Notarial Law Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty.

Roberto
Examen.11 It was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984 and
ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.
EXAMEN, Respondent.
On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this
DECISION complaint alleging that Atty. Examen, based on Barretto v.
Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is
prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by the heirs of Pedro degree or affinity within the second civil degree. It is also
Alilano against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents
and malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting knowing that the cedula or residence certificate number
these as evidence in court thus violating the Lawyer’s used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the
Oath,2 Canons 1,3 104and 19,5 and Rules residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen
1.01, 1.02, 10.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional
6 7 8 9
also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses
Responsibility (CPR). personally appeared before him when they did not.
Lastly, it is alleged that despite knowing the infirmities of
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer
98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls- and the CPR.
544-D located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro
and Florentina died on March 6, 1985 and October 11, In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no
1989, respectively. longer any prohibition under the Revised Administrative
Code for a notary public to notarize a document where
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 one of the parties is related to him by consanguinity and
Absolute Deeds of Sale10 were executed by the Spouses affinity.14 With regard to the use of Florentina’s residence
Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both certificate as Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in
documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto good faith and that it was office practice that the
Examen, brother of the vendee. Sometime in September secretary type details without him personally examining
1984, Spouses Examen obtained possession of the the output.15 In any event, he reasoned that the use of
property. another’s residence certificate is not a ground for
disbarment and is barred by prescription based on IBP
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for Resolution No. XVI-2004-13 dated January 26, 2004 where it
recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the liable and hereby impose a modified penalty.
Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be revised to include a
prescription period for professional misconduct: within two In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by
years from the date of the act.16cralawred the Court is whether the member of the bar is fit to be
allowed the privileges as such or not.20 It is not therefore
In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission the proper venue for the determination of whether there
on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Examen liable for had been a proper conveyance of real property nor is it
breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute the proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses’
Deeds of Sale before court proceedings. It stated that signatures were in fact forged.
there was ample evidence to support the complainants’
contention that the Spouses Alilano did not voluntarily and NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR
knowingly convey their property, i.e. denials under oath by ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR
attesting witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting Expert
Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro Alilano’s signature In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc
in the September 1984 Absolute Deed of Sale was opined that there can be no prescription in bar discipline
significantly different from the specimen signatures. It also cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967
noted that Ramon Examen’s residence certificate with the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and
number, date and place of issue were also falsified since reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 where we had the chance
the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina to state:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Pueblo. It thus recommended that the penalty of
disbarment be imposed. If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be
emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
Resolution18 adopted the IBP CBD’s report but modified private complainant would immediately come forward,
the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a they stand a chance of being completely exonerated
period of two years and a suspension of Atty. Examen’s from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer
Notarial Commission for a period of two years. for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No
Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
Resolution, the IBP BOG denied the motion for commission of the act complained of and the time of the
reconsideration. It also modified the penalty imposed to institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench
suspension from the practice of law for a period of one and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.
year and disqualification from re-appointment as Notary This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous
Public for a period of two years.19cralawred members of the bench and bar, to deter them from
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the
Lawyer’s Oath. x x x the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice27 was passed by the
Supreme Court.
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the
commission of the offending act to the institution of the In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals, 28 the
administrative complaint will not erase the administrative Court had the opportunity to state that enactment of the
culpability of a lawyer…. (Italics Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish
supplied) cralawlawlibrary
24 Notarial Law of 1889. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo

We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the
Canonoy, who was related to the parties in the donation
Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD was void and had no
within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles
legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and
22 and 28 of the Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and
void.25cralawred
disqualified to authenticate the deed of donation
executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case
daughter Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo. Said deed of
of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the Court stated that
donation, according to petitioners, became a mere
putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases
private instrument under Article 1223 of the old Civil Code,
involving members of the bar would only serve to
so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto
embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as
vs. Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was inefficacious.
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no
The appellate court, however, in the decision complained
private complainant would immediately come forward,
of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed
they stand a chance of being completely exonerated
with the enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling to
from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer
be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar Estate vs.
for.
Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia
(Adm. Case No. 212, prom. February 15, 1957), this Court
Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no
held that “The old Spanish notarial law and system of
moment and deserves scant consideration.
conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another
and different notarial law and system became the law of
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF
the land with the enactment of Act No. 496.”29 (Emphasis
1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED
supplied)cralawlawlibrary
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the
was prohibited to notarize the absolute deeds of sale
Philippines was the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889.
since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth
However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed
civil degree with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition
with the passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised
might have still applied had the applicable rule been the
Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004,
Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s ruling THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND
in Kapunan, the law in force at the time of signing was the WITH UTMOST CARE
Revised Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was
removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to notarize In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court
the document even if one of the parties to the deed was stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
a relative, his brother. As correctly observed by the IBP
CBD:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary …[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that
At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing only those who are qualified or authorized may act as
notarization was Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily
Revised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must
on a notary public from notarizing a document when one be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts,
of the interested parties is related to the notary public and the administrative offices in general. It must be
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second underscored that the notarization by a notary public
degree of affinity.30cralawlawlibrary converts a private document into a public document
making that document admissible in evidence without
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial further proof of the authenticity thereof. A notarial
Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a notary public is document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with
is related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal within utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
the fourth civil degree, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary their duties.32 (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)cralawlawlibrary
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified
from performing a notarial act if he: Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it
was the duty of the notary public to comply with the
x x x x requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the duty
under Chapter 11, Section 251 of the Revised
(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, Administrative Code:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the
principal within the fourth civil degree.cralawlawlibrary SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of
cedula [residence] tax. – Every contract, deed, or other
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary document acknowledged before a notary public shall
public in the present case does not mean that he can have certified thereon that the parties thereto have
evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction presented their proper cedula [residence] certificates or
with the provisions of the Notarial Law. are exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there
shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such
NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM certification the number, place of issue, and date of each
cedula [residence] certificate as aforesaid. cannot simply disregard the requirements and solemnities
cralawlawlibrary of the Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary

Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is
Administrative Code provided a list of the grounds for clear that the residence certificate number used by
disqualification:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both
Absolute Deeds of Sale was not in fact the residence
SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate
following derelictions of duty on the part of a notary public number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good
shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary
be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission: type up the details of the documents and requirements
without him checking the correctness of same.
x x x x
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties,
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy
regarding cedula certificates.chanrobleslaw and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating
circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a
x x x x notary public is personal. We note that the error could
cralawlawlibrary have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently
performed his functions: personally checked the
In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries correctness of the documents. To say that it was his
public are required to follow formalities as these are secretary’s fault reflects disregard and unfitness to
mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who
Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party to the personally acknowledges the document. He was
instrument acknowledged before him has presented the behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the Revised
proper residence certificate (or exemption from the Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were
residence certificate) and to enter its number, place of presented and inspect if the documents to be
issue and date as part of the certification. Failure to acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This
perform his duties results in the revocation of a notary’s Court cannot stress enough that notarization is not a
commission. The Court said:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public interest
owing to the public character of his duties37.
As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent
is mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the
appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by proper notation of cedulas can only be a ground for
public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful disqualification and not the proper subject for a
observance and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of disbarment proceeding. We disagree.
an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen The Court notes that the case between the parties is not
also transgressed the his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the the first that reached this Court. In Edna Examen and
CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and Florentina
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Pueblo,40 Atty. Examen and his sister-in-law questioned via
a petition for certiorari41 the propriety of three Court of
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case involving Lot No.
Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be 1085 Pls-544-D this time with respect to its fruits. There the
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court of Appeals (CA) after giving Atty. Examen 90 days to
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross file his appellant’s brief, denied a second motion for
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by extension of time merely on the basis of a flimsy reason
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral that he had misplaced some of the transcript of the
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is witnesses’ testimonies. The CA did not find the reason of
required to take before admission to practice, or for a misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant
wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, the extension pursuant to Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the
or for corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney for a Revised Rules of Court. It stated that it was a “flimsy and
party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.”43
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either The CA was of the opinion that defendant-appellant’s,
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes herein respondent, motion was “a mockery of the
malpractice.cralawlawlibrary procedural rules.”44 This Court denied the petition for
various procedural defects.45cralawred
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his
secretary and merely perfunctorily notarizing documents, it With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty.
cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus Examen not only failed to uphold his duty as a notary
violating Canon 1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that public but also failed to uphold his lawyer’s oath and ran
he promoted confidence in the legal system. If anything, afoul the provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it proper
his acts serve to undermine the functions of a diligent to suspend Atty. Examen from the practice of law for a
lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot period of two years following this Court’s decision
stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at in Caalim-Verzonilla v. Pascua.46cralawred
all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is
might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law forTWO (2)
public in the integrity of the legal profession.38 A lawyer’s YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any,
mandate includes thoroughly going over documents is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from
presented to them typed or transcribed by their reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2)
secretaries.39cralawred years from finality of this Decision. He is
further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the alleged lot owner would wait for 30 years before filing an
future shall be dealt with more severely. action to quiet title. They prayed for the dismissal of the
petition and, by way of counterclaim, sought the award of
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs
Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal
record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the of suit.
Philippines, the Department of Justice and all courts in the
Aggrieved by the foregoing facts, Barbosa filed for
country for their information and guidance.
Quieting of Title and cancellation of IVQ’s registration, and
stated that; he was a buyer in good faith who have it
General Considerations registered and took possession of the disputed land.

IVQ vs. Ruben Barbasa RTC granted Barbasa’s petition, CA affirmed the decision
G.R. No. 193156 of the RTC.
January 18, 2017
After the decision of the CA, IVQ was able to produce
Facts: additional evidence which was not available at the earlier
stage. IVQ then filed a petition for certiorari.
The case was about a disputed land bought by Ruben
Barbasa from a the vendor, Therese Vargas, ISSUE: Does IVQ’s petition has merit?

It was alleged by Barbasa, that he took possession of the HELD:

disputed property immediately after the transfer
SC ruled that; based on the newly discovered evidence
certificate of title and deed of absolute sale was
presented by IVQ, the case must be reassess and re-
produced in favor of him. Later, Barbasa found out that
evaluated. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CA
the subject property was previously registered in the name
for the purpose of hearing and receiving the new
of Kawilihan corp, and that such property is was also sold
evidence presented by the parties.
to another person, Jose Vargas, who also sold it to IVQ
land holdings. In their Answer to the above petition, Jose Abadiano vs Martir
Vargas III, Benito Montinola, and IVQ (respondents in the G.R. No. 156310
court a quo) countered that the alleged title from where July 31, 2008
Barbosa's title was allegedly derived from was the one that
was fraudulently acquired and that Barbosa was allegedly DECISION
part of a syndicate that falsified titles for purposes of "land
NACHURA, J.:
grabbing." They argued that it was questionable that an
 by Notary Public Jose Peralta with notarial inscriptions Reg.
No. 64, Pag. 69, Libro III.[5]

On September 30, 1939, David Abadiano, who was

Before this Court is a Petition for Review absent during the execution of the Agreement of Partition,
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil executed a Deed of Confirmation acknowledging and
Procedure assailing the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals ratifying the document of partition.[6]
(CA) dated March 14, 2002 and its
Resolution dated November 21, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No.
[2] OCT No. 20461 was administratively reconstituted
51679. The CA affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial on February 15, 1962 and in lieu thereof OCT No. RO-8211
Court (RTC) of Kabankalan, Negros (20461) was issued over Lot No. 1318, still in the name of
Occidental declaring respondents as the owners of the
[3] Inocentes Baares and Felicidad Villanueva. Annotated at
property in question. the back of the reconstituted title were the Agreement of
Partition and the Deed of Confirmation.[7]
The case stemmed from an action for quieting of
title and/or recovery of possession[4] of a parcel of land On June 14, 1957 Demetrio Baares sold his share of
filed by herein respondents against Roberto Abadiano, the lot to his son, Leopoldo. The same was annotated at
Faustino Montao, and Quirico Mandaguit. Petitioner the back of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461).[8]
Xerxes A. Abadiano intervened in that case.
Subsequently, on February 21, 1962, Leopoldo
Lot No. 1318 of the Kabankalan Cadastre consists of Baares filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
34,281 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Negros Occidental an ex-parte petition praying for: first,
Title (OCT) No. 20461 issued on November 19, 1923 in the the confirmation of the Agreement of Partition, the
name of the spouses Inocentes Baares and Feliciana Conformity executed by David Abadiano, and the Deed
Villanueva. Before the issuance of OCT No. 20461, of Sale between him and his father; and second, the
however, Inocentes and the heirs of Feliciana Villanueva cancellation of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) and, in lieu
(who had predeceased her husband) executed an thereof, the issuance of a new certificate of title over the
Agreement of Partition dated June 1, 1922 over Lot No. property. In an Order dated February 22, 1962, the court
1318. The lot was partitioned and distributed as follows: (1) ordered the cancellation of OCT No. RO-8211 (20461) and
14,976 sq m denominated as Lot No. 1318-A, in favor of the issuance of a new certificate of title in the names of Dr.
Demetrio Baares; (2) 10,125 sq m denominated as Lot No. Leopoldo Baares, Amando Baares, and Ramon and David
1318-B, in favor of Ramon and David Abadiano Abadiano. Pursuant thereto, Transfer Certificate of Title
(grandchildren of Inocentes and Feliciana); and (3) 10,180 (TCT) No. T-31862 was issued by the Register of Deeds for
sq m denominated as Lot No. 1318-C, in favor of Amando Negros Occidental.[9]
Baares. The partition is embodied in a Deed of Partition
executed on June 1, 1922 and notarized the following day
 Petitioner insists that this is still the valid and subsisting the sugarcane on Lot No. 1318-C.[16] Further, the
title over Lot No. 1318 and that no sale of the portion defendants also entered the property and harvested the
pertaining to Ramon and David Abadiano ever took sugarcane on Lot No. 1318-B,[17] which by then had been
place.[10] acquired by Lolita B. Martir from her adoptive father,
Amando Baares.[18]
On the other hand, respondent spouses alleged
that, prior to the issuance of TCT No. T-31862, Ramon Thus, in April 1982, herein respondent-spouses filed
Abadiano, for himself and on behalf of David Abadiano, the Action to Quiet Title and/or Recovery of Possession
had already sold their rights and interests over Lot No. with Damages before the then CFI of Negros Occidental.
1318-C[11] to Victor Garde. The sale was allegedly
evidenced by a document of sale (Compra Y Venta) In their Answer with Counterclaim,[19] defendants
dated June 3, 1922 and acknowledged before Notary denied that the subject property was ever sold by Ramon
Public Jose Peralta and bearing notarial inscription Doc. and David Abadiano, and that, consequently, defendant
No. 64, Pag. No. 60, Book No. III, series of 1922. The sale was Roberto Abadiano had inherited the same from Ramon.
allegedly affirmed by David Abadiano in a document They also alleged, by way of Special and Affirmative
dated September 30, 1939.[12] Defenses, that the subject land still belonged to the estate
of Ramon and David Abadiano and was never alienated.
They further alleged that from the time of the sale, They alleged further that the act of spouses Martir in
Victor Garde and his heirs were in continuous, public, planting sugarcane on the land was without Robertos
peaceful, and uninterrupted possession and occupation in consent; that Roberto had demanded that the spouses
the concept of an owner of Lot No. 1318-C.[13] On Martir pay him reasonable rental for the land but that they
December 29, 1961, the heirs of Victor Garde sold their had persistently refused to do so; and that sometime in
rights and interests over Lot No. 1318-C[14] to Jose Garde, March 1981, Roberto and the spouses Martir came to an
who immediately took possession thereof. Jose Garde agreement whereby the defendant continued to cultivate
continuously planted sugarcane on the land until he sold the remaining stalks of sugarcane left by plaintiffs and that
the property to Lolita Martir in 1979.[15] until the harvest of said sugarcane, plaintiffs never posed
any objection thereto.
After acquiring the property, respondent spouses
continued to plant sugarcane on the land. Sometime in Xerxes Abadiano intervened in the proceedings
March 1982, after respondent Jesus Martir harvested the before the trial court alleging likewise that his predecessor
sugarcane he had planted on Lot No. 1318-C, defendant Ramon Abadiano never sold their share of the property to
below Roberto Abadiano (son of Ramon) allegedly Victor Garde.[20]
entered the property and cultivated the remaining stalks
of sugarcane and refused to vacate despite demands to After trial, the court issued a Decision[21] dated June
do so. The following year, defendants Roberto Abadiano, 23, 1995, ruling in favor of the spouses Martir.
Faustino Montao, and Quirico Mandaguit again harvested
 The trial court rejected therein defendants than sixty (60) years was duly established. In contrast, the
contention that the Compra Y Venta was null and void court found that defendants and intervenor, and their
because the co-owner, David Abadiano, did not sign the deceased parents, had not been in possession of their
same. It held that the Supreme Court has ruled to the share in the property. It held that the defendants and
effect that the sale by a co-owner of the entire property intervenor were guilty of laches for failing to avail of the
without the consent of the other co-owners was not null many opportunities for them to bring an action to establish
and void but that only the rights of the co-owner-seller are their right over Lot No. 1318-C.
transferred, making the buyer a co-owner. The trial court
also held that although the Compra Y Venta was not Defendants appealed to the CA. However, the
annotated either on the OCT or on the reconstituted OCT, same was summarily dismissed in a Resolution
the validity of the sale was not vitiated. The registration or dated February 11, 1997 due to defendants failure to pay
annotation is required only to make the sale valid as to the required docket fee within the period set. Nonetheless,
third persons. Thus, the trial court concluded that the records were retained for the appeal of Xerxes
the Compra Y Venta was valid between the parties, Abadiano, intervenor in the trial court.
Ramon Abadiano and Victor Garde.
On March 14, 2002, the CA rendered a Decision
The trial court also brushed aside the defendants affirming the Decision of the RTC in toto.[23]
contention that the Compra Y Venta contained the same
notarial inscription as the Deed of Partition. It said that Xerxes Abadiano now comes before this Court
assuming this to be true, this may be considered an error raising the following arguments:
which did not nullify the Compra Y Venta; at most, the
document would be non-registrable but still valid. A

On the contention that the alleged confirmation THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED,
executed by David Abadiano was for the Deed of BASED ON ITS MISAPPREHENSION AND/OR
Partition and not for the Compra Y Venta, the trial court OMISSION OF THE FACTS, IN DISREGARDING
agreed. It, however, interpreted the same to mean that THE PRIMORDIAL ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT
David Abadiano must not have authorized his brother to THE DEED OF SALE (COMPRA Y VENTA) IS A
sell his share in Lot No. 1318-C. The effect was that David SPURIOUS DOCUMENT
Abadiano continued to be one of the registered owners of
the property and his heirs stepped into his shoes upon his B
death.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
However, the trial court found that the plaintiffs FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY OF LACHES OVER
(respondents) claim that they and their predecessors-in- REGISTERED LAND[24]
interest have been in possession of the property for more
 absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence
The Petition is impressed with merit. We believe the on record.[26]
trial court and the CA erred in ruling for the respondents.
Accordingly, we reverse the assailed Decision and In the present case, we find that the trial court
Resolution. based its judgment on a misapprehension of facts, as well
as on the supposed absence of evidence which is
It is well settled that the findings of fact of the trial contradicted by the records.
court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded
the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be In appreciating the alleged Compra Y
disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and Venta presented by respondents, the trial court
conclusive on the Court. Further, it is not the Courts concluded that [t]he parties have no quarrel on the
function under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil existence of a Deed of Sale of a portion of Lot No. 1318
Procedure to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the executed by Ramon Abadiano for himself and as
probative value of the evidence presented. The representative of David Abadiano, dated June 3, [1922] in
jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review under Rule favor of Victor Garde.[27]
45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law. Unless the case
falls under the recognized exceptions, the rule shall not be The trial court erred in its conclusion.
disturbed.[25]
Borne very clearly by the records is the defendants
However, this Court has consistently recognized the repudiation of the existence of the sale in their Answer with
following exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded Counterclaim. They stated:
entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or 2. That defendants admit plaintiffs
impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) allegation in paragraph 4 that there has been
when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of no particular designation of lot number (sic)
facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) for each of the co-owner (sic) of Lot No. 1318
when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues but specifically deny under oath the other
of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of allegations thereof the truth being that the
both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the property referred to here as Lot No. 1318
findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when remains undivided to this day that the owners
the findings are conclusions without citation of specific thereof as shown by the TCT No. 31862 co-
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set own the same pro-indiviso;
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) 3. That defendants have no knowledge
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 5[28] and
 therefore specifically deny the same under the instrument was procured by fraudulent
oath the truth being that Ramon Abadiano representation raise any issue as to its
and David Abadiano had not sold the land at genuineness or due execution. On the
bar to anyone and that consequently, contrary such a plea is an admission both of
defendant Roberto Abadiano had inherited the genuineness and due execution thereof,
the same from the former; x x x.[29](emphasis since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a
supplied). ground not affecting either.[32]

Likewise, petitioner specifically denied the It was error then for the RTC to have brushed aside
allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. He alleged this issue and then make so sweeping a conclusion in the
that the lot had never been sold or alienated and the face of such opposition. In light of this challenge to the
same still remains intact as the property of the Intervenor very existence of the Compra Y Venta, the trial court
and his co-owners by operation of law.[30] should have first resolved the issue of the documents
authenticity and due execution before deciding on its
This was testified to by Roberto Abadiano during the validity. Unfortunately, the CA did not even discuss this
trial, thus: issue.

