rules for any person requesting such an act even if he tenders the appropriate fee specified by these Rules if: (a) the notary knows or has good reason to believe that the notarial act or transaction is unlawful or immoral; (b) the signatory shows a demeanor which engenders in the mind of the notary public reasonable doubt as to the former's knowledge of the consequences of the transaction requiring a notarial act; and (c) in the notary's judgment, the signatory is not acting of his or her own free will.SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. - A notary public shall not: (a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false. (b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.SEC. 6. Improper Instruments or Documents. - A notary public shall not notarize: (a) a blank or incomplete instrument or document; or (b) an instrument or document without appropriate notarial certification.RULE V FEES OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Imposition and Waiver of Fees. - For performing a notarial act, a notary public may charge the maximum fee as prescribed by the Supreme Court unless he waives the fee in whole or in part. SEC. 2. Travel Fees and Expenses. - A notary public may charge travel fees and expenses separate and apart from the notarial fees prescribed in the preceding section when traveling to perform a notarial act if the notary public and the person requesting the notarial act agree prior to the travel. SEC. 3. Prohibited Fees. No fee or compensation of any kind, except those expressly prescribed and allowed herein, shall be collected or received for any notarial service. SEC. 4. Payment or Refund of Fees. - A notary public shall not require payment of any fees specified herein prior to the performance of a notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon. Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary public prior to the performance of a notarial act are not subject to refund if the notary public had already traveled but failed to complete in whole or in part the notarial act for reasons beyond his control and without negligence on his part. SEC. 5. Notice of Fees. - A notary public who charges a fee for notarial services shall issue a receipt registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the journal all fees charged for services rendered. A notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in his office a complete schedule of chargeable notarial fees. RULE VI NOTARIAL REGISTERSECTION 1. Form of Notarial Register. - (a) A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection as provided in these Rules, a chronological official notarial register of notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages. The register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary public upon request and upon payment of the cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify the number of pages of which the book consists. For purposes of this provision, a Memorandum of Agreement or Understanding may be entered into by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Court Administrator. (b) A notary public shall keep only one active notarial register at any given time. SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register. - (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the following: (1) the entry number and page number; (2) the date and time of day of the notarial act; (3) the type of notarial act; (4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding; (5) the name and address of each principal; (6) the competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules if the signatory is not personally known to the notary; (7) the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's identity; (8) the fee charged for the notarial act; (9) the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of work or business; and (10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.(b) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the reasons and circumstances for not completing a notarial act. (c) A notary public shall record in the notarial register the circumstances of any request to inspect or copy an entry in the notarial register, including the requester's name, address, signature, thumbmark or other recognized identifier, and evidence of identity. The reasons for refusal to allow inspection or copying of a journal entry shall also be recorded. (d) When the instrument or document is a contract, the notary public shall keep an original copy thereof as part of his records and enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. He shall also retain a duplicate original copy for the Clerk of Court. (e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries. (f) In case of a protest of any draft, bill of exchange or promissory note, the notary public shall make a full and true record of all proceedings in relation thereto and shall note therein whether the demand for the sum of money was made, by whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill or note; whether notices were given, to whom and in what manner; where the same was made, when and to whom and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same. (g) At the end of each week, the notary public shall certify in his notarial register the number of instruments or documents executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none, this certificate shall show this fact. (h) A certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten (10) days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court and shall be under the responsibility of such officer. If there is no entry to certify for the month, the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of certified copies herein required. SEC. 3. Signatures and Thumbmarks. - At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark affixed by each: (a) principal; (b) credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of a principal; and (c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a person physically unable to sign.SEC. 4. Inspection, Copying and Disposal. - (a) In the notary's presence, any person may inspect an entry in the notarial register, during regular business hours, provided; (1) the person's identity is personally known to the notary public or proven through competent evidence of identity as defined in these Rules; (2) the person affixes a signature and thumb or other mark or other recognized identifier, in the notarial register in a separate, dated entry; (3) the person specifies the month, year, type of instrument or document, and name of the principal in the notarial act or acts sought; and (4) the person is shown only the entry or entries specified by him.(b) The notarial register may be examined by a law enforcement officer in the course of an official investigation or by virtue of a court order. (c) If the notary public has a reasonable ground to believe that a person has a criminal intent or wrongful motive in requesting information from the notarial register, the notary shall deny access to any entry or entries therein. SEC. 5. Loss, Destruction or Damage of Notarial Register. - (a) In case the notarial register is stolen, lost, destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered unusable or illegible as a record of notarial acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10) days after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft or vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any means providing a proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail and also provide a copy or number of any pertinent police report. (b) Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, or death of the notary public, the notarial register and notarial records shall immediately be delivered to the office of the Executive Judge. SEC. 6. Issuance of Certified True Copies. - The notary public shall supply a certified true copy of the notarial record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for