Flashcards Studio

Facts: Atty. Amelia Cruz, a practicing notary public in Manila, is asked to notarize a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) granting her client, Mr. Garcia, the authority to sign and execute a mortgage release with Bank Alpha on behalf of his principal, Mr. Tan, who is abroad. The SPA contains blanks for (i) the name of the bank, (ii) the maximum loan amount, and (iii) the date of execution. Tan appears in person, presents a government-issued ID that is expired, and signs the SPA in Cruz’s presence. Cruz proceeds to notarize and attaches a notarial certificate stating that Tan appeared before her and executed the instrument. After execution, the blanks are filled in: Bank Alpha, amount P4,000,000, date May 10, 2026. Bank Alpha later challenges the SPA’s validity on grounds that (a) Tan did not present a valid government-issued ID, (b) there were blanks in the instrument at the time of notarization, and (c) the notary filled in the blanks after execution. (a) Identify the controlling rule on personal appearance and proof of identity of the signer for notarial acts, and the rule regarding blank spaces in the instrument at the time of notarization. (b) Apply those rules to the facts and determine whether the SPA’s notarization is valid. (c) If the notarization is defective, explain the instrument’s status as a public document versus a private instrument and the likely impact on its enforceability and admissibility in evidence.