Q: During the lifetime of your father, do you We are cognizant, however, that it is now too late in
know if your father has ever sold to any the day to remand the case to the trial court for the
party his share on Lot No. 1318? determination of the purported Compra Y Ventas
authenticity and due execution. Thus, we will resolve this
A: He has not sold his share.[31] very issue here and now in order to put an end to this
protracted litigation.

These statements were enough to impugn the due There is no denying that TCT No. 31862 is still the
execution of the document. While it is true that this Court subsisting title over the parcel of land in dispute. It is also a
had previously ruled that mere denials would not have fact that the purported Compra Y Venta was not
sufficed to impeach the document, in this case, there was annotated on TCT No. 31862 until April 1982, shortly before
an effective specific denial as contemplated by law in the complaint was commenced, even though the deed
accordance with our ruling that - was allegedly executed in 1922.

defendant must declare under oath that he Considering that the action is one for quieting of title
did not sign the document or that it is and respondents anchored their claim to the property on
otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the disputed Compra Y Venta, we find it necessary to
the statement of the answer to the effect that repeat that it was incumbent upon the trial court to have
resolved first the issue of the documents due execution in the office of the Register of Deeds. They allegedly tried
and authenticity, before determining its validity. to obtain a copy from that office but their request was
refused. No other evidence but these bare assertions,
Rule 130, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court however, was presented to prove that the original is
reads: indeed in the custody of the Register of Deeds or that
respondents due and diligent search for the same was
Original document must be produced; unsuccessful.
exceptions. When the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall The Rule states that when the original document is
be admissible other than the original unavailable, has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
document itself, except in the following cases: produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution
or existence and the cause of its unavailability without
(a) When the original has been lost or bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.[33]

(b) When the original is in the custody or In the case at bar, respondents failed to establish
under the control of the party against whom that the offer in evidence of the document was made in
the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to accordance with any of the exceptions allowed under the
produce it after reasonable notice; abovequoted rule, and yet, the trial court accepted the
document as genuine and proceeded to determine its
(c) When the original consists of validity based on such assumption.
numerous accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined in court without The trial court likewise brushed aside the apparent
great loss of time and the fact sought to be defect that the document presented contained the same
established from them is only the general notarial inscription as the Agreement on Partition. Indeed,
result of the whole; the Deed of Partition and the Compra Y Venta, though
executed on different days, were notarized on the same
(d) When the original is a public record day, and both documents contained the signatures of the
in the custody of a public officer or is same witnesses and the same notarial inscription.
recorded in a public office.
This notwithstanding, the court concluded, Assuming
this to be true, same could be considered an error which
Respondents attached only a photocopy of did not nullify, (sic) the Deed of Sale or Compra Y Venta.
the Compra Y Venta to their complaint. According to At most, the document would be a non-registrable, but
respondent Lolita Martir, the original of said document was valid document.[34]
 his right to recover the possession of his registered property
We stress that a notarial document is evidence of by reason of laches.[41]
the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein
expressed and has in its favor the presumption of Laches has been defined as neglect or omission to
regularity.[35] assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and
other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse
In this case, while it is true that the error in the party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a delay in the
notarial inscription would not have invalidated the sale if assertion of a right which works disadvantage to another
indeed it took place the same error would have meant because of the inequity founded on some change in the
that the document cannot be treated as a notarial condition or relations of the property or parties. It is based
document and thus, not entitled to the presumption of on public policy which, for the peace of society, ordains
regularity. The document would be taken out of the realm that relief will be denied to a stale demand which
of public documents whose genuineness and due otherwise could be a valid claim.[42]
execution need not be proved.[36] The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct
on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he
Accordingly, respondents not having proven the claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is
due execution and genuineness of the purported Compra made and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2)
Y Venta, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the
petitioner. complainant having had knowledge or notice of the
defendants conduct and having been afforded an
Next, we determine if petitioner is guilty of laches. opportunity to institute suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice
On this issue, we rule in the negative. on the part of the defendant that the complainant would
assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or
Under the Property Registration Decree,[37] no title to prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded
registered land in derogation of the title of the registered to the complainant or the suit is not held to be barred.[43]
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.[38] Indefeasibility and imprescriptibility are the The reason for the rule is not simply the lapse of time
cornerstones of land registration proceedings. Barring any during which the neglect to enforce the right has existed,
mistake or use of fraud in the procurement of the title, but the changes of condition which may have arisen
owners may rest secure on their ownership and possession during the period in which there has been neglect. In
once their title is registered under the protective mantle of other words, where a court finds that the position of the
the Torrens system.[39] parties will change, that equitable relief cannot be
afforded without doing injustice, or that the intervening
Nonetheless, even if a Torrens title is indefeasible rights of third persons may be destroyed or seriously
and imprescriptible,[40] the registered landowner may lose impaired, it will not exert its equitable powers in order to
save one from the consequences of his own neglect.[44]
 The Court has recognized that this reaction cannot
Though laches applies even to imprescriptible be characterized as such delay as would amount to
actions, its elements must be proved positively. Laches is laches, thus:
evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere
allegations in the pleadings.[45] in determining whether a delay in seeking to
enforce a right constitutes laches, the
Based on the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is existence of a confidential relationship
not guilty of laches. The evidence on record does not between the parties is an important
support such finding. circumstance for consideration, a delay
under such circumstances not being so strictly
Petitioner had reasonable ground to believe that regarded as where the parties are strangers to
the property, being still in the name of his predecessor in each other. The doctrine of laches is not
interest, continued to be theirs, especially considering that strictly applied between near relatives, and
the annotation of the purported sale was done only in the fact that parties are connected by ties of
1982. According to petitioner, his father had told him that blood or marriage tends to excuse an
his (the fathers) inheritance was in the possession of their otherwise unreasonable delay.[51]
uncle, Amando Baares who knew likewise that the
property was theirs.
In addition, several other factors militate against the
From the testimonies of petitioner and the finding of laches on the part of the petitioner.
defendants during trial, it would appear that they were
unaware of any of respondents actions in relation to the When the Original Certificate of Title was
property until the death of their grandfather, Amando reconstituted on February 15, 1962, no annotation therein
Baares. When they did find out that respondents were was made of the Compra Y Venta or of the Deed of Sale
occupying the land, they immediately took action to between Ramon Abadiano and Victor Garde. Only the
occupy what they believed was still rightfully theirs. Agreement of Partition, the Confirmation by David
Abadiano, and the sale from Demetrio to Leopoldo
That petitioner and his co-heirs waited until the Baares were annotated therein.[52] Neither does the Deed
death of Amando Baares to try and occupy the land is of Sale of Demetrios share in favor of Leopoldo, executed
understandable. They had to be careful about the actions in 1957, mention that the property belonged to anyone
they took, lest they sow dissent within the other than the parties to the Deed of Partition.[53]
family. Furthermore, they knew that their parents revered
Amando.[50] Likewise, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-31862,
which was issued in 1962 pursuant to an Order of the
Kabankalan CFI, was issued in the names of Leopoldo
Baares, Amando Baares, and Ramon and David
Abadiano. Even at the time of the issuance of said TCT, not Victor Garde who had possession of the property
there was no annotation of the alleged sale to Victor during the formers lifetime, or that after Amandos death,
Garde, which according to respondents took place in the lot remained unoccupied.
1922.
In sum, we find that petitioner is not guilty of such
If respondents contention were true, the TCT should neglect or inaction as would bar his claim to the property
not have been issued in April 1962 in the name of Ramon in question. In contrast, it is most telling that respondents,
and David Abadiano, but in the name of Victor Garde or who are claiming to have been in possession of the
Jose Garde who by then had supposedly acquired the property by virtue of an alleged duly constituted sale for
property by virtue of the Declaration of Heirship and Deed almost 60 years, have themselves failed within that long
of Sale executed on December 29, 1961.[54] As it is, neither period to have the same property transferred in their
respondents nor any of their predecessors in interest name or even only to have the sale annotated on the title
participated in any of the proceedings for the issuance of of the property.
the OCT, the reconstituted OCT, or the TCT. The petitioners
testimony on the matter is revealing: Finally, we come to the issue of damages. Petitioner
Again, the TCT bears out the fact that the prays that respondents be made to pay actual damages
purported Compra Y Venta to Victor Garde was of not less that P30,000.00 plus rentals on the property from
annotated thereon only on April 23, 1982. On the other the time of the latters occupation, moral damages
hand, several entries made in 1981 evince that petitioner amounting to P100,000.00, and exemplary damages, as
and his co-heirs took steps after Amandos death to assert well as attorneys fees.
their rights over the property.[56]
The record shows that petitioner testified on the
In 1976, the heirs of David Abadiano executed a prevailing rate of rentals on the subject property from the
Special Power of Attorney in favor of Roberto Abadiano time of Amando Baares death in 1976 until the time of the
giving the latter authority to act, sue, and/or represent trial. According to petitioner, the rental rate from 1976 until
them in any suit or action for recovery of possession or of 1985 was P3,000.00 per hectare, while from 1985 until the
whatever kind or nature.[57] For their part, the heirs of time of his testimony in 1994, the rental rate was P5,000.00
Ramon Abadiano executed a Declaration of Heirship and per hectare. We thus rule that the actual damages that
Adjudication over the part of Lot No. 1318 pertaining to may be awarded shall be based only on these rates.[59]
their predecessor.[58]
Considering, however, that petitioners co-heirs
Ranged against these positive steps, respondents (defendants Roberto Abandiano, et al.) were able to
only have their bare assertions to support their claim that enter the property and harvest the sugarcane therein in
they indeed had possession of the land through their 1981 and, thereafter, the land remained unoccupied, the
predecessors in interest, which are insufficient to rent must be reckoned only from the time respondents
overcome the testimony that it was Amando Baares and actually occupied the land until March 1981.
 (3) ordering respondents to pay
The claims for moral damages must be anchored on petitioner and his co-heirs rentals at the
a definite showing that the claiming party actually rate of P3,000.00 per hectare per year,
experienced emotional and mental sufferings.[60] In this from the time of actual occupation of
case, we find that petitioners testimony that he suffered the land in 1976 until March 1981, moral
from sleepless nights from worrying about this case and damages in the amount of P100,00.00,
considering the great distance he had to travel from his exemplary damages in the amount
home in Tacloban to see the case through are enough of P30,000.00, and attorneys fees in the
bases to award him moral damages. With the award of amount of P10,000.00.
moral damages, exemplary damages are likewise in
order.[61]
Leonor Camcam, et.al vs. CA and Frias
Attorneys fees are recoverable when exemplary
damages are awarded, or when the court deems it just G.R. No. 142977
and equitable. The grant of attorneys fees depends on the
September 30, 2008
circumstances of each case and lies within the discretion
of the court.[62] Given the circumstances of this case, we
grant the prayer for attorneys fees.
Petitioner Leonor and her husband Laureano were the
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the registered owners of two parcels of land (Lot Nos. 19554
Petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the
and 18738) located in Pangasinan. The latter died
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51679 are REVERSED
AND SET ASIDE. A new one is entered: intestate and was survived by Leonor and his brothers.

(1) reversing the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Kabankalan, Leonor and Laureano’s filed before the RTC a
Negros Occidental in Civil Case No. complaint against respondent Frias, for annulment of the
1331;
following documents executed by Leonor in favor with
(2) declaring the heirs of Ramon and Frias covering said lots:
David Abadiano as the lawful owners
of Lot No. 1318-B, a portion of Lot No.
1318 covered by Transfer Certificate of 1. Deed of Adjudication with Sale dated November 4,
Title No. T-31862, Kabankalan 1982;
Cadastre, Negros Occidental; and 2. Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 23, 1982;
and
 3. Deed of Extrajudicial Partition notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a
and Sale dated November 4, 1982 document to that of a private document, which requires
proof of its due execution and authenticity to be
They alleged that said documents did not reflect their admissible as evidence.
true intention, the shares of the plaintiffs, other than
plaintiff Leonor, were included without their knowledge,
participation and consent and that said documents were The irregular notarization or, for that matter, the lack of
absolutely fictitious and simulated. Furthermore, they notarization does not thus necessarily affect the validity of
contented that from the appearance of these the contract reflected in the document. Tigno v.
documents, particularly the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition Aquino[30] enlightens:
and Sale and the Deed of Adjudication with Sale, while
both were notarized by the same notary public, yet they
have identical notarial documentary identification, i.e., x x x From a civil law perspective, the absence of
the same documentary number to be 464, same page notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily
number 44, the same book number X and the same series invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358
of 1982, and appeared to have been sworn before the of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that
notary public on the same date November 4, 1982, thus transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable
should be declared null and void. 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
Issue: Whether or not the said documents should be uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 is not
declared null and void CONSIDERING THEIR PHYSICAL essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction,
APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONS INDICATING STRONGLY but required merely for convenience. We have even
THE IRREGULARITIES OF THEIR EXECUTION. 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
Ruling: No. Without passing on the merits of Frias claim that is that even a verbal contract of sale or real estate
Leonor originally sold to him of Lot No. 18739 as reflected in produces effects between the parties.
the first November 4, 1982 document but later conveyed
(EQUITABLE MORTGAGE; ONLY ENJOYS PRESUMPTION OF
the remaining thereof, hence, the execution of the
REGULARITY IF THE NOTARIZATION IS NOT DEFECTIVE, EVEN
second document bearing the same date, an irregular
IF REGULAR NOT A GUARANTEE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE Warranty. Respondent prayed that the Deed of Transfer
CONTENTS) and Affidavit of Warranty be annulled.7

SPOUSES LEHNER and LUDY MARTIRES, Petitioners, After trial, the RTC of Quezon City denied and dismissed
vs. the complaint for lack of merit.
MENELIA CHUA,
On appeal, the CA affirmed, with modification.
Subject of the instant controversy are twenty-four
memorial lots located at the Holy Cross Memorial Park in Respondent filed a Motion for
Barangay Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City. Respondent, Reconsideration. Petitioners opposed it.
11 12

together with her mother, Florencia R. Calagos, own the

disputed property. Their co-ownership is evidenced by a the CA grants the movant's Motion for Reconsideration
Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care. and reversed the RTC.(CHUA FAVOR)
Respondent borrowed from petitioner spouses the amount
of P150,000.00. The loan was secured by a real estate Declaring The Deed of Transfer dated, as well as the
mortgage over the abovementioned property. Affidavit of Warranty, are hereby declared void ab
Respondent failed to fully settle her obligation. initio;

Subsequently, without foreclosure of the mortgage, The CA reconsidered its findings and concluded that the
ownership of the subject lots were transferred in the name Deed of Transfer which, on its face, transfers ownership of
of petitioners via a Deed of Transfer.5 the subject property to petitioners, is, in fact, an equitable
mortgage. The CA held that the true intention of
Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of respondent was merely to provide security for her loan
Quezon City a Complaint against petitioners, Manila and not to transfer ownership of the property to petitioners.
Memorial Park Inc., the company which owns the Holy
Cross Memorial Park, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon [The CA so ruled on the basis of its findings that: (1)
City, praying for the annulment of the contract of the consideration, amounting to P150,000.00, for
mortgage between her and petitioners on the ground that the alleged Deed of Transfer is unusually
the interest rates imposed are unjust and exorbitant. She inadequate, considering that the subject property
likewise prayed for the reconveyance the disputed consists of 24 memorial lots; (2) the Deed of
property to her.6 Transfer was executed by reason of the same loan
extended by petitioners to respondent; (3) the
Respondent amended her complaint to include the Deed of Transfer is incomplete and defective; and
allegation that she later discovered that ownership of the (4) the lots subject of the Deed of Transfer are one
subject lots was transferred in the name of petitioners by and the same property used to secure
virtue of a forged Deed of Transfer and Affidavit of respondent's P150,000.00 loan from petitioners.]
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,14 but the CA regular.21 A defective notarization will strip the document
denied petitioners filed a Second Motion for of its public character and reduce it to a private
Reconsideration,15 but again, the CA denied it via its instrument.22 Consequently, when there is a defect in the
Resolution notarization of a document, the clear and convincing
evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-
Hence, the present petition based on the following notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to
grounds: test the validity of such document is preponderance of
evidence.23
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN NOT
UPHOLDING THE DEED OF TRANSFER EXECUTED BY THE In the present case, the CA has clearly pointed out the
RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS BY RULING dubious circumstances and irregularities attendant in the
THAT: alleged notarization of the subject Deed of Transfer, to wit:
(1) the Certification24 issued by the Clerk of Court of the
1. The Deed of Transfer executed by respondent in Notarial Section of the RTC of Makati City which
favor of petitioners over the subject property was supposedly attested that a copy of the subject Deed of
not entered in the Notarial Book of Atty. Francisco Transfer is on file with the said court, was contradicted by
Talampas and reported in the Notarial Section of the Certification25 issued by the Administrative Officer of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. the Notarial Section of the same office as well as by the
testimony of the court employee who prepared the
2. The Deed of Transfer was not duly notarized by Certification issued by the Clerk of Court, to the effect that
Atty. Francisco Talampas inasmuch as there was no the subject Deed of Transfer cannot, in fact, be found in
convincing proof that respondent appeared before their files; (2) respondent's categorical denial that she
Notary Public Atty. Talampas. executed the subject Deed of Transfer; and (3) the subject
document did not state the date of execution and lacks
The petition lacks merit. the marital consent of respondent's husband.