such copy upon payment of the legal fees. RULE VII SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Official Signature. In notarizing a paper instrument or document, a notary public shall: (a) sign by hand on the notarial certificate only the name indicated and as appearing on the notary's commission; (b) not sign using a facsimile stamp or printing device; and (c) affix his official signature only at the time the notarial act is performed.SEC. 2. Official Seal. - (a) Every person commissioned as notary public shall have a seal of office, to be procured at his own expense, which shall not be possessed or owned by any other person. It shall be of metal, circular in shape, two inches in diameter, and shall have the name of the city or province and the word Philippines and his own name on the margin and the roll of attorney's number on the face thereof, with the words "notary public" across the center. A mark, image or impression of such seal shall be made directly on the paper or parchment on which the writing appears. (b) The official seal shall be affixed only at the time the notarial act is performed and shall be clearly impressed by the notary public on every page of the instrument or document notarized. (c) When not in use, the official seal shall be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to the notary public or the person duly authorized by him. (d) Within five (5) days after the official seal of a notary public is stolen, lost, damaged or other otherwise rendered unserviceable in affixing a legible image, the notary public, after informing the appropriate law enforcement agency, shall notify the Executive Judge in writing, providing proper receipt or acknowledgment, including registered mail, and in the event of a crime committed, provide a copy or entry number of the appropriate police record. Upon receipt of such notice, if found in order by the Executive Judge, the latter shall order the notary public to cause notice of such loss or damage to be published, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or province where the notary public is commissioned. Thereafter, the Executive Judge shall issue to the notary public a new Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. (e) Within five (5) days after the death or resignation of the notary public, or the revocation or expiration of a notarial commission, the official seal shall be surrendered to the Executive Judge and shall be destroyed or defaced in public during office hours. In the event that the missing, lost or damaged seal is later found or surrendered, it shall be delivered by the notary public to the Executive Judge to be disposed of in accordance with this section. Failure to effect such surrender shall constitute contempt of court. In the event of death of the notary public, the person in possession of the official seal shall have the duty to surrender it to the Executive Judge. SEC. 3. Seal Image. - The notary public shall affix a single, clear, legible, permanent, and photographically reproducible mark, image or impression of the official seal beside his signature on the notarial certificate of a paper instrument or document. SEC. 4. Obtaining and Providing Seal. - (a) A vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals may not sell said product without a written authorization from the Executive Judge. (b) Upon written application and after payment of the application fee, the Executive Judge may issue an authorization to sell to a vendor or manufacturer of notarial seals after verification and investigation of the latter's qualifications. The Executive Judge shall charge an authorization fee in the amount of PhP 4,000 for the vendor and PhP 8,000 for the manufacturer. If a manufacturer is also a vendor, he shall only pay the manufacturer's authorization fee. (c) The authorization shall be in effect for a period of four (4) years from the date of its issuance and may be renewed by the Executive Judge for a similar period upon payment of the authorization fee mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (d) A vendor or manufacturer shall not sell a seal to a buyer except upon submission of a certified copy of the commission and the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal issued by the Executive Judge. A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor or manufacturer a certified copy of the Confirmation of the Change of Name issued by the Executive Judge. (e) Only one seal may be sold by a vendor or manufacturer for each Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal. (f) After the sale, the vendor or manufacturer shall affix a mark, image or impression of the seal to the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and submit the completed Certificate to the Executive Judge. Copies of the Certificate of Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal and the buyer's commission shall be kept in the files of the vendor or manufacturer for four (4) years after the sale. (g) A notary public obtaining a new seal as a result of change of name shall present to the vendor a certified copy of the order confirming the change of name issued by the Executive Judge. RULE VIII NOTARIAL CERTIFICATESSECTION 1. Form of Notarial Certificate. - The notarial form used for any notarial instrument or document shall conform to all the requisites prescribed herein, the Rules of Court and all other provisions of issuances by the Supreme Court and in applicable laws. SEC. 2. Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. The notarial certificate shall include the following: (a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission; (b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public; (c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and (d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.RULE IX CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF NOTARIES PUBLICSECTION 1. Certificate of Authority for a Notarial Act. - A certificate of authority evidencing the authenticity of the official seal and signature of a notary public shall be issued by the Executive Judge upon request in substantially the following form: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FOR A NOTARIAL ACT I, (name, title, jurisdiction of the Executive Judge), certify that (name of notary public), the person named in the seal and signature on the attached document, is a Notary Public in and for the (City/Municipality/Province) of the Republic of the Philippines and authorized to act as such at the time of the document's notarization. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed below my signature and seal of this office this (date) day of (month) (year). _________________ (official signature) (seal of Executive Judge)RULE X CHANGES OF STATUS OF NOTARY PUBLICSECTION 1. Change of Name and Address. - Within ten (10) days after the change of name of the notary public by court order or by marriage, or after ceasing to maintain the regular place of work or business, the notary public shall submit a signed and dated notice of such fact to the Executive Judge. The notary public shall not notarize until: (a) he receives from the Executive Judge a confirmation of the new name of the notary public and/or change of regular place of work or business; and (b) a new seal bearing the new name has been obtained.The foregoing notwithstanding, until the aforementioned steps have been completed, the notary public may continue to use the former name or regular place of work or business in performing notarial acts for three (3) months from the date of the change, which may be extended once for valid and just cause by the Executive Judge for another period not exceeding three (3) months. SEC. 2. Resignation. - A notary public may resign his commission by personally submitting a written, dated and signed formal notice to the Executive Judge together with his notarial seal, notarial register and records. Effective from the date indicated in the notice, he shall