A.C. No. 8450. July 26, 2017. SPOUSES FELIX AND FE NAVARRO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. MARGARITO G. YGOÑA, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Spouses Navarro obtained a loan from Mercy Grauel, secured by a promissory note, a real estate mortgage, and a Deed of Absolute Sale over their property executed on November 22, 2002. Grauel proposed the sale as an additional security to avoid foreclosure, with the understanding it would be used only if the loan remained unpaid. The real estate mortgage was notarized by respondent Atty. Ygoña on that date. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by Atty. Ygoña much later, on October 22, 2004, after the spouses allegedly failed to pay. Grauel then used this notarized deed to transfer the tax declaration to her name. The spouses filed an administrative complaint, alleging the deed was fictitious and their signatures forged. They highlighted irregularities, including discrepancies in the Community Tax Certificate numbers and dates used in the deed. Crucially, a certification from the Clerk of Court confirmed that the subject Deed of Absolute Sale was not included in Atty. Ygoña’s submitted notarial report for 2004.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Margarito G. Ygoña violated his duties as a notary public in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Ygoña was guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his notarial duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that a notary public must exercise utmost care to preserve public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. Atty. Ygoña’s failure was twofold. First, he notarized a document with apparent irregularities indicative of a pactum commissorium—an automatic appropriation of the mortgaged property upon default, which is void by law. The simultaneous execution of the loan and the absolute sale, coupled with the delayed notarization, should have alerted him to this potentially illicit arrangement, requiring a higher degree of diligence to ensure the parties understood the consequences. Second, and more egregiously, he failed to record the deed in his notarial register and omitted it from his notarial report, a direct violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This failure stripped the document of its public character and destroyed its probative value as a public document. His defense that the complainants did not deny their signatures was immaterial, as notarization is not a mere act of signature authentication but a public function demanding vigilance. The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation, revoking his notarial commission (if still extant), disqualifying him from being a notary public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for three months.