(Filed out of time) (EVEN IF REGULAR NOTARIZED NOT A GUARANTEE OF

VALIDITY) Assuming further that the notarization of the
(Notarization defective) Anent the first assigned error, disputed Deed of Transfer was regular, the Court,
petitioners are correct in pointing out that notarized nonetheless, is not persuaded by petitioners' argument
documents carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them that such Deed is a sufficient evidence of the validity of the
with respect to their due execution and enjoy the agreement between petitioners and respondent.
presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by
evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all While indeed a notarized document enjoys the
controversy as to falsity.20However, the presumptions that presumption of regularity, the fact that a deed is notarized
attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.28 The
long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear REGULAR- NOT GUARANTEE OF CONTENT, BUT CAN BE
and convincing evidence to the contrary.29 In the present OVERTHROWN BY CLEAR AND CONVCING EVIDENCE;
case, the presumption cannot be made to apply, AGREEMENT IS EQUITABLE MORTGAGE)
because aside from the regularity of its notarization,
(VALIDITY WAS OVERTHROWN BY QUESTIONABLE [G.R. No. 156407. January 15, 2014.]
CIRCUMSTANCES IN EXECUTION) the validity of the THELMA M. ARANAS, petitioner, vs. TERESITA V. MERCADO,
contents and execution of the subject Deed of Transfer FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND,
was challenged in the proceedings below where its prima RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. ANDERSON, and
facie validity was subsequently overthrown by the FRANKLIN L. MERCADO, respondents.
questionable circumstances attendant in its supposed
execution. These circumstances include: (1) the alleged FACTS:
agreement between the parties that the ownership of the Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on
subject property be simply assigned to petitioners instead January 12, 1991, survived by his second wife, Teresita V.
of foreclosure of the contract of mortgage which was Mercado (Teresita), and their five children, namely: Allan
earlier entered into by them; (2) the Deed of Transfer was V. Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M.
executed by reason of the loan extended by petitioners to Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado, and Maria Teresita M.
respondent, the amount of the latter's outstanding Anderson; and his two children by his first marriage,
obligation being the same as the amount of the namely: respondent Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner
consideration for the assignment of ownership over the Thelma M. Aranas (Thelma).
subject property; (3) the inadequacy of the consideration;
and (4) the claim of respondent that she had no intention Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties
of transferring ownership of the subject property to during his lifetime. He owned corporate shares in Mervir
petitioners. Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu Emerson
Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emerson). He assigned
the agreement between petitioners and respondent is, in his real properties in exchange for corporate stocks of
fact, an equitable mortgage. Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu
(Lot 3353 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252)
Since the original transaction between the parties was a to Mervir Realty.
mortgage, the subsequent assignment of ownership of the
subject lots to petitioners without the benefit of foreclosure Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu
proceedings, partakes of the nature of a pactum City a petition for the appointment of Teresita as the
commissorium, as provided for under Article 2088 of the administrator of Emigdio's estate. The RTC granted the
Civil Code. petition considering that there was no opposition. The
letters of administration in favor of Teresita.
(MORTAGAGE PROP- NOTARIZATION NOT REGULAR: DID
NOT APPEAR, CONTRADICTED; EVEN IF NOTARIZATON
 As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory and orders the said administratrix to re-do the inventory of
of the estate of Emigdio for the consideration and properties which are supposed to constitute as the estate
approval by the RTC. She indicated in the inventory that at of the late Emigdio S. Mercado. The RTC also directed the
the time of his death, Emigdio had "left no real properties administratrix to render an account of her administration
but only personal properties" worth P6,675,435.25 in all, of the estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado which had
consisting of cash of P32,141.20; furniture and fixtures worth come to her possession.
P20,000.00; pieces of jewelry valued at P15,000.00; 44,806
shares of stock of Mervir Realty worth P6,585,585.80; and 30 Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely
shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P22,708.25. sought the reconsideration of the order of March 14, 2001
on the ground that one of the real properties affected, Lot
Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu, had already been sold
that were excluded from the inventory, Thelma moved to Mervir Realty,
that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the inventory, and
to be examined regarding it. Teresita filed a compliance On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision
with the order of January 8, 1993, 3 supporting her insofar as the inclusion of the inclusion of parcels of land
inventory with copies of three certificates of stocks known as Lot No. 3353 located at Badian, Cebu with an
covering the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of stock; 4 the area of 53,301 square meters subject matter of the Deed
deed of assignment executed by Emigdio on January 10, of Absolute Sale dated November 9, 1989 and the various
1991 involving real properties with the market value of parcels of land subject matter of the Deeds of Assignment
P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir Realty shares dated February 17, 1989 and January 10, 1991 in the
of stock with total par value of P4,440,700.00; 5 and the revised inventory to be submitted by the administratrix is
certificate of stock issued on January 30, 1979 for 300 concerned.
shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P30,000.00.
ISSUE:
Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be Whether or not he RTC committed grave abuse of
examined under oath on the inventory. The RTC issued an discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
order expressing the need for the parties to present directing the inclusion of certain properties in the inventory
evidence and for Teresita to be examined to enable the notwithstanding that such properties had been either
court to resolve the motion for approval of the inventory. transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate shares in
Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and asked Mervir Realty by the decedent during his lifetime?
leave of court to examine Teresita on the inventory.
RULING: No. The CA's conclusion of grave abuse of
The RTC issued on March 14, 2001 an order finding discretion on the part of the RTC was unwarranted and
and holding that the inventory submitted by Teresita had erroneous.
excluded properties that should be included. The RTC
denied the administratrix's motion for approval of inventory
 WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court,
review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision viz.:
promulgated on May 15, 2002; REINSTATES the orders
issued on March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 by the Section 1. Inventory and appraisal
Regional Trial Court in Cebu; DIRECTS the Regional Trial to be returned within three
Court in Cebu to proceed with dispatch in Special months. — Within three (3)
Proceedings No. 3094-CEB entitled Intestate Estate of the months after his appointment
late Emigdio Mercado, Thelma Aranas, petitioner, and to every executor or administrator
resolve the case; and ORDERS the respondents to pay the shall return to the court a true
costs of suit. inventory and appraisal of all the
real and personal estate of the
RATIO: deceased which has come into
The probate court is authorized to determine the his possession or knowledge. In
issue of ownership of properties for purposes of their the appraisement of such estate,
inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be submitted the court may order one or more
by the administrator, but its determination shall only be of the inheritance tax appraisers
provisional unless the interested parties are all heirs of the to give his or their assistance.
decedent, or the question is one of collation or The usage of the word all in Section 1, supra,
advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of demands the inclusion of all the real and personal
jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third properties of the decedent in the inventory. However, the
parties are not impaired. Its jurisdiction extends to matters word all is qualified by the phrase which has come into his
incidental or collateral to the settlement and distribution of possession or knowledge, which signifies that the
the estate, such as the determination of the status of each properties must be known to the administrator to belong
heir and whether property included in the inventory is the to the decedent or are in her possession as the
conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased spouse. administrator. Section 1 allows no exception, for the
phrase true inventory implies that no properties appearing
Under Section 6 (a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, to belong to the decedent can be excluded from the
the letters of administration may be granted at the inventory, regardless of their being in the possession of
discretion of the court to the surviving spouse, who is another person or entity.
competent and willing to serve when the person dies
intestate. Upon issuing the letters of administration to the The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the
surviving spouse, the RTC becomes duty-bound to direct inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent is
the preparation and submission of the inventory of the "to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining
properties of the estate, and the surviving spouse, as the the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in
administrator, has the duty and responsibility to submit the malting a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the
inventory within three months from the issuance of letters estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the
estate." Hence, the RTC that presides over the exercises special and limited jurisdiction. As held in several
administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion cases, a probate court or one in charge of estate
on the question of what properties should be included in proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot
the inventory. According to Peralta v. Peralta, the CA adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a
cannot impose its judgment in order to supplant that of part of the estate and which are claimed to belong to
the RTC on the issue of which properties are to be outside parties, not by virtue of any right of inheritance
included or excluded from the inventory in the absence of from the deceased but by title adverse to that of the
"positive abuse of discretion," for in the administration of deceased and his estate. All that the said court could do
the estates of deceased persons, "the judges enjoy ample as regards said properties is to determine whether or not
discretionary powers and the appellate courts should not they should be included in the inventory of properties to
interfere with or attempt to replace the action taken by be administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute,
them, unless it be shown that there has been a positive there poses no problem, but if there is, then the parties, the
abuse of discretion." As long as the RTC commits no administrator, and the opposing parties have to resort to
patently grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be an ordinary action before a court exercising general
respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial jurisdiction for a final determination of the conflicting
duty. claims of title.

There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as
court as an intestate court is special and limited. The trial justified by expediency and convenience.
court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to be
a part of the estate but are claimed to belong to third The probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
parties by title adverse to that of the decedent and the intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion
estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance from the in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property
decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said without prejudice to final determination of ownership in a
properties is to determine whether or not they should be separate action. Second, if the interested parties are all
included in the inventory of properties to be administered heirs to the estate, or the question is one of collation or
by the administrator. Such determination is provisional and advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of
may be still revised. As the Court said in Agtarap v. jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third
Agtarap: parties are not impaired, then the probate court is
competent to resolve issues on ownership. Verily, its
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to
court, either as a probate court or an intestate court, the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the
relates only to matters having to do with the probate of determination of the status of each heir and whether the
the will and/or settlement of the estate of deceased property in the inventory is conjugal or exclusive property
persons, but does not extend to the determination of of the deceased spouse.
questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings.
The patent rationale for this rule is that such court merely
 The inventory of the estate of Emigdio must be an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
prepared and submitted for the important purpose of personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or
resolving the difficult issues of collation and advancement board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to
to the heirs. Article 1061 of the Civil Code required every perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of
compulsory heir and the surviving spouse, herein Teresita law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising
herself, to "bring into the mass of the estate any property judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or
or right which he (or she) may have received from the whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of
decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of jurisdiction.
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may
be computed in the determination of the legitime of each G.R. No. 208450 SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA
heir, and in the account of the partition." Section 2, Rule 90 CRISTINA CABARRUS vs. SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA
of the Rules of Court also provided that any advancement L. PO
by the decedent on the legitime of an heir "may be heard Facts:This case involves a parcel of land located in
and determined by the court having jurisdiction of the Cabancalan, Mandaue City, initially registered under the
estate proceedings, and the final order of the court name of Roberto Aboitiz. This parcel of land originally
thereon shall be binding on the person raising the belonged to the late Mariano Seno. On July 31, 1973,
questions and on the heir." Rule 90 thereby expanded the Mariano executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his
special and limited jurisdiction of the RTC as an intestate son, Ciriaco Seno. On May 5, 1978, Ciriaco sold the two (2)
court about the matters relating to the inventory of the lots to Victoria Po (Victoria). The parties executed a Deed
estate of the decedent by authorizing it to direct the of Absolute Sale. On July 15, 1982, Mariano died and was
inclusion of properties donated or bestowed by gratuitous survived by his five (5) children.
title to any compulsory heir by the decedent.
In 1990, Peter Po discovered that Ciriaco “had executed a
The determination of which properties should be
quitclaim dated August 7, 1989 renouncing his interest in
excluded from or included in the inventory of estate
favor of Roberto. In the quitclaim, Ciriaco stated that he
properties was well within the authority and discretion of
was “the declared owner of Lot Nos. 2835 and 2807.
the RTC as an intestate court. In making its determination,
the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded
under the guiding policy that it was best to include all The Spouses Po confronted Ciriaco. By way of remedy,
properties in the possession of the administrator or were Ciriaco and the Spouses Po executed a Memorandum of
known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather Agreement dated June 28, 1990 in which Ciriaco agreed
than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to pay Peter the difference between the amount paid by
to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC the Spouses Po as consideration for the entire property
commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders and the value of the land the Spouses Po were left with
must be respected as part of the regular performance of after the quitclaim. However, also in 1990, Lot No. 2835
its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion means either was also sold to Roberto. The Mariano Heirs, including
that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in Ciriaco, executed separate deeds of absolute sale in
favor of Roberto. Thereafter, Roberto immediately Agreement did not cancel or rescind the Deed of
developed the lot as part of a subdivision called North Absolute Sale but rather strengthened their claim that they
Town Homes. On April 19, 1993, Roberto filed an “entered into a contract of sale. “It likewise ruled that,
application for original registration of Lot No. 2835, the trial contrary to the assertion of the Spouses Aboitiz, there was
court granted the issuance of Original Certificate of Title no showing that Ciriaco merely held the property in trust
No. 0-887 in the name of Roberto. The lot was immediately for the Mariano Heirs.It held that the action of the Spouses
subdivided with portions sold to Ernesto and Jose. Po had not yet prescribed because their complaint in 1996
was within the 10-year prescriptive period as the title in
On November 19, 1996, the Spouses Po filed a complaint favor of the Spouses Aboitiz was issued in 1994. However,
to recover the land and to declare nullity of title with the Court of Appeals ruled that the certificates of title of
damages. Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel were valid as they were innocent
buyers in good faith.
The Spouses Aboitiz appealed to the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 31, 2012, Issue: Whether or not the action of Spouses Po is barred by
partially affirmed the trial court decision, declaring the prescription even with the existence of fraud.
Spouses Po as the rightful owner of the land. However, it
ruled that the titles issued to respondents Jose, Ernesto, Ruling: The Spouses Po’s action has not prescribed. In all
and Isabel should be respected. cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may
pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the
The Court of Appeals discussed the inapplicability of the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the
rules on double sale and the doctrine of buyer in good rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of
faith since the land was not yet registered when it was sold title …
to the Spouses Po. However, it ruled in favor of the Spouses
Po on the premise that registered property may be Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person
reconveyed to the “rightful or legal owner or to the one acquiring a property through fraud becomes an implied
with a better right if the title was wrongfully or erroneously trustee of the property’s true and lawful owner.
registered in another person’s name.” The Court of
Appeals held that the Mariano Heirs were no longer the An implied trust is based on equity and is either (i) a
owners of the lot at the time they sold it to Roberto in 1990 constructive trust, or (ii) a resulting trust. A resulting trust is
because Mariano, during his lifetime, already sold this to created by implication of law and is presumed as
Ciriaco in 1973. intended by the parties. A constructive trust is created by
force of law such as when a title is registered in favor of a
It found that the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco person other than the true owner. The implied trustee only
and the Spouses Po was duly notarized and was thus acquires the right “to the beneficial enjoyment of the
presumed regular on its face. Their Memorandum of property.” legal title remains with the true owner.
Art. 1456 of the Civil Code provides: repudiation takes place when the adverse party registers
the land.
Art. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud,
the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a Considering that the Spouses Po’s complaint was filed on
trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from November 19, 1996, less than three (3) years from the
whom the property comes. issuance of the Torrens title over the property on April 6,
1994, it is well within the 10-year prescriptive period
Thus, it was held that when a party uses fraud or imposed on an action for reconveyance.
concealment to obtain a certificate of title of property, a
constructive trust is created in favor of the defrauded A.C. No. 10303 April 22, 2015
party.
JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant,
Constructive trusts are “created by the construction of vs.
equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, Respondent
prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention
against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, FACTS: On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno
obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought (Cimeno) filed a complaint3 with the IBP's Commission on
not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.” Bar Discipline, charging Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a
notary public's office; (2) falsification; (3) use of
intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4)
When property is registered in another’s name, an implied
violation of lawyer-client trust. In her complaint, Gimeno
or constructive trust is created by law in favor of the true
alleged that even before Atty. Zaide's admission to the Bar
owner. The action for reconveyance of the title to the
and receipt of his notarial commission, he had notarized a
rightful owner prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of
partial extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale on
the title.
March 29, 2002. She also accused Atty. Zaide of making
false and irregular entries in his notarial registers.
Thus, the law creates a trust in favor of the property’s true
owner. On October 4, 2007, the IBP CBD issued an order setting
the case for mandatory conference. Commissioner Pedro
The prescriptive period to enforce this trust is 10 years from A. Magpayo, Jr. (Commissioner Magpayo) found Atty.
the time the right of action accrues. It is now well-settled Zaide administratively liable for violating the Notarial
that the prescriptive period to recover property obtained
Practice Rules, representing conflicting interests, and using
by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under
Art. 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to Art. 1144. abusive and insulting language in his pleadings.
This ten year prescriptive period begins to run from the
date the adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which
He noted that Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and 1(b), This Court stresses that a notary public should not trivialize
Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules when he maintained his functions as his powers and duties are impressed with
several active notarial registers in different offices. These public interest. A Notary public's office is not merely an
provisions respectively require a notary public to "keep, income-generating venture. It is a public duty that each
maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection, a lawyer who has been privileged to receive a notarial
chronological official register of notarial acts consisting of commission must faithfully and conscientiously perform.
a permanently bound book with numbered papers" and
to "keep only one active notarial register at any given Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the
time. requirements of his notarial commission. His flagrant
violation of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules
Finally, the investigating commissioner noted that Atty. is not merely a simple and excusable negligence. It
Zaide used intemperate, offensive, and abusive language amounts to a clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
when he called Gimeno a "notorious extortionist" in one of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer
[should] uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
his pleadings.
and promote respect for law and legal processes." The
prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive and
abusive language in a lawyer's professional dealings,
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated Section 1(a) and
whether with the courts, his clients, or any other person, is
1(b), Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules when he
based on the following canons and rules of the Code of
maintained several active notarial registers in different Professional Responsibility:
offices and violated Notarial Practice Rules.
Canon 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
HELD: YES. The Notarial Practice Rules strictly requires courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
anotary public to maintain only one (1) active notarial professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
register andensure that the entries in it are chronologically tactics against opposing counsel.
arranged. The “oneactive notarial register” rule is in place Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
to deter a notary public from assigning several notarial dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
regiters to different offices manned by assistants who or otherwise improper.
perform notarial services on his behalf. Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the should insist on similar conduct by others.
notary public must also personally administer the notarial Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
acts29 that the law authorizes him to execute. This offensive or menacing language or behavior before
important duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other the Courts. (emphasis supplied)
person, other than the notary public, should perform it.
As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide,in the reply that he Disqualifications
drafted in the Ombudsman case, called Gimeno a
"notorious extortionist." And in another case, Gimeno
observed that Atty. Zaide used the following demeaning Fe Ylaya vs. Atty. Gacott
and immoderate language in presenting his comment
Facts:
against his opposing counsel.