immediately cease to perform notarial acts. In the event of his incapacity to personally appear, the submission of the notice may be performed by his duly authorized representative. SEC. 3. Publication of Resignation. - The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have resigned their notarial commissions and the effective dates of their resignation. RULE XI REVOCATION OF COMMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONSSECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. - (a) The Executive Judge shall revoke a notarial commission for any ground on which an application for a commission may be denied. (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: (1) fails to keep a notarial register; (2) fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts; (3) fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days of the month following; (4) fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission; (5) fails to submit his notarial register, when filled, to the Executive Judge; (6) fails to make his report, within a reasonable time, to the Executive Judge concerning the performance of his duties, as may be required by the judge; (7) fails to require the presence of a principal at the time of the notarial act; (8) fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence; (9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV; (10) knowingly performs or fails to perform any other act prohibited or mandated by these Rules; and (11) commits any other dereliction or act which in the judgment of the Executive Judge constitutes good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction.(c) Upon verified complaint by an interested, affected or aggrieved person, the notary public shall be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If the answer of the notary public is not satisfactory, the Executive Judge shall conduct a summary hearing. If the allegations of the complaint are not proven, the complaint shall be dismissed. If the charges are duly established, the Executive Judge shall impose the appropriate administrative sanctions. In either case, the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Pending the appeal, an order imposing disciplinary sanctions shall be immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court. (d) The Executive Judge may motu proprio initiate administrative proceedings against a notary public, subject to the procedures prescribed in paragraph (c) above and impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (a) and (b). SEC. 2. Supervision and Monitoring of Notaries Public. - The Executive Judge shall at all times exercise supervision over notaries public and shall closely monitor their activities. SEC. 3. Publication of Revocations and Administrative Sanctions. - The Executive Judge shall immediately order the Clerk of Court to post in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court the names of notaries public who have been administratively sanctioned or whose notarial commissions have been revoked. SEC. 4. Death of Notary Public. - If a notary public dies before fulfilling the obligations in Section 4(e), Rule VI and Section 2(e), Rule VII, the Executive Judge, upon being notified of such death, shall forthwith cause compliance with the provisions of these sections. RULE XII SPECIAL PROVISIONSSECTION 1. Punishable Acts. - The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution of any person who: (a) knowingly acts or otherwise impersonates a notary public; (b) knowingly obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the seal, notarial register, or official records of a notary public; and (c) knowingly solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a notary public to commit official misconduct.SEC 2. Reports to the Supreme Court. - The Executive Judge concerned shall submit semestral reports to the Supreme Court on discipline and prosecution of notaries public. RULE XIII REPEALING AND EFFECTIVITY PROVISIONSSECTION 1. Repeal. - All rules and parts of rules, including issuances of the Supreme Court inconsistent herewith, are hereby repealed or accordingly modified. SEC. 2. Effective Date. - These Rules shall take effect on the first day of August 2004, and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines which provides sufficiently wide circulation.Promulgated this 6th day of July, 2004.

-Local Government Code RA No. 7160, Secs. 156-164ARTICLE VICommunity TaxSECTION 156. Community Tax. Cities or municipalities may levy a community tax in accordance with the provisions of this Article.SECTION 157. Individuals Liable to Community Tax. Every inhabitant of the Philippines eighteen (18) years of age or over who has been regularly employed on a wage or salary basis for at least thirty (30) consecutive working days during any calendar year, or who is engaged in business or occupation, or who owns real property with an aggregate assessed value of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or more, or who is required by law to file an income tax return shall pay an annual additional tax of Five pesos (P5.00) and an annual additional tax of One peso (P1.00) for every One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) of income regardless of whether from business, exercise of profession or from property which in no case shall exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).In the case of husband and wife, the additional tax herein imposed shall be based upon the total property owned by them and the total gross receipts or earnings derived by them.SECTION 158. Juridical Persons Liable to Community Tax. Every corporation no matter how created or organized, whether domestic or resident foreign, engaged in or doing business in the Philippines shall pay an annual community tax of Five hundred pesos (P500.00) and an annual additional tax, which, in no case, shall exceed Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) in accordance with the following schedule:(1) For every Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) worth of real property in the Philippines owned by it during the preceding year based on the valuation used for the payment of real property tax under existing laws, found in the assessment rolls of the city or municipality where the real property is situated Two pesos (P2.00); and(2) For every Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) of gross receipts or earnings derived by it from its business in the Philippines during the preceding year Two pesos (P2.00).The dividends received by a corporation from another corporation however shall, for the purpose of the additional tax, be considered as part of the gross receipts or earnings of said corporation.SECTION 159. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the community tax:(1) Diplomatic and consular representatives; and(2) Transient visitors when their stay in the Philippines does not exceed three (3) months.SECTION 160. Place of Payment. The community tax shall be paid in the place of residence of the individual, or in the place where the principal office of the juridical entity is located.SECTION 161. Time for Payment; Penalties for Delinquency. (a) The community tax shall accrue on the first (1st) day of January of each year which shall be paid not later than the last day of February of each year. If a person reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or otherwise loses the benefit of exemption on or before the last day of June, he shall be liable for the community tax on the day he reaches such age or upon the day the exemption ends. However, if a person reaches the age of eighteen (18) years or loses the benefit of exemption on or before the last day of March, he shall have twenty (20) days to pay the community tax without becoming delinquent.Persons who come to reside in the Philippines or reach the age of eighteen (18) years on or after the first (1st) day of July of any year, or who cease to belong to an exempt class on or after the same date, shall not be subject to the community tax for that year.