Her declaration in Public put a shame, DISGRACE, Fe Ylaya filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. GacOtt. Acco
INDIGNITY AND HUMILIATION in the whole Justice System, rding to her, Atty. Gacott deceived her and her late husband, La
and the Department of Justice in particular, where the urentino, into signing a preparatory deed of sale which they tho
taxpayers paid for her salary over her incompetence and ught would be used in the sale of the properties to the City Gove
poor performance as a prosecutor...This is a clear rnment of Puerto Prinsesa because at that time the said properti
manifestation that the Public prosecutor suffers serious es were subject to expropriation proceedings. But to their disma
y, according to her, it was converted into a deed of absolute sale
mental incompetence as regard her mandate as an
in favor of Atty. Gacott’s uncle Reynolds So.
Assistant City Prosecutor.35 (emphasis supplied)

This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use Atty. Gacott denied these and claimed that Laurentino and Reyn
and choice of his words - a conduct unbecoming of an old had originally purchased the properties
officer of the court. that they were co owners and that Laurentino subsequently sold
his share to Reynold under the deed of absolute sale. He also arg
While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and ued that it was clear from the document that the intended buyer
was a natural person, not juridical. because there were spaces fo
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of
r the buyer’s legal age, marital status, and citizenship. Also, he cl
offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with
aimed that he was even constrained to file a subsequent motion
countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but to intervene on behalf of Reynold because the complainant mali
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and ciously retained the TCTs to the subject properties after borrowi
illuminating but not offensive.36 ng them from his office.

On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members

of the Bar to abstain from any offensive personality and to Then, after some time, Fe Ylaya submitted a motion to withdraw
and executed an affidavit affirming and confirming the existenc
refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation
e, genuineness, and due execution of the deed of aabsolute sale.
of a party or a witness. In keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified. The IBP governor resolved to suspend Atty. Gacott to 2 years, fin
ding him guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 and canon 16 of the code
of professional responsibility.
 Issue: ute solely for the public welfare. s to the second issue, this
Whether or not Atty. Gacott indeed deceived the spouses and sh Commission believes that the respondent committed serious error in
ould be suspended; notarizing the Deed of Sale and the Memorandum of Agreement between
Whether or not the motion to withdraw and affidavit affirming a his uncle Reynold So and Laurentino Ylaya based on Rule IV, Section 3
(c) of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC which provides as follows:
nd confirming the existence, genuiness, and due execution will a
ffect the disbarment proceedings.
"Sec. 3. Disqualifications – a notary public is disqualified from performing
a notarial act if he:
Held:
(a) x x x.

1. Yes but not because of violation of Rule 1.01. Atty. Gacott’s failur (b) x x x.
e to prove the existence of co ownership does not lead to the con
clusion that the deed of aabsolute sale is spurious and he was res (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or
ponsible for creating the spurious documents. relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the
fourth civil degree."
However, he is liable for violating canon 16, rule 15.03, and rule
18.03. Canon 16, he was remiss in his obligation to hold in trust The defense therefore of the respondent that he did not violate the
aforementioned Rule becausehis uncle Reynold So, the buyer is not the
his client’s properties. He lost certificates of land titles that were principal in the Subject Deed of Sale but the seller Laurentino Ylaya
entrusted to his care by Reynold. Rule 15.03, he admitted to be a (please see page 3 of the respondent’s Supplemental Position Paper) is
acting as legal counsel for the former owner of the subject prope misplaced. Clearly, both the buyer and the seller in the instant case are
rties, spouses Ylaya, and Reynold So. There was no written cons considered principals in the contract entered into.
ent from any of the parties involved. Rule 18.03, he neglected leg
al matters entrusted to him. Records show that he never filed m Furthermore, if we are to consider the argument of the respondent that
otion for leave to intervene on behalf of the spouses in the expro his uncle was not a principal so as to apply the afore-quoted provision of
priation proceedings, contrary to what he claimed. the Rules, the respondent still violated the Rules when he notarized the
subject Memorandum of Agreement between Laurentino Ylaya and his
uncle Reynold So. Clearly, both complainant and Reynold So were
2. No. While Fe Ylaya submitted the motion to withdraw the verifie principal parties in the said Memorandum of Agreement.
d complaint and the affidavit appear to exonerate Atty. Gacott, c
omplete exoneration is not the necessary legal effect as they are i Atty. Gacott was suspended from practice of law for one year.
mmaterial for purposes of the disbarment proceedings. Accordi
ng to Sec 5 Rule 139-
Bernard Jandoquile, complainant
B of the rules of Court, “no investigation shall be interrupted or t
erminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, rest
Atty Quirino Revilla Jr, respondent
itution, withdrawal of charges or failure of the complainant to pr
osecute the same”. Facts:
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford n The facts of the case are not disputed. Atty Revilla Jr notarized
o redress for private grievances. They are undertaken and prosec
a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline Brosas, Herizalyn
Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a instrument or document in the presence of the notary; (d) takes
sister of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atyy Revilla Jr’s wife. an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such
Jandoquile complains that Atyy Revilla Jr is disqualified to instrument or document. In this case, Heneraline Brosas is a
perform the notarial act per Section 3 (c), Rule IV of the 2004 sister-in-law of Atty Revilla, Jr’s wife; Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa
Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant also complains that is his wife’s sister-in-law; and Elmer Alvarado is the live-in
respondent did not require the three affiants in the complaint- house boy of the Brosas family. Respondent knows the three
affidavit to show their valid identification cards.Atty Revilla did affiants personally, thus he was justified in no longer requiring
not deny but admitted complainant’s material allegations. them to show valid identification cards. But respondent is not
without fault for failing to indicate such fact in the “jurat” of the
Issue: Whether or not the single act of notarizing the complaint-
complaint-affidavit. While he has a valid defense as to the
affidavit of relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity and,
second charge, it does not exempt him from liability for violating
at the same time, not requiring them to present valid
the disqualification rule.
identification cards is a ground for disbarment.
Refusal to Notarize and False or Incomplete
Rulings: Certificates

No. Since the facts are not contested, the court deems it more
prudent to resolve the case. Indeed, Atty Revilla, Jr. violated [ A.C. No. 6470, July 08, 2014 ]
the disqualification rule under Section 3 ©, Rule IV of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice. The court agree with him, that MERCEDITA DE JESUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
respondent’s violation is not sufficient ground for disbarment. JUVY MELL SANCHEZ-MALIT, RESPONDENT.
Given the clear provision of the disqualification rule, it behooved
upon Atty. Revilla, Jr. to act with prudence and refuse RESOLUTION
notarizing the document. On the second charge, Atty Revilla, Jr. SERENO, C.J.:
cannot be held liable. If the notary public knows the affiants
personally, he need not require them to show their valid
Before the Court is a disbarment complaint filed by
identification cards. This rule is supported by the definition of a Mercedita De Jesus (De Jesus) against respondent
“jurat” under Sec 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit (Sanchez-Malit) on the
Practice. A “Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a following grounds: grave misconduct, dishonesty,
single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public malpractices, and unworthiness to become an officer of
and presents an instruments or documents; (b) is personally the Court.
known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity; (c) signs the
 THE FACTS OF THE CASE alienated.

In addition to the documents attached to her

In the Affidavit-Complaint [1] filed by complainant
complaint, complainant subsequently submitted three
before the Office of the Bar Confidant on 23 June
Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) notarized by
2004, she alleged that on 1 March 2002, respondent
respondent and an Affidavit of Irene Tolentino
had drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of a
(Tolentino), complainant's secretary/treasurer. The
public market stall that falsely named the former as its
SPAs were not signed by the principals named therein
absolute and registered owner. As a result, the
and bore only the signature of the named attorney-in-
mortgagee sued complainant for perjury and for
fact, Florina B. Limpioso (Limpioso). Tolentino's
collection of sum of money. She claimed that
Affidavit corroborated complainant's allegations
respondent was a consultant of the local government
against respondent.[2]
unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and was therefore aware
that the market stall was government-owned.
On 4 August 2004, the Second Division of the Supreme
Court issued a Resolution requiring respondent to
Prior thereto, respondent had also notarized two
submit her comment on the Complaint within ten (10)
contracts that caused complainant legal and financial
days from receipt of notice.[3]
problems. One contract was a lease agreement
notarized by respondent sometime in September 1999
In her Comment,[4] respondent explained that the
without the signature of the lessees. However,
mortgage contract was prepared in the presence of
complainant only found out that the agreement had
complainant and that the latter had read it before
not been signed by the lessees when she lost her copy
affixing her signature. However, complainant urgently
and she asked for another copy from respondent. The
needed the loan proceeds so the contract was hastily
other contract was a sale agreement over a property
done. It was only copied from a similar file in
covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award
respondent's computer, and the phrase "absolute and
(CLOA) which complainant entered into with a certain
registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. Still,
Nicomedes Tala (Tala) on 17 February 1998.
it should not be a cause for disciplinary action, because
Respondent drafted and notarized said agreement, but
complainant constructed the subject public market
did not advise complainant that the property was still
stall under a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract
covered by the period within which it could not be
with the local government unit and, technically, she that transaction. Actually, when the purchase
could be considered its owner. Besides, there had been agreement was notarized, complainant did not present
a prior mortgage contract over the same property in the CLOA, and so the agreement mentioned nothing
which complainant was represented as the property's about it. Rather, the agreement expressly stated that
absolute owner, but she did not complain. Moreover, the property was the subject of a case pending before
the cause of the perjury charge against complainant the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
was not the representation of herself as owner of the Board (DARAB); complainant was thus notified of the
mortgaged property, but her guarantee that it was free status of the subject property. Finally, respondent
from all liens and encumbrances. The perjury charge maintained that the SPAs submitted by complainant as
was even dismissed, because the prosecutor found that additional evidence were properly notarized. It can be
complainant and her spouse had, indeed, paid the debt easily gleaned from the documents that the attorney-
secured with the previous mortgage contract over the in-fact personally appeared before respondent; hence,
same market stall. the notarization was limited to the former's
participation in the execution of the document.
With respect to the lease agreement, respondent Moreover, the acknowledgment clearly stated that the
countered that the document attached to the Affidavit- document must be notarized in the principal's place of
Complaint was actually new. She gave the court's copy residence.
of the agreement to complainant to accommodate the
latter's request for an extra copy. Thus, respondent An exchange of pleadings ensued after respondent
prepared and notarized a new one, relying on submitted her Comment. After her rejoinder,
complainant's assurance that the lessees would sign it complainant filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for
and that it would be returned in lieu of the original Submission of Additional Evidence.[5] Attached thereto
copy for the court. Complainant, however, reneged on were copies of documents notarized by respondent,
her promise. including the following: (1) an Extra Judicial Deed of
Partition which referred to the SPAs naming Limpioso
As regards the purchase agreement of a property as attorney-in-fact; (2) five SPAs that lacked the
covered by a CLOA, respondent claimed that signatures of either the principal or the attorney-in-
complainant was an experienced realty broker and, fact; (3) two deeds of sale with incomplete signatures
therefore, needed no advice on the repercussions of of the parties thereto; (4) an unsigned Sworn
Statement; (5) a lease contract that lacked the was a sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for
signature of the lessor; (6) five unsigned Affidavits; (7) violation of Canon 18[7] and Rule 18.03[8] of the Code
an unsigned insurance claim form (Annual Declaration of Professional Responsibility. Thus, he also
by the Heirs); (8) an unsigned Invitation Letter to a recommended that she be suspended from the practice
potential investor in Japan; (9) an unsigned Bank of law for six months.[9]
Certification; and (10) an unsigned Consent to
Adoption. The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No.
XVIII-2008-245 dated 22 May 2008, unanimously
After the mandatory conference and hearing, the adopted and approved the Report and
parties submitted their respective Position Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
Papers.[6] Notably, respondent's Position Paper did not with the modification that respondent be suspended
tackle the additional documents attached to from the practice of law for one year.[10]
complainant's Urgent Ex Parte Motion.
Respondent filed her first Motion for
Reconsideration[11] and Second Motion for
Reconsideration.[12] She maintained that the additional
THE FINDINGS OF THE IBP
documents submitted by complainant were
inadmissible, as they were obtained without observing
In his 15 February 2008 Report, IBP Investigating the procedural requisites under Section 4, Rule VI of
Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. recommended Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC (2004 Rules on Notarial
the immediate revocation of the Notarial Commission Practice).[13] Moreover, the Urgent Ex Parte Motion of
of respondent and her disqualification as notary public complainant was actually a supplemental pleading,
for two years for her violation of her oath as such by which was prohibited under the rules of procedure of
notarizing documents without the signatures of the the Committee on Bar Discipline; besides, she was not
parties who had purportedly appeared before her. He the proper party to question those documents. Hence,
accepted respondent's explanations with respect to the the investigating commissioner should have expunged
lease agreement, sale contract, and the three SPAs the documents from the records, instead of giving them
pertaining to Limpioso. However, he found that the due course. Respondent also prayed that mitigating
inaccurate crafting of the real estate mortgage contract circumstances be considered, specifically the following:
absence of prior disciplinary record; absence of respondent, the Court shall first dispose of some
dishonest or selfish motive; personal and emotional procedural matters raised by respondent.
problems; timely good-faith effort to make restitution
or to rectify the consequences of her misconduct; full Respondent argues that the additional documents
and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or submitted in evidence by complainant are inadmissible
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; character for having been obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule
or reputation; remorse; and remoteness of prior VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A
offenses. comparable argument was raised in Tolentino v.
Mendoza,[16] in which the respondent therein opposed
The IBP Board of Governors, in its Resolution No. XX- the admission of the birth certificates of his illegitimate
2012-119 dated 10 March 2012, denied respondent's children as evidence of his grossly immoral conduct,
motion for reconsideration for lack of substantial because those documents were obtained in violation
reason to justify a reversal of the IBP's findings.[14] Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
1993.[17] Rejecting his argument, the Court reasoned as
Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, Director follows:
for Bar Discipline Pura Angelica Y. Santiago through a
letter addressed to then acting Chief Justice Antonio T.
Carpio transmitted the documents pertaining to the
Section 3, Rule 128 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
disbarment Complaint against respondent.[15]
provides that "evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules." There could be no dispute that the subject
THE COURT'S RULING birth certificates are relevant to the issue. The only
question, therefore, is whether the law or the rules
provide for the inadmissibility of said birth certificates
After carefully reviewing the merits of the complaint
allegedly for having been obtained in violation of Rule
against respondent and the parties' submissions in this
24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1993.
case, the Court hereby modifies the findings of the IBP.
Note that Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series of
Before going into the substance of the charges against
1993 only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, as evidence against respondent, the protection against
but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.
records in violation of said rule would render said
Since both Rule 24, Administrative Order No. 1, series
records inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand,
of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not
the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the
provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth
exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
certificates in question, said public documents are,
illegal searches and seizures. It should be emphasized,
therefore, admissible and should be properly taken
however, that said rule against unreasonable searches
into consideration in the resolution of this
and seizures is meant only to protect a person from
administrative case against respondent.[18]
interference by the government or the state. In People
vs. Hipol, we explained that:
Similarly, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Law contain no
provision declaring the inadmissibility of documents
The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of
obtained in violation thereof. Thus, the IBP correctly
Rights does not concern itself with the relation
considered in evidence the other notarized documents
between a private individual and another individual. It
submitted by complainant as additional evidence.
governs the relationship between the individual and
the State and its agents. The Bill of Rights only tempers
Respondent's argument that the Urgent Ex-
governmental power and protects the individual
Parte Motion of complainant constitutes a
against any aggression and unwarranted interference
supplemental pleading must fail as well. As its very
by any department of government and its agencies.
name denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to
Accordingly, it cannot be extended to the acts
bolster or adds something to the primary pleading. Its
complained of in this case. The alleged "warrantless
usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge
search" made by Roque, a co-employee of appellant at
or change the kind of relief with respect to the same
the treasurer's office, can hardly fall within the ambit
subject matter as the controversy referred to in the
of the constitutional proscription on unwarranted
original complaint.[19] Accordingly, it cannot be said
searches and seizures.
that the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion filed by complainant
was a supplemental pleading. One of her charges
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as
against respondent is that the latter notarized
private individuals, obtained the subject birth records
incomplete documents, as shown by the SPAs and lease not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly
agreement attached to the Affidavit-Complaint. as the circumstances of the case may dictate.
Complainant is not legally barred from submitting Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the
additional evidence to strengthen the basis of her notarization process may be undermined, and public
complaint. confidence in notarial documents diminished. [21] In
this case, respondent fully knew that complainant was
Going now into the substance of the charges against not the owner of the mortgaged market stall. That
respondent, the Court finds that she committed complainant comprehended the provisions of the real
misconduct and grievously violated her oath as a estate mortgage contract does not make respondent
notary public. any less guilty. If at all, it only heightens the latter's
liability for tolerating a wrongful act. Clearly,
The important role a notary public performs cannot be respondent's conduct amounted to a breach of Canon
overemphasized. The Court has repeatedly stressed 1[22] and Rules 1.01[23] and 1.02[24] of the Code of
that notarization is not an empty, meaningless Professional Responsibility.
routinary act, but one invested with substantive public
interest. Notarization converts a private document into Respondent's explanation about the unsigned lease
a public document, making it admissible in evidence agreement executed by complainant sometime in
without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a September 1999[25] is incredulous. If, indeed, her file
notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and copy of the agreement bore the lessees' signatures, she
credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary could have given complainant a certified photocopy
public must observe with utmost care the basic thereof. It even appears that said lease agreement is
requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; not a rarity in respondent's practice as a notary public.
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a Records show that on various occasions from 2002 to
notarized document would be undermined.[20] 2004, respondent has notarized 22 documents that
were either unsigned or lacking signatures of the
Where the notary public admittedly has personal parties. Technically, each document maybe a ground
knowledge of a false statement or information for disciplinary action, for it is the duty of a notarial
contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet officer to demand that a document be signed in his or
proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must her presence.[26]
 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional
A notary public should not notarize a document unless Responsibility as well as her oath as notary public.
the persons who signed it are the very same ones who Hence, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
executed it and who personally appeared before the for ONE YEAReffective immediately. Her notarial
said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of commission, if still existing, is IMMEDIATELY
what are stated therein.[27] Thus, in acknowledging that REVOKED and she is hereby PERPETUALLY
the parties personally came and appeared before her, DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
respondent also violated Rule 10.01[28] of the Code of notary public.
Professional Responsibility and her oath as a lawyer
that she shall do no falsehood.[29]
Crisostomo vs Nazareno, June 10, 2014

Certainly, respondent is unfit to continue enjoying the Perlas – Bernabe, J.

solemn office of a notary public. In several instances,

the Court did not hesitate to disbar lawyers who were The Facts:
found to be utterly oblivious to the solemnity of their
In 2001, the complainants In the disbarment case filed against Atty. Philip
oath as notaries public.[30] Even so, the rule is that
(Nazareno), bought housing units in Patricia South Subdivision, from Rudex
disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of International Development Corporation (Rudex). They then filed, in two
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and batches, complaints for rescission of contracts against Rudex. In all of these
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and cases, Rudex was represented by Atty. Philip. In the first batch of cases, the
the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser HLURB rendered judgments I default against Rudex, hence the latter filed
penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired Petitions for Review before the HLURB assailing them. In the certifications
against forum shopping, Atty. Philip Rudex through its president Ruben, and
end.[31] The blatant disregard by respondent of her
legal counsel Philip stated that they have not commenced or has knowledge
basic duties as a notary public warrants the less severe of any action involving the same issues pending before the NLRC, this
punishment of suspension from the practice of law and despite the fact that Rudex filed ejectment cases against the complainants
perpetual disqualification to be commissioned as a therein. Rudex again filed a complaint for rescission of contract with the
notary public. HLURB against Melinda Sioting. Again, the certification against no forums
shopping signed by Norilyn stated that no pending action involving the same
issues were pending, which certification was notarised by Atty. Philip. On
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez- April 1, 2004, Rudex again filed six complaints for rescission of contract
Malit is found guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rules
against the other complainants, with the same manifestation in the initiatory pleading upon motion and after hearing, while the latter is a
certification against forum shopping. ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt. x x x.