(b) Corporations established and organized on or before the last day of June shall be liable for the community tax for that year. But corporations established and organized on or before the last day of March shall have twenty (20) days within which to pay the community tax without becoming delinquent. Corporations established and organized on or after the first day of July shall not be subject to the community tax for that year.If the tax is not paid within the time prescribed above, there shall be added to the unpaid amount an interest of twenty-four percent (24%) per annum from the due date until it is paid.SECTION 162. Community Tax Certificate. A community tax certificate shall be issued to every person or corporation upon payment of the community tax. A community tax certificate may also be issued to any person or corporation not subject to the community tax upon payment of One peso (P1.00).SECTION 163. Presentation of Community Tax Certificate On Certain Occasions. (a) When an individual subject to the community tax acknowledges any document before a notary public, takes the oath of office upon election or appointment to any position in the government service; receives any license, certificate, or permit from any public authority; pays any tax or fee; receives any money from any public fund; transacts other official business; or receives any salary or wage from any person or corporation, it shall be the duty of any person, officer, or corporation with whom such transaction is made or business done or from whom any salary or wage is received to require such individual to exhibit the community tax certificate.The presentation of community tax certificate shall not be required in connection with the registration of a voter.(b) When, through its authorized officers, any corporation subject to the community tax receives any license, certificate, or permit from any public authority, pays any tax or fee, receives money from public funds, or transacts other official business, it shall be the duty of the public official with whom such transaction is made or business done, to require such corporation to exhibit the community tax certificate.(c) The community tax certificate required in the two preceding paragraphs shall be the one issued for the current year, except for the period from January until the fifteenth (15th) of April each year, in which case, the certificate issued for the preceding year shall suffice.SECTION 164. Printing of Community Tax Certificates and Distribution of Proceeds. (a) The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall cause the printing of community tax certificates and distribute the same to the cities and municipalities through the city and municipal treasurers in accordance with prescribed regulations.The proceeds of the tax shall accrue to the general funds of the cities, municipalities and barangays except a portion thereof which shall accrue to the general fund of the National Government to cover the actual cost of printing and distribution of the forms and other related expenses. The city or municipal treasurer concerned shall remit to the national treasurer the said share of the National Government in the proceeds of the tax within ten (10) days after the end of each quarter.(b) The city or municipal treasurer shall deputize the barangay treasurer to collect the community tax in their respective jurisdictions: Provided, however, That said barangay treasurer shall be bonded in accordance with existing laws.(c) The proceeds of the community tax actually and directly collected by the city or municipal treasurer shall accrue entirely to the general fund of the city or municipality concerned. However, proceeds of the community tax collected through the barangay treasurers shall be apportioned as follows:(1) Fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the general fund of the city or municipality concerned; and(2) Fifty percent (50%) shall accrue to the barangay where the tax is collected.

-Administrative Code of 1987, Secs. 41-42 as amended by RA No. 6733SECTION 41.Officers Authorized to Administer Oath.(1) The following officers have general authority to administer oath: Notaries public, members of the judiciary, clerks of courts, the Secretary of the either House of the Congress of the Philippines, of departments, bureau directors, registers of deeds, provincial governors and lieutenant-governors, city mayors, municipal mayors and any other officer in the service of the government of the Philippines whose appointment is vested in the President.(2) Oaths may also be administered by any officer whose duties, as defined by law or regulation, require presentation to him of any statement under oath.SECTION 42.Duty to Administer Oath.Officers authorized to administer oaths, with the exception of notaries public, municipal judges and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oaths or execute certificates save in matters of official business; and with the exception of notaries public, the officer performing the service in those matters shall charge no fee, unless specifically authorized by law.Republic Act No. 6733 July 25, 1989AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 21, TITLE I, BOOK I OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, GRANTING MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES THE GENERAL AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATHS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::Section 1. Section 21 of the Revised Administrative Code is hereby amended to read as follows:"SECTION 21. Officials authorized to administer oath. - The following officers have general authority to administer oaths, to wit:"President; Vice-President; Members and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members of the Judiciary; Secretaries of Departments; provincial governors and lieutenant-governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; bureau directors; regional directors; clerks of courts; registrars of deeds; and other civilian officers in the Philippine public service whose appointments are vested in the President of the Philippines and are subject to confirmation by the Commission of Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and notaries public. A person who by authority of law shall serve in the capacity of the officers mentioned above shall possess the same power."Section 2. Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987is hereby amended to read as follows:"Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. - The following officers have general authority to administer oaths: President; Vice-President; Members and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members of the Judiciary; Secretaries of Departments; provincial governors and lieutenant-governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; bureau directors; regional directors; clerks of courts; registrars of deeds; other civilian officers in the public service of the government of the Philippines whose appointments are vested in the President and are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and notaries public."Section 3. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to disauthorize any person now authorized to administer oaths under existing laws.Section 4. The Members and Secretaries of both Houses of Congress may delegate the authority to committee secretaries or any staffer thereof in the conduct of a pending inquiry or investigation.Section 5. Those authorized to administer oaths under this Act shall not be required to keep a register of the oaths they administer nor keep or submit copies of the same, except in the case of notaries public, or as otherwise required by existing laws.Section 6. This Act shall take effect upon its publication in at least one (1) national newspaper of general circulation, and as to the amendments of Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987, upon the effectivity of said Code.

-SC Circular 1-90CIRCULAR NO. 1-90.TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS (METC), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES (MTCC), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (MTC), MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS (MCTC) SHARIA COURTS AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)SUBJECT: POWER OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT JUDGES TO ACT AS NOTARIES PUBLICEX OFFICIO.For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the CourtEn Bancdated December 19, 1989, in Administrative Matter No. 89-11-1303 MTC, "Re: Request for clarification on the power of municipal trial court judges and municipal circuit trial court judges to act as Notaries Public Ex Officio";"Acting on a query regarding the power of municipal trial court judges and municipal circuit trial court judges to act in the capacity of notaries publicex officioin the light of the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court Resolved to issue a clarification on the matter.cralaw"Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the function of Notaries Publicex officiounder Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended [otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948] and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of this power:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary"MTC and MCTC judges may act as Notaries Publicex officioin the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties [Bornev. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penerav. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] They may not, as Notaries Publicex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law [Canon 5 and Rule 5.07]."However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries publicex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public:Provided, That: [1] all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr.vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and [2] certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit." Feliciano,J., is on leave

-Meneses vs. Venturozo, G.R. No. 172196, Oct. 19, 2011D E C I S I O NPERALTA,J.:This is a petition for review oncertiorari[1]of the Court of Appeals Decision datedOctober 27, 2005in CA-G.R. CV No. 78217 and its Resolution datedApril 5, 2006, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.The Court of Appeals Decision reversed and set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofDagupanCity, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. D-9040, as the appellate court declared respondent Rosario G. Venturozo the owner of the land in dispute, and ordered petitioner Adelaida Meneses to vacate and surrender her possession thereof to respondent.The facts are as follows:On June 8, 1988, plaintiff Rosario G. Venturozo, respondent herein, filed a Complaint[2]for ownership, possession x x x and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City against defendant Adelaida Meneses, petitioner herein, alleging that she (plaintiff) is the absolute owner of an untitled coconut land, containing an area of 2,109 square meters, situated at Embarcadero, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and declared under Tax Declaration No. 239.Plaintiffalleged that she purchased the property from the spouses Basilio de Guzman and Crescencia Abad on January 31, 1973 as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale,[3]and that the vendors, in turn, purchased the property from defendantas evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale[4]dated June 20, 1966.Plaintiff alleged that she has been in possession of the land until May 1983 when defendant with some armed men grabbed possession of the land and refused to vacate despite repeated demands promptingher to engage the services of counsel.Plaintiff prayed that after preliminary hearing, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued; and that after hearing, a decision be rendered declaring her as the owner of the property in dispute, ordering defendant to vacate the property in question and to pay herP5,000.00 as attorneys fees;P1,000.00 as litigation expenses;P10,000.00 as damages and to pay the costs of suit.In her Answer,[5]defendant Adelaida Meneses stated that plaintiff is the daughter of Basilio de Guzman, the vendee in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 that was purportedly executed by her (defendant) covering the subject property.Defendant alleged that she never signed any Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966, and that the said deed is a forgery.Defendant also alleged that she never appeared before any notary public, and she did not obtain a residence certificate; hence, her alleged sale of the subject property to Basilio de Guzman is null and voidab initio.Consequently, the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJanuary 31, 1973, executed by Basilio de Guzman in favor of plaintiff, covering the subject property, is likewise null and void. Defendant stated that she acquired the subject property from her deceased father and she has been in possession of the land for more than 30 years in the concept of owner.Plaintiffs allegation that she (defendant) forcibly took possession of the land is a falsehood. Defendant stated that this is the fourth case the plaintiff filed against her concerning the land in question.In her Counterclaim, defendant stated that in view of the nullity of the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject property, and the fact that plaintiff and her father Basilio de Guzman had never been in actual possession of the property, plaintiff is under legal obligation to execute a deed of reconveyance over the said property in her favor.The issue before the trial court was whether the sale made by defendant Adelaida Meneses in favor of plaintiffs father, Basilio de Guzman, was valid.[6]OnJuly 18, 1991, the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 40 (trial court) rendered a Decision in favor of defendant Adelaida Meneses.The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:1)Declaring the Deed of Absolute and Definite Sale dated June 20, 1966 (Exhibit B) and the Deed of Absolute and Definite Sale dated January 31, 1973 (Exhibit A)null and void ab initio;2)Declaring the defendant Adelaida Meneses as the owner of the property in question;3)Ordering the plaintiff Rosario G. Venturozo to execute a Deed of Reconveyance in favor of the defendant Adelaida Meneses over the property in question described in paragraph 2 of the complaint;4)Ordering the plaintiff to pay to the defendantP10,000.00 as damages; andP1,000.00, as litigation expenses.SO ORDERED.[7]The trial court found that defendant Adelaida Meneses inherited the land in dispute from her father, Domingo Meneses; that she did not sell her property to Basilio de Guzman in 1966; and that the signature of Adelaida Meneses on the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966is a forgery.The trial court stated that the signature of Adelaida Meneses, as appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966, is very much different from her specimen signatures and those appearing in the records of Civil Case No. 1096 in the Municipal Trial Court of Mangaldan.It held that since there was no valid transfer of the property by Adelaida Meneses to Basilio de Guzman, the conveyance of the same property in 1973 by Basilio de Guzman to his daughter, plaintiff Rosario G. Venturozo, was also invalid.The trial court stated that the claim of plaintiff Rosario G. Venturozo, that her parents, Spouses Basilio and Crescencia de Guzman, purchased from defendant Adelaida Meneses the subject property in 1966, is negated by defendants continued possession of the land and she gathered the products therefrom.Plaintiff appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals.OnOctober 27, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision reads:WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court ofDagupan City (Branch 40) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one rendered declaring plaintiff-appellant the owner of the subject land and ordering defendant-appellee to vacate and surrender possession thereof to the former.[8]The Court of Appeals stated that appellee Adelaida Meneses failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966was a forgery.Instead, she admitted on direct examination that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was genuine, thus:Q.I am showing to you Exhibit 6 and Exhibit A for the plaintiff a Deed of Absolute Sale o[f] Real Property of one (1) Adelaida Meneses in favor of Basilio de Guzman.Will you examine this if you know this Deed of Absolute Sale?A.I do not know this document, sir.Q. There is a signature over the name of the vendor Adelaida Meneses which was previously marked as Exhibit 6-a and Exhibit A-1 for the plaintiff, will you examine this signature, if do you (sic) know this signature?A.This is my signature, sir.[9]According to the Court of Appeals, such admission is binding on her, there being no showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[10]The Court of Appeals also stated that mere variance of signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged, as forgery cannot be presumed.