The complainants then filed a disbarment complaint against Philip, alleging Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false
that he made false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping entries in a certification against forum shopping constitutes indirect or
attached to the several complaints filed by Rudex against them. Despite direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring counsel to the
notice, Atty. Philip did not submit his comment during the proceedings. In corresponding administrative and criminal actions, viz.:
the meantime, the HLURB dismissed the complaints filed by Rudex due to
the erroneous certifications against forum shopping. The IBP Investigating Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal
Commissioner recommended the suspension from the practice of law for six party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
months of Atty. Philip. The IBP adopted the findings and recommendation of asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
the investigating commissioner but modified it to one month suspension simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
from the practice of law.
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
Issue: action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action
or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
WON Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable. should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been
Held: filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to
the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty filed.
imposed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by
Separate from the proscription against forum shopping is the violation of mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
the certification requirement against forum shopping, which was cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
distinguished in the case of Sps. Ong v. CA as follows: provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
certification requirement should by now be too elementary to be
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or
misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification against
his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
act of forum shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment between
constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
failure to comply with the certification requirement and violation of the
(Emphases supplied)
prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable sanctions
but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation
cause for the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code) which read as follows:
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS the canons of the Code – should have truthfully declared the existence of
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. the pending related cases in the certifications against forum shopping
attached to the pertinent pleadings. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or even bother to refute the charges against him despite due notice, the Court
deceitful conduct. finds no cogent reason to deviate from the IBP’s resolution on his
xxxx administrative liability. However, as for the penalty to be imposed, the
Court deems it proper to modify the IBP’s finding on this score.
CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT. In Molina v. Atty. Magat, a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the
practice of law was imposed against the lawyer therein who was shown to
Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing have deliberately made false and untruthful statements in one of his
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any pleadings. Given that Atty. Nazareno’s infractions are of a similar nature,
artifice. but recognizing further that he, as may be gleaned from the foregoing
discussion, had repetitively committed the same, the Court hereby
In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false
suspends him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
declarations in the certifications against forum shopping attached to
Rudex’s pleadings, for which he should be held administratively liable. Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a
notary public, considering that he assigned only one document number (i.e.,
Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as Rudex’s counsel, filed, in
Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
August 2003, petitions for review assailing the judgments of default
six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment despite the fact
rendered in the first batch of rescission cases without disclosing in the
that each of them should have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a
certifications against forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case it
standing rule that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the
filed against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related to the
notarial register at the time of the notarization, among others, the entry
complainants’ rescission cases. Further, on January 29, 2004, Rudex,
and page number of the document notarized, and that he shall give to each
represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for rescission and
instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
ejectment against Sps. Sioting without disclosing in the certifications against
number corresponding to the one in his register[5]. Evidently, Atty.
forum shopping the existence of Sioting’s May 24, 2002 rescission complaint
Nazareno did not comply with the foregoing rule.
against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own September 9, 2002 ejectment
complaint also against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April 1, 2004, Atty. Nazareno, Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping
once more filed rescission and ejectment complaints against the other attached to all the aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they
complainants in this case without disclosing in the certifications against identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e., that Rudex had not
forum shopping the existence of complainants’ own complaints for commenced any actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending
rescission. actions or proceedings involving the same issues in any other forum. The
administrative liability of an erring notary public in this respect was clearly
Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases,
delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code in the case of
Atty. Nazareno – as mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently,
Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradi to wit:
Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false
statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet
Samonte v. Jumamil A.C. No. 11668,
proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to 17 July 2017
discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case
may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization Facts: Atty. Jumamil failed to file the necessary position paper
process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial documents before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach of resulted into an adverse ruling against Samonte, his client, who
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
then filed a disbarment compliant for acts unbecoming of a
lawyer and betrayal of trust. On the other hand, Atty. Jumamil
to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
maintained that his omission was due to his client’s failure to
processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes adduce credible witnesses to testify in her favor. In the course of
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful the proceedings, Atty. Jumamil admittedly prepared and
conduct. (Emphasis supplied) notarized the affidavit of Samonte’s intended witness despite his
belief that such was a perjured one.
In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing
false statements had his notarial commission revoked and was disqualified
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jumamil should be held
from being commissioned as such for a period of one (1) year. Thus, for his
administratively liable.
malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to additionally impose the
same penalties of such nature against him. However, due to the multiplicity
of his infractions on this front, coupled with his willful malfeasance in Decision: Yes. Failure to produce any credible witness is not a
valid justification to completely abandon his client’s cause. Also,
discharging the office, the Court deems it proper to revoke his existing
notarization of a perjured affidavit constitutes a violation of the
commission and permanently disqualify him from being commissioned as a rules on notarial practice. Atty. Jumamil is ordered:
notary public. Indeed, respondent ought to be reminded that: 1. Suspended for one (1) year;
2. Revoked notarial commission;
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY of 3. Disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for
making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping two (2) years;
subject of this case, as well as malpractice as a notary public. Accordingly, 4. Sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more
he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, severely
effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Notably, the notarization of a perjured affidavit also constituted a violation of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Section 4 (a), Rule IV thereof pertinently
Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a
provides:
notary public and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby
REVOKED.
SEC. 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:
 by Judge Cacatian stating respondent’s notarization could not
(a) the notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction be authenticated. Respondent denied the allegations and added
is unlawful or immoral[.] (Emphasis supplied) he never committed any malpractice, nor deceit nor have
violated the lawyer’s oath and that such allegations is politically
On this score, it is well to stress that "notarization is not an empty, motivated and meant to harass or intimidate him and guessed
meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest. It
must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private that the affidavit-complaint were tampered and adulterated or
document into a public document, making that document admissible in that somebody might forged his signature.
evidence without further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial document is,
by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, a notary
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the Issue:
performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the
integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined."27 Whether or not Atty Echanez’s contention is tenable.
Having established respondent's administrative liability, the Court now
determines the proper penalty. Rulings:

No. The court empahasizes that the practice of law is imbued

Commission Period and Expiration with public interest and that “ a lawyer owes substantial duties
not only to his client, but also to this brethren in the profession,
Efigenia Tenoso, complainant to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the
most important functions of the State-the administration of
Atty Anselmo Echanez, respondent
justice-as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are
bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency,
but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In
Facts:
misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed
Complainant Efigenia Tenoso filed a complaint against Atty party-ligitants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to
Anselmo Echanez, respondent alleging that the latter was the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments.
engaged in notarial practice without having been properly Respondent committed act of deceit and falsehood in open
commissioned by RTC Santiago City, the court having violation of the explicit pronouncement of the Code of
jurisdiction over Cordon, Isabela. The complainant support her Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondent’s conduct falls
allegations by presenting documents issued by Executive Judge miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty,
Efren Cacatian bearing the names of commissioned notaries integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. It is proper that
public for the years 2006 to 2008 which respondent’s name he be sanctioned.
does not appear; documents notarized by the respondent in
year 2006, 2007 and 2008, and a copy of a certification issued
SLU vs. DELA CRUZ The Court has characterized a lawyer’s act of notarizing
documents without the requisite commission to do so as
“reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but
Facts: A disbarment case filed by the Faculty members and Staff
also the crime of falsification of public documents.” Notarization
of the Saint Louis University-Laboratory High School (SLU-
of a private document converts the document into a public one
LHS) against Atty. Rolando C. Dela Cruz, principal of SLU-LHS,
making it admissible in court without further proof of its
predicated on the following grounds:
authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public
1. Gross misconduct- he has pending case of child abuse, must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the
administrative case and labor case. performance of their duties. Pending case does not constitute
facts that determines the existence of gross misconduct by the
respondent as these are still pending before the proper forums.
2. Grossly immoral conduct – contracting a second marriage At such stages, the presumption of innocence still prevails in
despite the existence of his first marriage. favor of the respondent.

3. Malpractice- notarizing documents despite the expiration of HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS
his commission.
401 SCRA 46 (2003)
Issue: May a pending case constitutes facts that determines the
existence of gross misconduct by the respondent? Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparation of
a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial
sloth.
Held: Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by
the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications Heinz R. Heck is one of the defendants in a Civil Case before the
required by law. The purpose of suspending or disbarring an Regional Trial presided by Judge Anthony E. Santos. Heck and
attorney is to remove from the profession those unfit to be his co-defendant did not receive a copy of the order
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities thereby protecting to schedule the
the public and those charged with the administration of justice,
rather than to punish an attorney. trial on June 10 and 11, 1996. Consequently, they and their
counsel failed to appear therein. Since only the plaintiff’s
counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson, appeared in that hearing, Judge
Santos considered the non-attendance of Heck and his co-
defendant as waiver of their right to present evidence. Judge
Contracting a second marriage despite existence of first Santos thereafter ordered that the case to be submitted for
marriage is a violation of the continous possession of good decision. He therefore authorized Atty. Singson to prepare the
moral character as a requirement to the enjoyment of the draft of the decision.
privilege of law practice.
The decision issued by Judge Santos was copied verbatim from Notarizing Documents Without
the draft which Atty. Singson prepared. Hence, Heck filed an The Requisite Commission
administrative complaint charging Judge Santos with violation Therefore Constitutes
of Section 1, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Santos guilty for
Malpractice, If Not The Crime
adopting Singson’s work as his own. Of Falsification Of Public
Documents
ISSUE:
It must be remembered that notarization is not an
Whether or not Judge Santos is guilty of gross ignorance of the empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is
law invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized may act as
HELD: notaries public. Notarization by a notary public converts
[31]

a private document into a public one, making it

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. Santos’ order for admissible in evidence without the necessity of
the counsel of one of the parties to draft the decision and his preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. [32]

adoption verbatim of the draft clearly violate the Code of

Judicial Conduct. The pertinent canons of which read: Canon 2, The requirements for the issuance of a commission
a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual
impropriety in all activities. Canon 3, a Judge should perform formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of
[33]

official duties honestly, and with impartiality notarizing documents without the requisite commission
and diligence adjudicative responsibilities.
therefore as reprehensible, constituting as it does not
By such order, Judge Santos abdicated a function exclusively only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of
granted to him by no less than the fundamental law of the land. public documents. For such reprehensible conduct, the
[34]

It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from
primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission
He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding and and disqualification from acting as such, and even
analyzing the evidence presented before him and his own disbarment. [35]

discernment when determining the proper action, resolution or

decision. Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the In the case of Nunga v. Viray, the Court had the
[36]

preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect occasion to state -

blatant judicial sloth.
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of
Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or
that a judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial
decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be free from commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to
any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity. disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial [act]
without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to
obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, of P 64,000.00 each in Atty. Virtusio s checking account with Equitable
Bank.3 In all, Mila gave her P 441,000.00.
ςrνll

by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is

not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in To her surprise, however, Mila began receiving letters from Stateland,
demanding that she make good the dishonored checks that it got. When she
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly confronted Atty. Virtusio regarding this, the latter assured her that she would
proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the take care of the problem. But the demand letters persisted.
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
For fear of losing the property, Mila directly dealt with Stateland in January
Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall 2000. She then found out that her arrearages had come close to P 200,000.00,
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful inclusive of penalty and interest. In order not to lose the property, Mila and her
husband decided to settle their overdue obligation with money they borrowed
conduct. [37]
at high interest.4 In turn, Stateland turned over to her three checks of Atty.
ςrνl l

Virtusio, each for P 71,944.97, with the notation "DAIF."5 ςrνll ς rνll

The importance of the function of a notary public

Mila further alleged that Atty. Virtusio declined to return to her the money the
cannot, therefore, be over-emphasized. No less than the latter misappropriated despite demand. Only when Mila threatened to file a
public faith in the integrity of public documents is at stake case against her did Atty. Virtusio agree to pay her on February 20, 2001 by
executing a deed of sale in her favor covering her Mazda car. Despite the sale,
in every aspect of that function. [38]
however, Atty. Virtusio pleaded with Mila and her husband to let her keep the
car meanwhile since she needed it in her work. When she refused to give up
[A.C. NO. 6753 - September 5, 2012] the car, Mila filed a replevin case against Atty. Virtusio that the court
eventually decided in Mila s favor.6 But, as it turned out, Atty. Virtusio had
ςrνll

managed to register the car in her children s name and sold it to a third
MILA VIRTUSIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GRENALYN V.
person. Mila filed a case of estafa against Atty. Virtusio7 apart from the
VIRTUSIO, Respondent.
ςrν ll

present disbarment case.

DECISION
Mila claimed that Atty. Virtusio evaded the return of money she
misappropriated, impeded the execution of a final judgment, and engaged in
ABAD, J.: conduct that discredits the legal profession, all in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, rendering her unfit to remain a member of the
This administrative case concerns a lawyer who failed to use the money given bar.8
ςrνl lς rνll

by another to fund the checks she issued as accommodation party in payment

for the property that was purchased by such person and performed a notarial In a July 27, 2005 Resolution,9 the Court required Atty. Virtusio to comment
ςrνll

act without commission. on the complaint. She asked for extension of time to comply but did not file her
comment just the same.10 On Mila s motion,11 the Court again required Atty.
ςrνl l ςrνll

The Facts and the Case Virtusio to file her comment and to show cause why she had not complied with
its previous orders.12 Still, she did not file any comment, prompting the Court
ς rνll

to impose on her on November 15, 2006 a P 500.00 fine. The court again
On June 14, 2005, Mila Virtusio (Mila) filed with this Court a Complaint for
1
ςrν ll

reiterated its order for her to file her comment.13

disbarment against her husband's distant relative, Atty. Grenalyn V.
ς rνll ς rνll

Virtusio.Mila alleged that sometime in 1999 Atty. Virtusio convinced her to buy
a house and lot at North Olympus Subdivision in Novaliches, Quezon City, from With no response, on August 1, 2007, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to
its developer, Stateland Investment Corporation (Stateland). Mila agreed for resend its November 15, 2006 Resolution to Atty. Virtusio14 but this was ς rνll

Atty. Virtusio to use her personal checks in paying the seller with Mila returned unserved with the notation, "RTS-Person moved out." On December
reimbursing her. Under this arrangement, Mila gave Atty. Virtusio the following 3, 2007 the Court ordered the resending of the May 3 and November 15, 2006
amounts: P 95,000.00, P 25,000.00, P 65,000.00, P 64,000.00 Resolutions to Atty. Virtusio, this time at an address in Sta. Mesa that Mila
and P 64,000.00. All of these were properly receipted except for furnished. When this last resolution was returned unserved with the notation,
the P 95,000.00 for which she got a receipt from her for only P 90,000.00.2 On ςrν ll
"RTS-Unclaimed," the Court issued a Resolution15 on April 30, 2008 that ςrνl l

October 25 and November 24, 1999, Mila deposited identical amounts considered Atty. Virtusio to have waived her right to file a comment
considering that she filed none despite having sought an extension from the
Court. The Court also referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Atty. Virtusio also pointed out, that the charges against her were not born of
(IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation. some professional relation between Mila and her. She had acted as an
accommodation party, allowing Mila to make use of her personal checks to
The IBP Investigating Commissioner directed Atty. Virtusio to file a position facilitate the purchase of a property from Stateland. And, assuming that the
paper. She filed a motion for extension of time to file the same but did not.16 predicament she finds herself in has a bearing on her professional conduct, the
same does not amount to grossly immoral conduct since she owned up to her
ςrνll ς rνll

responsibilities and exerted tireless effort to settle her accounts.25

Based on the pleadings on hand, the IBP Investigating Commissioner reported
ςrν ll ςrνl l

having found that Atty. Virtusio appropriated portions of the money that Mila
gave her for payment to Stateland, thus evidencing her moral unfitness to Further, Atty. Virtusio claimed that she should not be penalized for violation of
practice the profession. The Commissioner recommended the imposition of the the notarial law since this offense did not form part of the original complaint to
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law17 with a two-year which she was required to respond. At any rate, she merely committed an
oversight. She had religiously renewed her notarial commission yearly since
ςrν ll

disqualification from reappointment as Notary Public, given that she had

notarized documents despite the expiration of her notarial commission.18 The May 1995. When she notarized the questioned documents, she believed in
good faith that she had renewed her notarial commission for 2006 and 2007
ς rνll

IBP Board of Governors approved the report and recommendation.19

just as before. She asked not to be punished for her mistake since it was
ςrνl lς rνll

brought about by her sincere commitment to extend free legal service to the
Atty. Virtusio filed a motion for reconsideration of the IBP Investigating disadvantaged.26
Commissioner s action on April 30, 2009.20 She explained that her failure to
ςrνll ςrν ll

ςrν ll

file her position paper was brought about by her belief that she needed to wait
for the IBP s action on her motion for extension of time to file the same. Thus, Lastly, Atty. Virtusio asked the Court to reconsider the harsh penalty imposed
she prayed that her attached position paper be admitted and considered in on her in the light of the peculiar circumstances of her case and the good faith
resolving her motion for reconsideration.21 ς rνll ς rν ll
she showed.27 ςrνl lς rνll

In her version of the facts, Atty. Virtusio wants to convince the Court that she On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution XIX-2011-
committed no intentional wrongs and that she was but a victim of 47728 denying the motion despite an affidavit of desistance that Mila filed in
ς rνll

circumstances. Although she admitted using Mila s money rather than pay the meantime.29 As provided in Section 12(b),30 Rule 139-B of the Rules of
ςrνl l ς rνll

Stateland with it, she explained that, having been busy attending to her sick Court, the IBP forwarded the instant case to this Court for final action.
son in Manila, she failed to monitor her check disbursements, entrusting it to
an office staff. Only in December 1999 was she able to audit the same and Questions Presented
discover the mismanagement of her funds and its co-mingling with office
funds, resulting in overlapping of accountabilities and non-funding of the The questions presented in this case are:
checks for Stateland when they fell due.22
ςηα ñrοblεš ν ιr†υαl l αω l ιb rα rÿ