[11]Appellee Adelaida Meneses should have produced specimen signatures appearing on documents executed in or about the year 1966 for a better comparison and analysis.[12]The Court of Appeals held that a notarized document, like the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966, has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the document should be upheld.[13]Moreover, Atty. Abelardo G. Biala the notary public before whom the questioned Deed of Sale was acknowledged testified and confirmed its genuineness and due execution, particularly the signature in question.The appellate court stated that as against appellee Adelaida Meneses version, Atty. Bialas testimony, that appellee appeared before him and acknowledged that the questioned deed was her free and voluntary act, is more credible. The testimony of a notary public enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness.[14]The Court of Appeals held that appellee Adelaida Meneses failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the evidentiary force of the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 1966, which appears on its face to have been executed with all the formalities required by law.Adelaida Meneses motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution[15]datedApril 5, 2006.Hence, Adelaida Meneses, substituted by her heir, filed this petition raising this lone issue:IWHETHER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, IS IN KEEPING WITH BOTH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.[16]Petitioner contends that her statement, made during the course of her testimony in the trial court, was taken out of context by respondent to be used merely as an argumentative point. The examining lawyer used the words, Do you know this signature?viz.:Q.I am showing to you Exhibit 6 and Exhibit A for the plaintiff a Deed of Absolute Sale o[f] Real Property of one (1) Adelaida Meneses in favor of Basilio de Guzman. Will you examine this if you know this Deed of Absolute Sale?A.I do not know this document, sir.Q.There is a signature over the name of the vendor Adelaida Meneses which was previously marked as Exhibit 6-a and Exhibit A-1 for the plaintiff,will you examine this signature, if do you (sic) know this signature?A.This is my signature, sir.[17]Petitioner contends that in the above-quoted transcript of stenographic notes, she was merely asked if she was cognizant of such a signature as hers or whether the signature appearing on the questioned document was similar to that of her signature, and not if she was the one who indeed affixed such signature on the said deed of sale.She avers that the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party invoking it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions: (1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake; and (2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission.For instance, if a party invokesan admission by an adverse party, but cites the admission out of context, then the one making the admission may show that he made no such admission, or that his admission was taken out of context.[18]This may be interpreted as to mean not in the sense in which the admission is made to appear.[19]Petitioner also contends that a comparison of the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966and her specimen signatures, as well as her genuine signature on pleadings, were made by the trial court, and it ruled that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966was a forgery.She submits that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect,[20]and the appellate court should have given weight to the trial courts findings that her signature on the said Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery.The petition is meritorious.The rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.[21]Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[22]However, this rule admits exceptions,[23]such as when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court[24]like in this case.The necessity of a public document for contractswhich transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code,[25]is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability.[26]As notarized documents, Deeds of Absolute Sale carryevidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution[27]and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity.[28]The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[29]A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument.[30]Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.[31]In this case, it should be pointed out that contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, the Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1966 did not comply with the formalities required by law, specifically Act No. 496,[32]otherwise known asThe Land Registration Act, which took effect on January 1, 1903, as Section 127 of the Act provides:FORMSSection 127.Deeds,conveyances, mortgages, leases, releases, and discharges affecting lands,whether registered under this Actor unregistered,shall be sufficient in law when made substantially in accordance with the following forms,and shall be as effective to convey, encumber, lease, release, discharge,or bind the landsas though made in accordance with the more prolix form heretofore in use:Provided, That every such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the same, in the presence oftwo witnesses, who shall sign the instrument as witnesses to the execution thereof,and shall be acknowledgedto be his or their free act and deed by the person or persons executing the same,before the judge of a court of record or clerk of a court of record, or a notary public, or a justice of the peace, who shall certify to such acknowledgmentx x x.[33]In the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966, the Notary Public signed his name as one of the two witnesses to the execution of the said deed; hence, there was actually only one witness thereto.Moreover, the residence certificate of petitioner was issued to petitioner and then it was given to the Notary Public the dayafterthe execution of the deed of sale and notarization; hence, the number of petitioners residence certificate and the date of issuance (June 21, 1966) thereof was written on the Deed of Absolute Sale by the Notary Public on June 21, 1966, after the execution and notarization of the said deed on June 20, 1966.[34]Considering the defect in the notarization, the Deed of Absolute Sale datedJune 20, 1966cannot be considered a public document, but only a private document,[35]and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence.Section 20, Rule 132of the Rules of Court provides that before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.In regard to the genuineness of petitioners signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966,[36]the Court agrees with the trial court that her signature therein is very much different from her specimen signatures[37]and those appearing in the pleadings[38]of other cases filed against her, even considering the difference of 17 years when the specimen signatures were made.Hence, the Court rules that petitioners signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 is a forgery.The Court agrees with petitioner that her admission was taken out of context, considering that in her Answer[39]to the Complaint, she stated that the alleged Deed of Sale purportedly executed by her in favor of Basilio de Guzman is a forgery; that she never signed the said Deed of Sale; that she did not appear personally before the Notary Public; and that she did not secure the residence certificate mentioned in the said Deed of Sale. She also testified that she never sold her land to Basilio de Guzman;[40]that she never met the Notary Public, Attorney Abelardo Biala,[41]and that she did not meet Basilio de Guzman on June 20, 1966.[42]The trial court found petitioner and her testimony to be credible, and declared the Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1966 null and voidab initio.These circumstances negate the said admission.The Court finds the Notary Publics testimony self-serving and unreliable, because although he testified that petitioner was the one who submitted her residence certificate to him on June 21, 1966,[43]the next day after the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on June 20, 1966, Crescencia de Guzman, respondents mother, testified that she and her husband got the residence certificate from petitioner and gave it to the Notary Public on June 21, 1966.[44]Thus, it is doubtful whether the Notary Public really knew the identity of the vendor who signed the Deed of Absolute Sale[45]dated June 20, 1966.The Court notes that the trial court found petitioner and her testimony to be credible. It is a well-settled doctrine that findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect.[46]Having observed the deportment of witnesses during the trial, the trial judge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility.[47]In fine, the preponderance of evidence is with petitioner.WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED.The Court of Appeals Decision datedOctober 27, 2005and its Resolution datedApril 5, 2006in CA-G.R. CV No. 78217 areREVERSEDandSET ASIDE,and theDecision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. D-9040 is herebyREINSTATED.No costs.SO ORDERED.

-Tigno vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 200D E C I S I O NTINGA,J.:The controversy in the present petition hinges on the admissibility of a single document, a deed of sale involving interest over real property, notarized by a person of questionable capacity. The assailed ruling of the Court of Appeals, which overturned the findings of fact of the Regional Trial Court, relied primarily on the presumption of regularity attaching to notarized documents with respect to its due execution. We conclude instead that the document has not been duly notarized and accordingly reverse the Court of Appeals.The facts are as follow:On 11 January 1980, respondent spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino (the Aquinos) filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages against Isidro Bustria (Bustria).[1]The complaint sought to enforce an alleged sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of a one hundred twenty thousand (120,000) square meter fishpond located in Dasci, Pangasinan. The property was not registered either under the Land Registration Act or under the Spanish Mortgage Law, though registrable under Act No. 3344.[2]The conveyance was covered by a Deed of Sale dated 2 September 1978.Eventually, Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise agreement, whereby Bustria agreed to recognize the validity of the sale, and the Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to repurchase the same property after the lapse of seven (7) years.Upon submission, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch VII, approved and incorporated the compromise agreement in aDecisionwhich it rendered on 7 September 1981.Bustria died in October of 1986.[3]On 1 December 1989, petitioner Zenaida B. Tigno (Tigno), in substitution of her deceased father Isidro Bustria,[4]attempted to repurchase the property by filing aMotion for Consignation. She deposited the amount of Two Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) with the trial court, now Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55 at Alaminos, Pangasinan. On 18 December 1989, the Aquinos filed an opposition, arguing that the right to repurchase was not yet demandable and that Tigno had failed to make a tender of payment. In anOrderdated 10 October 1999, the RTC denied theMotion for Consignation.[5]In June of 1991, Tigno filed aMotion for a Writ of Execution, which was likewise opposed by the Aquinos, and denied by the RTC. Then, on 6 September 1991, Tigno filed an action forRevival of Judgment,[6]seeking the revival of the decision in Civil Case No. A-1257, so that it could be executed accordingly.[7]The Aquinos filed an answer, wherein they alleged that Bustria had sold his right to repurchase the property to them in a deed of sale dated 17 October 1985.[8]Among the witnesses presented by the Aquinos during trial were Jesus De Francia (De Francia), the instrumental witness to the deed of sale, and former Judge Franklin Cario (Judge Cario), who notarized the same. These two witnesses testified as to the occasion of the execution and signing of the deed of sale by Bustria. Thereafter, in theirFormal Offer of Documentary Evidence, the Aquinos offered for admission as their Exhibit No. 8, the deed of sale (Deed of Sale)[9]purportedly executed by Bustria. The admission of theDeed of Salewas objected to by Tigno on the ground that it was a false and fraudulent document which had not been acknowledged by Bustria as his own; and that its existence was suspicious, considering that it had been previously unknown, and not even presented by the Aquinos when they opposed Tignos previousMotion for Consignation.[10]In anOrderdated 6 April 1994, the RTC refused to admit theDeed of Salein evidence.[11]AMotion for Reconsiderationpraying for the admission of said exhibit was denied in anOrderdated 27 April 1994.[12]Then, on 18 August 1994, aDecisionwas rendered by the RTC in favor of Tigno. The RTC therein expressed doubts as to the authenticity of theDeed of Sale, characterizing the testimonies of De Francia and Cario as conflicting.[13]The RTC likewise observed that nowhere in the alleged deed of sale was there any statement that it was acknowledged by Bustria;[14]that it was suspicious that Bustria was not assisted or represented by his counsel in connection with the preparation and execution of the deed of sale[15]or that Aquino had raised the matter of the deed of sale in his previousOpposition to the Motion for Consignation.[16]The RTC then stressed that the previousMotion for Executionlodged by Tigno had to be denied since more than five (5) years had elapsed from the date the judgment in Civil Case No. A-1257 had become final and executory; but the judgment could be revived by action such as the instant complaint. Accordingly, the RTC ordered the revival of the judgment dated 7 September 1981 in Civil Case No. A-1257.[17]The Aquinos interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.[18]In the meantime, the RTC allowed the execution pending appeal of itsDecision.[19]On 23 December 1996, the Court of Appeals Tenth Division promulgated aDecision[20]reversing and setting aside the RTCDecision. The appellate court ratiocinated that there were no material or substantial inconsistencies between the testimonies of Cario and De Francia that would taint the document with doubtful authenticity; that the absence of the acknowledgment and substitution instead of ajuratdid not render the instrument invalid; and that the non-assistance or representation of Bustria by counsel did not render the document null and ineffective.[21]It was noted that a notarized document carried in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to contradict the same. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the RTC erred in refusing to admit theDeed of Sale, and that the document extinguished the right of Bustrias heirs to repurchase the property.After the Court of Appeals denied TignosMotion for Reconsideration,[22]the present petition was filed before this Court. Tigno imputes grave abuse of discretion and misappreciation of facts to the Court of Appeals when it admitted theDeed of Sale.He also argues that the appellate court should have declared theDeed of Saleas a false, fraudulent and unreliable document not supported by any consideration at all.The general thrusts of the arguments posed by Tigno are factually based. As such, they could normally lead to the dismissal of thisPetition for Review. However, while this Court is not ordinarily a trier of facts,[23]factual review may be warranted in instances when the findings of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court are contrary to each other.[24]Moreover, petitioner raises a substantial argument regarding the capacity of the notary public, Judge Cario, to notarize the document. The Court of Appeals was unfortunately silent on that matter, but this Court will take it up with definitiveness.The notarial certification of theDeed of Salereads as follows:ACKNOWLEDGMENTREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S.MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17thday of October 1985 at Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the same parties who executed the foregoing instrument.FRANKLIN CARIOEx-Officio Notary PublicJudge, M.T.C.Alaminos, PangasinanThere are palpable errors in this certification. Most glaringly, the document is certified by way of ajuratinstead of an acknowledgment. Ajuratis a distinct creature from an acknowledgment. An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; while ajuratis that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before him.