ςrνl lς rνll

1. Whether or not the IBP erred in finding Atty. Virtusio guilty of grave
On becoming aware of the lapses, however, Atty. Virtusio misconduct in her dealings with Mila and in notarizing documents without a
borrowed P 165,000.00 from Engr. Marciano de Guzman so she could pay Mila renewed commission; and
but, having failed to pay him as well, he went after Mila who was co-maker of
cra lawlib rary

the loan. When Atty. Virtusio tried to make further arrangements to pay what
she owed Mila, the latter refused to negotiate and did not acknowledge the 2. Assuming Atty. Virtusio was guilty of some offenses, whether or not the IBP
past payments she had already made. When Atty. Virtusio refused to yield to imposed the appropriate penalties on her.
Mila s demand for payment of the entire P 165,000.00, she filed a replevin
case, a complaint for estafa, and disbarment charge against her.23
chanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

ςrνl lς rνll

Rulings of the Court

Atty. Virtusio averred that in October 2006 she and Mila entered into a verbal
agreement whereby she would pay her P 200,000.00, with P 87,500.00 up
Lawyers are, as officers of the court and instruments for the administration of
front, in exchange for Mila s dismissal of all her actions. Notwithstanding that
justice, expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard
the compromise agreement had not been formalized, Atty. Virtusio claimed
of morality, honesty, and fair dealing. A lawyer s gross misconduct, whether in
that it obliterated her liabilities, given that she substantially settled her
his professional or private capacity, is ground for suspension or disbarment
obligations to Mila.24
under the principle that, since good moral character is an essential qualification
ς rνll ς rνll

for the admission to the practice of law, maintaining such trait is a condition for
keeping the privilege.31 ςrνl lς rνll
By her own account, Atty. Virtusio admitted misusing the money that Mila Again, Atty. Virtusio s defense is unsubstantial. She did not renew her notarial
entrusted to her for payment to Stateland. Her excuse is that she lost track of commission for two years, 2006 and 2007, not just one. She could not have
her finances and mixed up her office funds with her personal funds. But this missed that fact considering that, as she said, she had been renewing her
excuse is too thin. She admitted misusing P 165,000.00 of Mila s money, which commission yearly from 1995 to 2005.
is not petty cash. Indeed she tried to borrow money from a third person to
cover it up rather than just offer her shallow excuse to Mila. Atty. Virtusio s use A lawyer who notarizes a document without a proper commission violates his
for personal purpose of money entrusted to her constitutes dishonest and lawyer s oath to obey the law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned
deceitful conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. It provides:
lαω lιb rα rÿ
ςη αñ rοbl ε š νιr⠀ υα l

when he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate falsehood that the lawyer s oath
forbids. This violation falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or Professional Responsibility and Canon 7 as well.34 A proper sanction is
ςrνl l

deceitful conduct. authorized.35 ς rνll ςrν ll

CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND Considering, however, that based on the evidence Atty. Virtusio had notarized
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE only two documents without a proper notarial commission, the Court finds her
INTEGRATED BAR. suspension from notarial practice for one year adequate.36 ς rν ll ςrνl l

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his That Mila had agreed after some financial settlement to withdraw her complaint
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in against Atty. Virtusio cannot exempt the latter from the prescribed sanction.
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. She has outraged the country s professional code and this demands a measure
of justice. As the Court said in Spouses Soriano v. Atty. Reyes,37 disbarment is ς rνll

chanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

a disciplinary action taken for the public good. Consequently, it is as a rule not
subject to some compromise entered into with the complainant. Besides, Mila's
Atty. Virtusio cannot absolve herself of liability by claiming that she failed to evidence is already a matter of record and the Court cannot simply ignore the
attend to her finances because she had to look after a sick child at that time. same.38ςrνll ς rν ll

Assuming she had such a child, the fact is that it was not by mere oversight
that she failed to finance the checks for Stateland. For, if this were so, she WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio GUILTY of gross
could have easily rectified her mistake by using her other funds. In truth, she
misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
spent the money that Mila entrusted to her because she had no other funds.
and IMPOSES on her the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for
Indeed, she had to borrow money from a third party later to remedy her
one year, effective immediately. In addition, the Court REVOKES any Notarial
financial problems.
Commission she may presently have and DISQUALIFIES her from applying
for it for one year also effective immediately. Further, she is WARNED of a
What is more, supposedly to cover up for her fault, Atty. Virtusio executed a more severe penalty should she commit a similar infraction in the future.
deed of sale covering her car in Mila s favor rather than return the money she
defalcated. But, again acting with guile, she withheld possession of the car and
transferred its registration in the name of her children. VICTORINA BAUTISTA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E.
BERNABE, A.C. No. 6963 February 9, 2006
Atty. Virtusio is guilty by her above acts of gross misconduct that warrants her
suspension for one year from the practice of law following Section 27,32 Rule
FACTS: Complainant alleged that on January 3, 1998,
ςrνll

138 of the Rules of Court.

respondent prepared and notarized a Magkasanib na
The Court cannot also countenance Atty. Virtusio s notarization of documents Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato Salonga and
after her notarial commission had expired. Although the IBP discovered this
violation of the notarial law only in the course of the proceedings and was not a
complainant’s mother, Basilia de la Cruz. Both affiants
subject matter of Mila s complaint, it cannot close its eyes to the same. declared that a certain parcel of land in Bigte,
Besides, Atty. Virtusio had an opportunity to defend herself against this Norzagaray, Bulacan, was being occupied by Rodolfo
additional charge.33 Her defense is that she thought that she had renewed her
Lucas and his family for more than 30 years.
ς rν ll

commission.
Complainant claimed that her mother could not have
executed the joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because
she has been dead since January 28, 1961. As a consequence, TCT No B-37189 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT
No. V-2765 was issued in the names of Spouses Claro Bautista and Nida
Bautista on March 4, 1988.
In his Answer, respondent denied that he
falsified the Magkasanib na Salaysay. He disclaimed Based on the evidence presented, the signature appearing on the SPA as
any knowledge about Basilia’s death. He alleged that that of Berlina is a forgery and consequently the Deed of Absolute Sale
before he notarized the document, he requested for Executed by Pedro in favor os Spouses Bautista is not authorized by Berlina.
Basilia’s presence and in her absence, he allowed a Thus the RTC declared the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 3, 1988
certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of Basilia, to executed by Pedro M. Silva, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of Berlina F.
sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word Silva, in favor of defendants-spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista over
“by”on top of the name of Basilia. Respondent the parcel of land as null and void.
maintained that there was no forgery since the ISSUE:Whether or Not petitioners are considered as purchasers in good faith
signature appearing on top of Basilia’s name was the and for value having relied upon a SPA which appears legal, valid, and
signature of Pronebo. genuine on its face

ISSUE: Can a notarized document be signed “by”? Whether the nullity of the deed of sale includes the one half share of the
husband gratia argumenti that the special power of attorney is a forgery and
the deed of sale executed by the husband is null and void
Ruling: A notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the very HELD: There is no merit to petitioners' claim that they are purchasers in
same persons who executed and personally appeared good faith.
before him to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein. The presence of the parties to the There was positive and convincing evidence that respondent did not sign the
SPA, and on the uncontroverted Certification of Dorado that respondent was
deed will enable the notary public to verify the in Germany working as a nurse when the SPA was purportedly executed in
genuineness of the signature of the affiant. 1987. The SPA being a forgery, it did not vest in Pedro any authority to
alienate the subject property without the consent of respondent. Absent such
marital consent, the deed of sale was a nullity.

The petitioners are not buyers in good faith. A buyer for value in good faith is
BAUTISTA v SILVA one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has
a right to, or interest in, such property and pays full and fair price for the
GR No. 157434 same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or
interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with
FACTS: Spouses Berlina Silva and Pedro Silva were the owners of a parcel the well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the
of land with a Transfer Certificate of Title No B-37189, which was registered thing had title to the property and capacity to convey it.
on August 14, 1980 in their names.
To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show
On March 3, 1988, Pedro , for himself and as attorney-in-fact of his wife that he relied on the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that
Berlina, thru a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Berlina in he made further inquiry for he is not obliged to explore beyond the four
his favor, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land in corners of the title. Such degree of proof of good faith, however, is
favor of defendants-spouses Claro Bautista and Nida Bautista. sufficient only when the following conditions concur: first, the seller is the
registered owner of the land; second, the latter is in possession thereof; and
third, at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest SPA. Finally, petitioners conducted the transaction in haste. It took them all
of some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title but three days or from March 2 to 4, 1988 to enter into the deed of sale,
of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property. notwithstanding the restriction on the capacity to sell of Pedro. In no way
then may petitioners qualify as buyers for value in good faith.
Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the
buyer on notice and obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence That said, we come to the third issue on whether petitioners may retain the
by scrutinizing the certificate of title and examining all factual circumstances portion of Pedro Silva in the subject property. Certainly not. It is well-settled
in order to determine the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in that the nullity of the sale of conjugal property contracted by the husband
the property. Failure to exercise such degree of precaution makes him a without the marital consent of the wife affects the entire property, not just the
buyer in bad faith. To prove good faith then, petitioners must show that they share of the wife.
inquired not only into the title of Pedro but also into his capacity to sell.
Notarial Jurisdiction
A test has to be done whether the buyer had a choice between knowing the
forgery and finding it out, or he had no such choice at all.
FIRST DIVISION
A person dealing with a seller who has possession and title to the property
but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if he
proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into the latter's
[ G.R. NO. 174144, April 17, 2007 ]
capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial
acknowledgment found in the seller's duly notarized special power of BELLA A. GUERRERO, PETITIONER, VS.
attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the
notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the RESURRECCION A. BIHIS, RESPONDENT.
document, its due execution and authenticity. Said rule should not apply
when there is an apparent flaw afflicting the notarial acknowledgment of the
special power of attorney as would cast doubt on the due execution and DECISION
authenticity of the document; or when the buyer has actual notice of
circumstances outside the document that would render suspect its CORONA, J.:
genuineness.
The Scriptures tell the story of the brothers Jacob and
In the present case, petitioners knew that Berlina was in Germany at the time Esau[1], siblings who fought bitterly over the
they were buying the property and the SPA relied upon by petitioners has a
defective notarial acknowledgment. The SPA was a mere photocopy and we inheritance of their father Isaac's estate. Jurisprudence
are not convinced that there ever was an original copy of said SPA as it was is also replete with cases involving acrimonious
only this photocopy that was testified to by petitioner Nida Bautista and
offered into evidence by her counsel. But then said photocopy of the SPA conflicts between brothers and sisters over
contains no notarial seal. There being no notarial seal, the signature of the
notary public on the notarial certificate was therefore incomplete. It was a
successional rights. This case is no exception.
mere private document which petitioners cannot foist as a banner of good
faith.
On February 19, 1994, Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura,
All told, it was not sufficient evidence of good faith that petitioners merely mother of petitioner Bella A. Guerrero and respondent
relied on the photocopy of the SPA as this turned out to be a mere private
document. They verified with Atty. Lucero whether the SPA was authentic but Resurreccion A. Bihis, died at the Metropolitan
then the latter was not the notary public who prepared the document. Worse, Hospital in Tondo, Manila.
they purposely failed to inquire who was the notary public who prepared the
 opposition. Petitioner took her oath as temporary
On May 24, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the special administratrix and letters of special
probate of the last will and testament of the decedent administration were issued to her.
in Branch 95[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City where the case was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. Q- On January 17, 2000, after petitioner presented her
94-20661. evidence, respondent filed a demurrer thereto alleging
that petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the
The petition alleged the following: petitioner was decedent's will complied with Articles 804 and 805 of
named as executrix in the decedent's will and she was the Civil Code.
legally qualified to act as such; the decedent was a
citizen of the Philippines at the time of her death; at In a resolution dated July 6, 2001, the trial court
the time of the execution of the will, the testatrix was denied the probate of the will ruling that Article 806 of
79 years old, of sound and disposing mind, not acting the Civil Code was not complied with because the will
under duress, fraud or undue influence and was was "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the witnesses
capacitated to dispose of her estate by will. at the testatrix's, residence at No. 40 Kanlaon Street,
Quezon City before Atty. Macario O. Directo who was a
Respondent opposed her elder sister's petition on the commissioned notary public for and in Caloocan City.
following grounds: the will was not executed and The dispositive portion of the resolution read:
attested as required by law; its attestation clause and
acknowledgment did not comply with the requirements
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court
of the law; the signature of the testatrix was procured
finds, and so declares that it cannot admit the last will
by fraud and petitioner and her children procured the
and testament of the late Felisa Tamio de
will through undue and improper pressure and
Buenaventura to probate for the reasons hereinabove
influence.
discussed and also in accordance with Article 839 [of
the Civil Code] which provides that if the formalities
In an order dated November 9, 1994, the trial court
required by law have not been complied with, the will
appointed petitioner as special administratrix of the
shall be disallowed. In view thereof, the Court shall
decedent's estate. Respondent opposed petitioner's
henceforth proceed with intestate succession in regard
appointment but subsequently withdrew her
to the estate of the deceased Felisa Tamio de
Buenaventura in accordance with Article 960 of the Article 806 of the Civil Code provides:
[Civil Code], to wit: "Art. 960. Legal or intestate
succession takes place: (1) If a person dies without a
ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a
will, or with a void will, or one which has subsequently
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The
lost its validity, xxx."
notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of
the will, or file another with the office of the Clerk of
SO ORDERED.[3]
Court.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but
One of the formalities required by law in connection
the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed
with the execution of a notarial will is that it must be
the resolution of the trial court.[4]
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
and the witnesses.[6] This formal requirement is one of
Thus, this petition.[5]
the indispensable requisites for the validity of a
will.[7] In other words, a notarial will that is not
Petitioner admits that the will was acknowledged by
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator
the testatrix and the witnesses at the testatrix's
and the instrumental witnesses is void and cannot be
residence in Quezon City before Atty. Directo and that,
accepted for probate.
at that time, Atty. Directo was a commissioned notary
public for and in Caloocan City. She, however, asserts
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed
that the fact that the notary public was acting outside
a deed in going before some competent officer and
his territorial jurisdiction did not affect the validity of
declaring it to be his act or deed.[8] In the case of a
the notarial will.
notarial will, that competent officer is the notary
public.
Did the will "acknowledged" by the testatrix and the
instrumental witnesses before a notary public acting
The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the
outside the place of his commission satisfy the
testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare
requirement under Article 806 of the Civil Code? It did
before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they
not.
executed and subscribed to the will as their own free
act or deed.[9] Such declaration is under oath and
under pain of perjury, thus paving the way for the hundred and _______, appointed by me a notary
criminal prosecution of persons who participate in the public, within and for the said province, for the term
execution of spurious wills, or those executed without ending on the first day of January, anno Domini
the free consent of the testator.[10] It also provides a nineteen hundred and _____.
further degree of assurance that the testator is of a
certain mindset in making the testamentary _________________
dispositions to the persons instituted as heirs or Judge of the Court of
designated as devisees or legatees in the will.[11] irst Instance[12] of said
Province
Acknowledgment can only be made before a competent
officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary
xxx xxx xxx
public.

In this connection, the relevant provisions of the SECTION 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The
Notarial Law provide: jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be co-
extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a
notary public in the City of Manila shall be co-
SECTION 237. Form of commission for notary public. -
extensive with said city. No notary shall possess
The appointment of a notary public shall be in writing,
authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his
signed by the judge, and substantially in the following
jurisdiction. (emphases supplied)
form:
A notary public's commission is the grant of authority
in his favor to perform notarial acts.[13] It is issued
GOVERNMENT OF THE
"within and for" a particular territorial jurisdiction and
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
the notary public's authority is co-extensive with it. In
PROVINCE OF ___________
other words, a notary public is authorized to perform
notarial acts, including the taking of acknowledgments,
This is to certify that ____________, of the within that territorial jurisdiction only. Outside the
municipality of ________ in said province, was on place of his commission, he is bereft of power to
the ___ day of __________, anno Domini nineteen perform any notarial act; he is not a notary public. Any
notarial act outside the limits of his jurisdiction has no language of Article 806 of the Civil Code was not
force and effect. As this Court categorically pronounced complied with and the interdiction of Article 240 of the
in Tecson v. Tecson:[14] Notarial Law was breached. Ineluctably, the acts of the
testatrix, her witnesses and Atty. Directo were all
completely void.
An acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits
of the officer's jurisdiction is void as if the person
The Court cannot turn a blind eye to Atty. Directo's
taking it ware wholly without official character.
participation in the preparation, execution and
(emphasis supplied)
unlawful "acknowledgment" of Felisa Tamio de
Since Atty. Directo was not a commissioned notary Buenaventura's will. Had he exercised his notarial
public for and in Quezon City, he lacked the authority commission properly, the intent of the law to effectuate
to take the acknowledgment of the testatrix and the the decedent's final statements[15] as expressed in her
instrumental witnesses. In the same vein, the testatrix will would not have come to naught.[16] Hence, Atty.
and her witnesses could not have validly acknowledged Directo should show cause why he should not be
the will before him. Thus, Felisa Tamio de administratively sanctioned as a member of the bar
Buenaventura's last will and testament was, in effect, and as an officer of the court.
not acknowledged as required by law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Moreover, Article 5 of the Civil Code provides: A.C. No. 7036 June 29, 2009

ART. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of

mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LQUINDANUM (Complainant) vs. ATTY NESTOR
when the law itself authorizes their validity. Q. QUINTANA (Respondent)

The violation of a mandatory or a prohibitory statute

FACTS:
renders the act illegal and void unless the law itself
declares its continuing validity. Here, mandatory and
prohibitory statutes were transgressed in the execution Complainant:
of the alleged "acknowledgment." The compulsory
 An administrative case was filed by Judge Laquindanum of the o Atty Quintana alleged that those documents
Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato against Atty notarized by his wife within Midsayap,
Quintana, requesting that proper disciplinary action should be Cotabato was an entrapment operation by
imposed on the latter for the following reasons: Judge Laquindanum, knowing that his wife
(1) he performed notarial functions in Midsayap was not a lawyer.
Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction (4) he notarized a document wherein one of the
of the commissioning court that issued his notarial signatories therein already passed away that time.
commission which is within Cotabato City and the o Evidence: Deed of Donation notarized by
Province of Maguindanao only; Atty Quintana in 2004 when the donor’s wife,
o AM No. 03-8-02-SC states that executive which was one of the signatories, died in
judges are required to closely monitor the 2003.
activities of notaries public within the Respondent:
territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to
see to it that notaries public shall not extend (1) He maintained that he did not act outside the province of
notarial functions beyond the limits of their Cotabato since Midsayap, Cotabato, where he practices his
authority. legal profession and subscribes documents, is part of the
o Evidences: Notarized the Affidavit of Loss province of Cotabato
ATM Card and Affidavit of Loss of Driver’s (2) Atty. Quintana alleged that he filed a petition for notarial
License in Midsayap, Cotabato commission before Branch 18, Regional Trial Court,
o Respondent alleged that he was singled out Midsayap, Cotabato. However, the same was not acted upon
by Judge Laquindanum when he filed for by Judge Laquindanum for three weeks
notarial commission before the RTC in (3) He also denied the he authorized his wife to notarize
Midsayap, Cotabato as he was humiliated (I.e. documents. According to him, he slapped his wife and told
disseminated information) and was asked for her to stop doing it as it would ruin his profession|.
much more requirements (i.e. payment to be (4) Atty. Quintana lamented that he was singled out by Judge
a member of the IBP of Kidapawan City) Laquindanum, because the latter immediately issued notarial
compared to other lawyers; thus, he commissions to other lawyers without asking for so many
withdrew his petition and chose to be requirements|||
affiliated with the IBP of Cotabato City. (5) Atty. Quintana asked for forgiveness for what he had done
o Complainant alleged that she did not act upon and promised not to repeat the same. He also asked that he
such petition because he failed to pay his IBP be given another chance and not be divested of his
dues which is a requirement. privilege to notarize, as it was the only bread and butter of
(2) he performed notarial acts with an expired his family.
commission;
o Atty Quintana continued to notarize
documents in 2006 and 2007 even if his ISSUES:
commission as notary public within Cotabato
City and the Province of Maguindanao (1) Whether or not Atty Quintana, being a lawyer in good standing,
expired in December 31, 2005. has the right to practice his profession including notarial acts in
(3) he let his wife do notarial acts in his absence; the entire Philippines?
(2) Whether or not Atty Quintana can perform notarial acts with an
expired commission?
 (3) Whether or not Atty Quintana can pass the blame to his wife for  Aside from violating Section 11 of the 2004 Rules
her unauthorized practice of law- notarizing documents? on Notarial Pratice, this also partakes of
(4) Whether or not Atty Quintana can notarize documents despite malpractice of law and falsification as stated in
one of the signatories being dead? Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which talks about the lawyers oath
which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do
RULING: or declare any falsehood.
 Thus, respondent may perform his notarial acts
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court of Cotabato City and the
OBC ruling Province of Maguindanao and not in Midsayap or
Kabacan which is part of Cotabato Province
located in North Cotabato or anywhere beyond.
In its Report and Recommendation, the OBC recommended that Atty.
Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) NO- Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a
(2) years; and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically,
be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived
arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit, into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also
amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's
oath proscribes as stated in the Code of Professional
responsibility Rule 1.01.
(1) NO- Although lawyers in good standing are allowed to engage in
the practice of law in the Philippines, not every lawyer even in (3) NO- Respondent cannot take refuge in claiming that he did not
good standing can perform notarial functions without having authorize his wife to notarize thus it was his wife's act. A person
been commissioned as notary public as provided for under who is commissioned as a notary public must not only take full
Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. And it is also responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register , but also
based on the discretion of the commissioning court whether take personally accountability for the activities in his office and
lawyer should be issued notarial practice or not. acts of his personnel including his wife who is his secretary.
 Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice states that:  Respondent therefore is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of
Jurisdiction and Term A person commissioned Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to
as notary public may perform notarial acts in directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
any place within the territorial jurisdiction of  In the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June
the commissioning court for a period of two (2) 15, 2006 the Court held, thus: A notary public is personally
accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot
years commencing the first day of January of
relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to
the year in which the commissioning court is their (sic) secretaries
made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary
public has resigned under these Rules and the (4) NO- Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
Rules of Court. provides, thus: A person
 shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as This case stemmed from three (3) letter-complaints for Violation of Rules on
Notarial Practice endorsed to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the appropriate action. The first letter-complaint,1 dated March 2, 2009, was filed
notarys presence personally at the time of the by the commissioned notaries public within and for the jurisdiction of Lingayen,
notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the Pangasinan, namely, Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty.
Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade (complainants) before
notary public through competent evidence of identity as the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (RTC-
defined by these Rules. Lingayen) against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing
documents without a commission.
 In failing to determine the presence and qualifications of
the affiants, respondent only shows his gross negligence In their letter, complainants alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a
and ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was
performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City
Notarial Practice. without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was
never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of
The Supreme Court adopts the findings with adjustments to the Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, he applied and was
commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison
penalty of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31,
2008. His notarial commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration.
 Atty. Quintana fell short of his obligation under Canon 7 of the Complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations such as the
pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and documents to
Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs every lawyer to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad
uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage
Agreement2 showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before Atty.
Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale,3 dated
 Although Atty Quintana relies on his notarial commission as his January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of
sole source of income, this will not lessen the penalty. It should be Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth,4 dated January
6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt,5dated
reminded that a notarial commission should not be treated as January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.
money-making but a privilege to perform duties to protect public
interest such that only those qualified may act as such since Complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial
authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas
notarizing converts a private document into a public one (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his behalf.
admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.
On March 17, 2009, the RTC-Lingayen forwarded the said letter-complaint to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)6 which, in turn, indorsed the same
 Atty Nestor Q. Quintana is being revoked and disqualified from to the OBC.
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2)
The second letter-complaint7 was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against
years. He is also suspended from the practice of law for six (6) Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his
months. driver’s license and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by
Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when
A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not
commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.
RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a
certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381
DECISION Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing
documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.
MENDOZA, J.:
In its Resolution,9 dated June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Executive Judge
of the RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation on the complaint against
Atty. Siapno and Executive Judge Reynaldo G. Ros (Judge Ros) of the RTC- must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of
Manila to conduct a formal investigation on the alleged violation of the Notarial their duties.
Law by Atty. Santos, and the illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn, and
thereafter, to submit a report and recommendation thereon. By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court,
Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules
Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
With regard to the complaint against Atty. Siapno, the Executive Judge dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the
conducted a hearing wherein the complainants affirmed the allegations in their integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.13
letter-complaint. For his part, Atty. Siapno denied the accusations and averred
that the law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action
Arenas were not his secretaries.10 for notarizing documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired
commission. In the case of Nunga v. Viray,14 a lawyer was suspended by the
In her Report and Recommendation,11 the Executive Judge found that Atty. Court for three (3) years for notarizing an instrument without a commission.
Siapno was issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, In Zoreta v. Simpliciano,15 the respondent was likewise suspended from the
Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, practice of law for a period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from
2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several documents after
8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The Executive the expiration of his commission. In the more recent case of Laquindanum v.
Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Quintana,16 the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was
Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2)
recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos years because he notarized documents outside the area of his commission, and
(P50,000.00). with an expired commission.

The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge but not to the Considering that Atty. Siapno has been proven to have performed notarial work
recommended penalty. in Ligayen, Natividad and Dagupan City in the province of Pangasinan without
the requisite commission, the Court finds the recommended penalty
A review of the records and evidence presented by complainants shows that insufficient. Instead, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as
Atty. Siapno indeed maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period
beside the law office of one of the complainants, Atty. Elizabeth Tugade. It was of two (2) years.
also proven that Atty. Siapno notarized several instruments with an expired
notarial commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Re: Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn
court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides
that:chanroble svirtual lawlib rary In a letter,17 dated July 29, 2013, Judge Ros informed the Court that he could
Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform not have complied with the June 9, 2009 and August 4, 2009 orders of the
notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Court because he was no longer the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila at that
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the time. To date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged
year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary violation of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty.
public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. Evelyn.
Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may
perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which With respect to the complaints against Atty. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn,
granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET the same as separate
functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of administrative cases.
Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such
act. The incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in
acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that of copy of this decision.
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must
be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is
private document into a public document making that document admissible in hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED
evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public receipt of a copy of this decision.
 Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the
Office of the Court Administrator, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao,
Office of the Bar Confidant, and be recorded in the personal files of the certified that none of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register
respondent. of Atty. Pascua; that the last entry therein was Document No. 1200
With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. executed on December 28, 1998; and that, therefore, he could not
Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on December 10,
administrative cases. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila,
is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his 1998.
Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a copy of
this decision. Lina M. Garan and other complainants contend that Atty. Pascua's
omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.
SO ORDERED

Respondent:
Notarial Seal and Register
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999, Atty.
Parties:
Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December
Complainants: Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino(Academic Head of the 10, 1998, but they were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the
Philippine Judicial Academy) et al. oversight of his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was
attached to his comment
Respondent: Atty. Edwin Pascua (Notary Public in Cagayan)

Facts:
Issue:
Complainants:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct in the
In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua performance of his duties
falsified two documents committed as follows:

(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint"

Held:
of one Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page
No. 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998". Atty. Pascua is guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties
while Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but
(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit- due to oversight of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua
Complaint" of one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. cannot escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial register the
No. 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on his
1998. part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of his staff.

The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from
true.
The photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
he notarized on December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page intent.
240. On the other hand, the two affidavit-complaints allegedly
notarized on December 10, 1998 are Document Nos. 1213 and 1214,
respectively, under Page No. 243, Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the
other complainants are, therefore, correct in maintaining that Atty. [A.C. No. 5838. January 17, 2005]
Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the questioned affidavit-
complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a Notary Public,
but also as a member of the Bar. SPOUSES BENJAMIN SANTUYO AND EDITHA
This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of SANTUYO, complainants, vs. ATTY. EDWIN
inadvertence by Atty. Pascua is the affidavit of his own secretary A. HIDALGO, respondent.
which is hardly credible since the latter cannot be considered a
disinterested witness or party. RESOLUTION
CORONA, J.:

Noteworthy also is the fact that the questioned affidavit of Acorda In a verified complaint-affidavit dated September 18,
(Doc. No. 1213) was submitted only when Domingo's affidavit (Doc. 2001, spouses Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo
[1]

No. 1214) was withdrawn in the administrative case filed by Atty. accused respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo of serious
Pascua against Lina Garan, et al. with the CSC. This circumstance misconduct and dishonesty for breach of his lawyers
lends credence to the submission of herein complainants that Atty. oath and the notarial law.
Pascua ante-dated another affidavit-complaint making it appear as
notarized on December 10, 1998 and entered as Document No. 1213. Complainants stated that sometime in December
It may not be sheer coincidence then that both documents are dated 1991, they purchased a parcel of land covered by a deed
December 10, 1998 and numbered as 1213 and 1214. of sale. The deed of sale was allegedly notarized by
respondent lawyer and was entered in his notarial
register as Doc. No. 94 on Page No. 19 in Book No. III,
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of
Series of 1991. Complainant spouses averred that about
misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) six years after the date of notarization, they had a
months with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or dispute with one Danilo German over the ownership of
similar act will be dealt with more severely. His notarial commission, if the land. The case was estafa through falsification of a
still existing, is ordered REVOKED. public document.
The case defined Misconduct: During the trial of the case, German presented in
"Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct court an affidavit executed by respondent denying the
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[4] The authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale. The
spouses allegedly forged his notarial signature on said admitted knowing complainant Editha Santuyo, he said
deed.[2]
he met the latters husband and co-complainant only on
November 5, 1997, or about six years from the time that
According to complainants, respondent overlooked
he purportedly notarized the deed of sale. Moreover,
the fact that the disputed deed of sale contained all the
respondent stressed that an examination of his alleged
legal formalities of a duly notarized document, including
signature on the deed of sale revealed that it was forged;
an impression of respondents notarial dry seal. Not being
the strokes were smooth and mild. He suspected that a
persons who were learned in the technicalities
lady was responsible for forging his signature.
surrounding a notarial act, spouses contended that they
could not have forged the signature of herein To further refute the accusations against him,
respondent. They added that they had no access to his respondent stated that, at the time the subject deed of
notarial seal and notarial register, and could not have sale was supposedly notarized, on December 27, 1991,
made any imprint of respondents seal or signature on the he was on vacation. He surmised that complainants must
subject deed of sale or elsewhere.[3]
have gone to the law office and enticed one of the
secretaries, with the concurrence of the senior lawyers,
In his answer to the complaint, respondent denied
[4]

to notarize the document. He claimed he was a victim of

the allegations against him. He denied having notarized
a criminal scheme motivated by greed.
any deed of sale covering the disputed property.
According to respondent, he once worked as a junior The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of
lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office where the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
he was asked to apply for a notarial commission. While recommendation. In a report it submitted to the Court,
[5]

he admitted that he notarized several documents in that the IBP noted that the alleged forged signature of
office, these, however, did not include the subject deed respondent on the deed of sale was different from his
of sale. He explained that, as a matter of office signatures in other documents he submitted during the
procedure, documents underwent scrutiny by the senior investigation of the present case. However, it ruled that
[6]

lawyers and it was only when they gave their approval respondent was also negligent because he allowed the
that notarization was done. He claimed that, in some office secretaries to perform his notarial functions,
occasions, the secretaries in the law firm, by themselves, including the safekeeping of his notarial dry seal and
would affix the dry seal of the junior associates on notarial register. It thus recommended:
[7]

documents relating to cases handled by the law firm.

Respondent added that he normally required the parties WHEREFORE[,] in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully
to exhibit their community tax certificates and made them recommended that respondents commission as notary public
personally acknowledge the documents before him as be revoked for two (2) years if he is commissioned as such; or
notary public. He would have remembered complainants he should not be granted a commission as notary public for
had they actually appeared before him. While he two (2) years upon receipt hereof. [8]
 After going over the evidence submitted by the have wholly entrusted everything to the secretaries; otherwise
parties, complainants did not categorically state that they he should not have been commissioned as notary public.
appeared before respondent to have the deed of sale
notarized. Their appearance before him could have For having wholly entrusted the preparation and other
bolstered this allegation that respondent signed the mechanics of the document for notarization to the secretary
document and that it was not a forgery as he claimed. there can be a possibility that even the respondents signature
The records show that complainants themselves were which is the only one left for him to do can be done by the
not sure if respondent, indeed, signed the document; secretary or anybody for that matter as had been the case
what they were sure of was the fact that his signature herein.
appeared thereon. They had no personal knowledge as
well as to who actually affixed the signature of As it is respondent had been negligent not only in the supposed
respondent on the deed. notarization but foremost in having allowed the office
secretaries to make the necessary entries in his notarial registry
Furthermore, complainants did not refute which was supposed to be done and kept by him alone; and
respondents contention that he only met complainant should not have relied on somebody else. [10]

Benjamin Santuyo six years after the alleged notarization

of the deed of sale. Respondents assertion was WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is
corroborated by one Mrs. Lyn Santy in an affidavit hereby found GUILTY of negligence in the performance
executed on November 17, 2001 wherein she stated
[9]
of his duties as notary public and is hereby
that complainant Editha Santuyo had to invite SUSPENDED from his commission as a notary public for
respondent to her house on November 5, 1997 to meet a period of two years, if he is commissioned, or if he is
her husband since the two had to be introduced to each not, he is disqualified from an appointment as a notary
other. The meeting between complainant Benjamin public for a period of two years from finality of this
Santuyo and respondent was arranged after the latter resolution, with a warning that a repetition of similar
insisted that Mr. Santuyo personally acknowledge a deed negligent acts would be dealt with more severely.
of sale concerning another property that the spouses
MARIANO AGADAN, EDEN MOLLEJON, ARSENIO IGME,
bought.
JOSE NUMBAR, CECILIA LANGAWAN, PABLO PALMA,
In finding respondent negligent in performing his JOSELITO CLAVERIA, MIGUEL FLORES, and ALBERT
notarial functions, the IBP reasoned out: GAYDOWEN vs. ATTY. RICHARD BALTAZAR KILAAN
[A.C. No. 9385. November 11, 2013.]
xxx xxx xxx. DEL CASTILLO, J p:

Facts:
Considering that the responsibility attached to a notary public
Complainants filed before the IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter a
is sensitive respondent should have been more discreet and complaint against respondent Atty. Kilaan for falsification of
cautious in the execution of his duties as such and should not
documents, dishonesty and deceit. They alleged that violating the Notarial Law considering that the Verification of
respondent intercalated certain entries in the application for Batingwed's application was actually recorded as a Deed of
issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate Sale in his Notarial Register. In addition, respondent lied under
public utility jeepney filed before the LTFRB-Cordillera oath when he alleged that Adasing was abroad as this was
Administrative Region and substituted the name of the applicant squarely belied by Adasing in his Affidavit.
from Adasing to Batingwed; and respondent submitted false The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with
and/or insufficient documentary requirements in support of modification.
Batingwed's application for CPC; that respondent prepared a Issue:
decision based on the resolution of the LTFRB Central Office Is respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law, the Lawyer’s
which dismissed the Opposition filed by the complainants; and Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
that the said Decision was adopted by the LTFRB-CAR.
Held:
The IBP-Baguio-Benguet Chapter endorsed the Complaint to YES, respondent is guilty. It is settled that it is the notary public
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) for appropriate who is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in
action. Respondent denied violating the Lawyer's Oath and the his Notarial Register. The Court is not persuaded by
Code of Professional Responsibility. He claimed that Batingwed respondent's explanation that he is burdened with cases thus he
had decided to abandon his application hence he no longer was constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in
submitted the necessary requirements therefor. Respondent his Notarial Register to his secretary. Stated in Rule VI,
claimed that he knew about the favorable Decision only when Sections 1 and 2 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice require
Batingwed showed him the same. He narrated that considering a notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register wherein
the incomplete documents, the LTFRB mistakenly approved he will record his every notarial act. His failure to make the
Batingwed's application. proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his
He denied intercalating the entries in the application for CPC of notarial acts is a ground for revocation of his notarial
Batingwed. He averred that once an application has been filed, commission. As mentioned, respondent failed to make the
the application and all accompanying records remain with the proper entries in his Notarial Register; as such, his notarial
LTFRB and could no longer be retrieved by the applicant or his commission may be properly revoked.
counsel. Respondent further explained that it was Adasing who Aside from violating the Notarial Law, respondent also violated
paid the filing fee in behalf of Batingwed but the cashier his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
erroneously indicated Adasing instead of Batingwed as payor. by committing falsehood in the pleadings he submitted before
the IBP. His claim that Adasing was abroad was proved to be
Complainants on the other hand, alleged that the Verification in untruthful when complainants submitted the Affidavit of Adasing
Batingwed's application actually refers to a Deed of Sale and insisting that he never left the country. Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of
not the Verification of Batingwed's application. Complainants the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides that
also presented an Affidavit of Adasing claiming that he never left "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
the country. CIAHDT of any in Court; nor shall be mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice." In the same vein, Canon 1, Rule 1.01
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainants failed mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
to prove that Atty. Kilaan intercalated the entries. However, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent failed to
respondent was not totally absolved as he was found liable for observe these Rules and hence must be sanctioned.
 Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that
Hence, the notarial commission of Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan respondent had a direct participation in the commission of
is revoked. forgeries and falsifications because he was the one who prepared
and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale that
led to the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. Ang pointed out
.C. No. 4545 February 5, 2014
that the Deed of Absolute Sale which was allegedly executed by
CARLITO ANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated and
GUPANA, Respondent. Candelaria Magpayo’s signature was forged as clearly shown by
the Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu since the Notarial Report
Legal Ethics: Rule 9.01, Canon 7; Rule 9.01, Canon 9 indubitably showed that the document executed was an affidavit,
not a Deed of Absolute Sale.