[25]Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act,[26]which has been replicated in Section 112 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,[27]theDeed of Saleshould have been acknowledged before a notary public.[28]But there is an even more substantial defect in the notarization, one which is determinative of this petition. This pertains to the authority of Judge Franklin Cario to notarize theDeed of Sale.It is undisputed that Franklin Cario at the time of the notarization of theDeed of Sale, was a sitting judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Alaminos.[29]Petitioners point out, citingTabao v. Asis,[30]that municipal judges may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyance which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as judges.[31]In response, respondents claim that the prohibition imposed on municipal court judges from notarizing documents took effect only in December of 1989, or four years after theDeed of Salewas notarized by Cario.[32]Respondents contention is erroneous. Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries publicex officiounder Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code.[33]However, as far back as 1980 inBorre v. Moya,[34]the Court explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cario may notarize only documents connected with the exercise of their official duties.[35]TheDeed of Salewas not connected with any official duties of Judge Cario, and there was no reason for him to notarize it. Our observations as to the errant judge inBorreare pertinent in this case, considering that Judge Cario identified himself in theDeed of Saleas Ex-OfficioNotary Public, Judge, MTC:[A notaryex officio] should not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business.In the instant case, it was not proper that a city judge should notarize documents involving private transactions and sign the document in this wise: "GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, Notary Public Ex-Officio, City Judge" (p. 16, Rollo, Annex D of Complaint).In doing so, he obliterated the distinction between a regular notary and a notaryex officio.[36]There are possible grounds for leniency in connection with this matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 permits notaries publicex officioto perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public provided that certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit. Indeed, it is only when there are no lawyers or notaries public that the exception applies.[37]The facts of this case do not warrant a relaxed attitude towards Judge Carios improper notarial activity. There was no such certification in theDeed of Sale. Even if one was produced, we would be hard put to accept the veracity of its contents, considering that Alaminos, Pangasinan, now a city,[38]was even then not an isolated backwater town and had its fair share of practicing lawyers.There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cario, who ceased being a judge in 1986, for his improper notarial activity. Perhaps though, formal sanction may no longer be appropriate considering Judge Carios advanced age, assuming he is still alive.[39]However, thisDecisionshould again serve as an affirmation of the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to the exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90.Most crucially for this case, we should deem theDeed of Saleas not having been notarized at all. The validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer. If the notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a document, but does so anyway, then the document should be treated as unnotarized. The rule may strike as rather harsh, and perhaps may prove to be prejudicial to parties in good faith relying on the proferred authority of the notary public or the person pretending to be one. Still, to admit otherwise would render merely officious the elaborate process devised by this Court in order that a lawyer may receive a notarial commission. Without such a rule, the notarization of a document by a duly appointed notary public will have the same legal effect as one accomplished by a non-lawyer engaged in pretense.The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.[40]Thus, notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.[41]On the other hand, what then is the effect on theDeed of Saleif it was not notarized? True enough, from a civil law perspective, the absence of notarization of theDeed of Salewould not necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for convenience.[42]We have even affirmed that a sale of real property though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces legal effects between the parties.[43]Still, the Court has to reckon with the implications of the lack of valid notarization of theDeed of Salefrom the perspective of the law on evidence. After all, the case rests on the admissibility of theDeed of Sale.Clearly, the presumption of regularity relied upon by the Court of Appeals no longer holds true since theDeed of Saleis not a notarized document. Its proper probative value is governed by the Rules of Court. Section 19, Rule 132 states:Section 19.Classes of documents.For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private.Public documents are:(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary publicexcept last wills and testaments; and(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.All other writings are private. (Emphasis supplied.)TheDeed of Sale, invalidly notarized as it was, does not fall under the enumeration of public documents; hence, it must be considered a private document. The nullity of the alleged or attempted notarization performed by Judge Cario is sufficient to exclude the document in question from the class of public documents. Even assuming that theDeed of Salewas validly notarized, it would still be classified as a private document, since it was not properly acknowledged, but merely subscribed and sworn to by way ofjurat.Being a private document, theDeed of Saleis now subject to the requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132, which states:Section 20.Proof of private document.Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.Any other private document need only be identified as that which is claimed to be.TheDeed of Salewas offered in evidence as authentic by the Aquinos, who likewise insist that its enforceability militates against Tignos claim. Correspondingly, the burden falls upon the Aquinos to prove its authenticity and due execution. The Court of Appeals clearly erred in not appreciating theDeed of Saleas a private document and in applying the presumption of regularity that attaches only to duly notarized documents, as distinguished from private documents.Did the RTC err then in refusing to admit theDeed of Sale? W