FACTS:
As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly executed by the
The case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by late Candelaria Magpayo on April 29, 1994, it could not have been
complainant Carlito Ang against respondent. Ang alleged that he executed by her as she Died three years prior to the execution of
and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely the said affidavit of loss.
Purificacion Diamante and William Magpayo, executed an Extra-
judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition involving a land which
was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (T-22409)-6433. Ang further alleged that respondent made himself the attorney-in-
He was given his share of 2,003 square meters designated as Lot fact and executed a Deed of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim So
No. 2066-B-2-B-4, together with all the improvements thereon. Mecantile Co even though a civil case was pending before the RTC
of Mandaue City, Cebu.

However, when he tried to secure a TCT in his name, he found out

that said TCT number had already been cancelled and in lieu Respondent denied any wrongdoing. According to the respondent,
thereof, new TCTs had been issued in the names of William in the pending civil case Ang anchored his claim on the Extra-
Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition and sought to annul the
Gregorio Diamante, Jr. and Fe D. Montero. deed of sale and prayed for reconveyance of the subject parcel of
land. However, because of Ang’s admission that he is not an heir of
late Candelaria Magpayo, the notice of lis pendens annotated in the
title of land were ordered cancelled and the land became available
for disposition. Respondent surmised that these developments in
ISSUE:
Civil Case No. Man-2202 meant that Ang would lose his case so
Ang resorted to the filing of the present administrative complaint. WON the respondent is administratively liable for violating the
Thus, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the case for being notarial law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
devoid of any factual or legal basis, or in the alternative, holding
resolution of the instant case in abeyance pending resolution of
civil case.
HELD:

The Court finds respondent administratively liable for violation of

Investigating Commissioner Navarro of the IBP Commission on his notarial duties when he failed to require the personal presence
Bar Discipline found that respondent is administratively liable. She of Candelaria Magpayo. it is clear that the party acknowledging
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of must appear before the notary public or any other person
law for three months. She held that respondent committed an authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments or
unethical act when he allowed himself to be an instrument in the documents.23 In the case at bar, the jurat of the Affidavit of Loss
disposal of the subject property through a deed of sale executed stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before
between him as attorney-in-fact of his client and Lim Kim So respondent on April 29, 1994, at Mandaue City. Candelaria,
Mercantile Co. despite his knowledge that said property is the however, was already dead since March 26, 1991. Hence, it is clear
subject of a pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City, that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law.
Cebu.

As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is

The Investigating Commissioner additionally found that mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his
respondent "delegated the notarial functions to the clerical staff of office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with
their office before being brought to him for his signature." This, public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal
according to the commissioner, "must have been the reason for the solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct.
forged signatures of the parties in the questioned document…as The Code of Professional Responsibility also commands him not to
well as the erroneous entry in his notarial register. Respondent engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to
should not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the
bar in accordance with Rule 9.0117 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of the Code of It appears from the records that this case stemmed from the letter,2 dated
June 11, 2008, submitted by Atty. Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr. (Atty. Angeles,
Professional Responsibility which provides that "[a] lawyer shall
Jr.),the Provincial Legal Officer of Bataan, to Hon. Remigio M. Escalada,
not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any Jr. (Executive Judge), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar Bataan against Atty. Renato C. Bagay (respondent), for his alleged
notarization of 18 documents at the time he was out of the country from
in good standing." March 13, 2008 to April 8, 2008. The notarized documents were as
follows:

1. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato Macalinao

in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person, respondent is and Loida C. Macalinao and Trisha Katrina Macalinao, notarized
liable for misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances of the on April 3, 2008;
case, the revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification
2. Deed of Donation executed by and between Renato S. Sese
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two and Sandy Margaret L. Sese, notarized on March 25, 2008;
years and suspension from the practice of law for one year is in
order. 3. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina A.
Castro married to Eduardo Samson and Thelma Medina and
A.C. No. 8103 December 3, 2014 Gina Medina notarized on April 3, 2008;

ATTY. AURELIO C. ANGELES, JR., PROVINCIAL LEGAL OFFICER, 4. Deed of Absolute Sale executedby Rowena Berja, notarized on
BATAAN CAPITOL, BALANGA CITY, BATAAN, Complainant, March 17, 2008;
vs.
ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, Respondent. 5. Deed of Donation executed by and between Crispulo
Rodriguez and Luisa Rodriguez Jorgensen, notarized on April 8,
DECISION 2008;

MENDOZA, J.: 6. Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights

executed by the wife and sons of Rodrigo Dy Jongco, notarized
March 19, 2008;
Subject of this disposition is the September 28, 2013 Resolution1 or the
IBP Board of Governors which reads:
7. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps. Rolando
and Nelia Francisco and Violeta Hernandez, notarized on April 3,
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously 2008;
ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner xxx and finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules 8. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Josefina
and considering the Respondent guilty of negligence in the performance Baluyot and Carmelita Padlan, notarized on April 3, 2008;
of his notarial duty, Atty. Renato C. Bagay's Notarial Commission is
hereby immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from 9. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Gregorio Limcumpao and
reappointment as Notary Public for two (2) years. Simeona Limcumpao, notarized on March 27, 2008;
 10. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Sps. copy of the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration was also
Eusebio and Libertad Bacricio and Carlos Tamayo married to attached to the letter.3
Teresa Tamayo notarized on March 18, 2008;
The Executive Judge referred the matter to the IBP, Bataan Chapter, and
11. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad S. the latter endorsed the same to the IBP National Office for appropriate
Consengco and Sps. Gilvert and Johanna Gervacio, notarized action. The latter endorsed it to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
March 18, 2008;
When CBD Director Alicia Risos-Vidal (Atty. Risos-Vidal) required Atty.
12. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between the Rural Angeles, Jr. to formalize the complaint, the latter replied on September
Bank of Pilar and Mila Gatdula, notarized on April 2, 2008; 30, 2008 stating, among others, that his June 11, 2008 Letter was not
intended to be a formal complaint but rather "a report on, and
13. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Natividad endorsement of, public documents by Atty. Bagay while he was out of the
Cosengco and Sps. Jay and Helen Zulueta, notarized on March country,"4 and that any advice on how to consider or treat the documents
18, 2008; concerned would be welcome.

14. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Cipriano and Salvacion On December 3, 2008, Atty. Risos-Vidal opted to endorse the matter to
Violago, notarized on April 1, 2008; the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.5

15. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Sahara Management and This Court, in its Resolution,6 dated February 2, 2009, resolved to note
Development Corporation, notarized on March 26, 2008; the letter of Atty. Angeles, Jr., dated September 30,2008, and require
respondent to comment on the said letter. In his comment,7 dated 27
16. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Danilo March 2009, respondent claimed that he was not aware that those were
Arellano, Luzviminda Ramos and Sps. Fernando and Agnes documents notarized using his name while he was out of the country.
Silva, notarized on March 18, 2008; Upon his own inquiry, he found out that the notarizations were done by
his secretary and without his knowledge and authority. The said secretary
notarized the documents without realizing the import of the notarization
17. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Vicente
act. Respondent apologized to the Court for his lapses and averred that
Banzon married to Elizabeth Banzon and Sps. Dommel and
he had terminated the employment of his secretary from his office.
Crystal Lima, notarized on April 2, 2008; and
The Court then referred the case tothe IBP for investigation, report and
18. Deed of Absolute Sale executed by and between Marilyn T.
recommendation. When the case was called for mandatory conference
Casupanan and Dominador M. Manalansan notarized on March
on September 16, 2009, only respondent appeared. Atty. Angeles filed a
14, 2008.
manifestation reiterating his original position and requesting that his
attendance be excused.8 The mandatory conference was terminated and
These documents were endorsed to the Provincial Legal Office by the the parties were directed to file their respective position papers. Only
Provincial Treasurer who had information that they were notarized while respondent submitted a position paper,9 to which he added that for 21
respondent was outside the country attending the Prayer and Life years that he had been practicing law, he acted as a notary public without
Workshop in Mexico. The letter contained the affidavits of the persons any blemish on record dutifully minding the rules of the law profession
who caused the documents to be notarized which showed a common and notarial practice.
statement that they did not see respondent sign the documents himself
and it was either the secretary who signed them or the documents
The Report and Recommendation10 of Atty. Felimon C. Abelita III (Atty.
cameout of the office already signed. Upon verification with the Bureau of
Abelita III)as Investigating Commissioner found that the letter of Atty.
Immigration, it was found out that a certain Renato C. Bagay departed
Angeles, Jr., dated June11, 2008, was not verified, that most of the
from the country on March 13, 2008 and returned on April 8, 2008. The
attachments were not authenticated photocopies and that the comment The sole issue to resolve in this case is whether the notarization of
of respondent was likewise not verified. Atty. Abelita III, however, documents by the secretary of respondent while he was out of the
observed that respondent’s signature on his comment appeared to be country constituted negligence.
strikingly similar to the signatures in most of the attached documents
which he admitted were notarized in his absence by his office The Court answers in the affirmative.
secretary.He admitted the fact that there were documents that were
notarized while he was abroad and his signature was affixed by his office Respondent admitted in his commentand motion for reconsideration that
secretary who was not aware of the import of the act. Thus, by his own the 18 documents were notarized under his notarial seal by his office
admission, it was established that by his negligence in employing an secretary while he was out of the country. This clearly constitutes
office secretary who had access to his office, his notarial seal and negligence considering that respondent is responsible for the acts of his
records especially pertaining to his notarial documents without the proper secretary. Section 9 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that
training, respondent failed to live up to the standard required by the Rules a "Notary Public" refers to any person commissioned to perform official
on Notarial Practice. acts under these Rules. A notary public’s secretary is obviously not
commissioned to perform the official acts of a notary public. Respondent
Finding respondent guilty of negligence in the performance of his notarial cannot take refuge in his claim that it was his secretary’s act which he did
duty which gave his office secretary the opportunity to abuse his not authorize. He is responsible for the acts of the secretary which he
prerogative authority as notary public, the Investigating Commissioner employed. He left his office open to the public while leaving his secretary
recommended the immediate revocation of respondent’s commission as in charge. He kept his notarial seal and register within the reach of his
notary public and his disqualification to be commissioned as such for a secretary, fully aware that his secretary could use these items to notarize
period of two (2) years. documents and copy his signature. Such blatant negligence cannot be
countenanced by this Court and it is far from being a simple negligence.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the said There is an inescapable likelihood that respondent’s flimsy excuse was a
recommendation in its Resolution,11 dated September 28, 2013. mere afterthought and such carelessness exhibited by him could be a
conscious act of what his secretary did.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration12 of the said resolution of
the IBP. He contended that by admitting and owning up to what had Respondent must fully bear the consequence of his negligence. A person
happened, but without any wrongful intention, he should be merited with who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the
leniency. Moreover, he claimed that he only committed simple negligence entries in his notarial register.14 He cannot relieve himself of this
which did not warrant such harsh penalty. responsibility by passing the buck to his secretary.

On May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for As to his plea of leniency, the Court cannot consider it. Respondent
reconsideration of respondent stating: claims that for the 21 years that he has been practicing law, he acted as
a notary public without any blemish and this was his first and only
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, there infraction. His experience, however, should have placed him on guard
being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and and could have prevented possible violations of his notarial duty. By his
the resolution subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the sheer negligence, 18 documents were notarized by an unauthorized
matters which had already been threshed out and taken into person and the public was deceived. Such prejudicial act towards the
consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-85 dated September 28, public cannot be tolerated by this Court. Thus, the penalty of revocation
2013 is hereby affirmed.13 of notarial commission and disqualification from reappointment as Notary
Public for two (2) years is appropriate.
On August 1, 2014, the Director for Bar Discipline endorsed the May 4,
2014 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors to the Office of the Chief Because of the negligence of respondent, the Court also holds him liable
Justice for appropriate action. for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).His failure
to solemnly perform his duty as a notary public not only damaged those the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in
directly affected by the notarized documents but also undermined the the integrity of pub! ic instruments would be undermined.18
integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. He
should, thus, be held liable for such negligence not only as a notary Let this serve as a reminder to the members of the legal profession that
public but also as a lawyer.15Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver the Court will not take lightly complaints of unauthorized acts of
responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to notarization, especially when the trust and confidence reposed by the
obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of public in our legal system hang in the balance.
any.16 Respondent violated Canon 9 of the CPR which requires lawyers
not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Due WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the
to his negligence that allowed his secretary to sign on his behalf as Philippines is ADOPTED with MODIFICATION. Finding Atty. Renato C.
1âwphi1

notary public, he allowed an unauthorized person to practice law. By Bagay grossly negligent in his duty as a notary public, the Court
leaving his office open despite his absence in the country and with his REVOKES his notarial commission and DISQUALIFIES him from being
secretary in charge, he virtually allowed his secretary to notarize commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. The Court
documents without any restraint. also SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar
Respondent also violated his obligation under Canon 7 of the CPR, which violation will be dealt with even more severely.
directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The people who came into his office while he was away, The respondent is DIRECTED to report the date of his receipt of this
were clueless as to the illegality of the activity being conducted therein. Decision to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall
They expected that their documents would be converted into public take effect.
documents. Instead, they later found out that the notarization of their
documents was a mere sham and without any force and effect. By
Let copies of this Decision be furnished to Office of the Bar Confidant to
prejudicing the persons whose documents were notarized by an
be appended to Atty. Renato C. Bagay's personal record; the Integrated
unauthorized person, their faith in the integrity and dignity of the legal
Bar of the Philippines; and all courts in the country for their information
profession was eroded.
and guidance.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an additional
SO ORDERED.
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months is in
order.
A.C. No. 10783
Respondent should remember that a notarial commission is a privilege
and a significant responsibility. It is a privilege granted only to those who ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME,, Complainant
are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. As we have vs.
declared on several occasions, notarization is not an empty, ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent
meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest,
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notary RESOLUTION
public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not
qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general.17
For resolution are the Motion to Lift Suspension1 dated July 19, 2017 filed
It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a by respondent Atty. Christopher A. Basilio (Basilio), as well as the Report
private document into a public document, making that document and Recommendation2 dated September 13, 2017 of the Office of the Bar
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, Confidant (OBC), recommending that: (a) Basilio be meted with an
notaries pub! ic must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in additional penalty of fine in the amount of ₱10,000.00 for his failure to
immediately comply with the Court's order of suspension from the profession and from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' (IBP) Local
practice of law, as mandated in the Decision3 dated October 14, 2015 of Chapter where he is affiliated with, affirming that he has ceased and
the Court; and (b) the lifting of the order of suspension be held in desisted from the practice of law, has not appeared in court as counsel,
abeyance pending the payment of the fine. and has not practiced his notarial commission during the mandated
period.
The Facts
In another letter14 dated August 22, 2016, Rambayon informed the Court
In the October 14, 2015 Decision (the Decision), the Court suspended
4 that in the schedule of cases before Judge Bemar D. Fajardo of the
Basilio from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his incumbent Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, there were five
commission as a notary public, and prohibited him from being (5) cases15 where the litigants were supposedly represented by Basilio.
commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years, effective immediately, after finding him guilty of violating the 2004 In a Resolution16 dated October 5, 2016, the Court, among others, noted
Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Rambayon's letter dated August 22, 2016 and further required Basilio
Professional Responsibility. He is further warned that a repetition of the to: (a) show cause within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be
same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more held in contempt of court for not immediately complying with the order of
severely.5 suspension upon receipt of the Decision; and (b)file a sworn statement
with certifications affirming that he has fully served his penalty of
The Decision was circulated to all courts for the information and suspension.
implementation of the order of suspension.6 Basilio, thru his counsel, Atty.
Edward L. Robea (Robea), claimed to have received a copy of the Complying17 with the show cause order, Basilio explained that he did not
Decision on December 2, 2015,7 hence, his suspension from the practice immediately comply with the suspension order because he believed that
of law, as well as the revocation of his notarial commission and his suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for
prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public should have all reconsideration of the Decision, following the guidelines in Maniago v. De
effectively commenced on the same date. In a Resolution8 dated April 20, Dios18(Maniago), wherein it was stated that "[u]nless the Court explicitly
2016, the Court denied with finality Basilio's motion for reconsideration9 of states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof,
the Decision. respondent has [fifteen (15)] days within which to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the
However, in a letter10 dated June 9, 2016, Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon decision final and executory."19 On this score, he maintained that what
(Rambayon) inquired from the Court about the status of Basilio's was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial
suspension, alleging that the latter still appeared before Judge Venancio commission and the two (2)-year prohibition of being commissioned as a
M. Ovejera of the Municipal Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac on April 26, notary public.20
2016. The letter was subsequently referred to the OBC for appropriate
action.11 In a letter-reply12 dated July 25, 2016, the OBC informed In a Resolution21 dated March 15, 2017, the Court noted Basilio's
Rambayon that the Decision had already been circulated to all courts for compliance, and referred the case to the OBC for evaluation, report, and
implementation, and that Basilio's motion for reconsideration had been recommendation. In a Report and Recommendation22 dated June 22,
denied with finality by the Court. 2017, the OBC recommended that the directives in the Court's October 5,
2016 Resolution be reiterated, i.e., the filing of a sworn statement with
Consequently, in a Report and Recommendation13 dated July 27, 2016, certifications attesting to his compliance with the full service of
the OBC recommended that Basilio be required to show cause why he suspension, and require Basilio to comply with the same within ten (10)
should not be held in contempt of court for not immediately complying days from notice.
with the Court's order of suspension upon receipt of the Decision. He was
further required to file a sworn statement, with certifications from the Before the Court could act on the OBC's June 22, 2017 Report and
Office of the Executive Judge of the court where he practices his legal Recommendation, Basilio filed a Motion to Lift Suspension (Motion)23 on
July 25, 2017, attaching an Affidavit of Cessation/Desistance from The essential issues for the Court's resolution are: (a) whether or not
Practice of Law or Appearance in Court.24 In his motion, Basilio stated Basilio's suspension should now be lifted, and (b) whether or not he
that he "has commenced to serve his penalty on July 9, 2016 and should be fined for his failure to immediately comply with the order of the
continue to serve his penalty until the present upon his receipt of the Court.
Order of the [Court] denying his Motion for Reconsideration."25 He further
mentioned that he "immediately ceased and desisted from the practice of The Court's Ruling
his notarial commission on December 2, 2015 until the present."26 Basilio
likewise attached to his Motion the following: (a) Certification27 dated July The dispositive portion of the Decision explicitly states that the penalties
12, 2017 from the IBP-Tarlac Chapter, affirming that Basilio "has not imposed on Basilio for violation of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice
appeared in court beginning July 9, 2016 to July 9, 2017" and "has not and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility -
practiced his notarial commission as notary public from December 2, namely: (a)suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
2016 [up to] the present"; (b) Certification28 dated July 14, 2017 from the year; (b) revocation of his incumbent commission as a notary public; and
RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, attesting that Basilio has ceased and (c) prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
desisted from the practice of law and has not practiced his notarial years, were all "effective immediately", viz.:
commission from December 2, 2016 up to the present; and (c)
Certifications29 dated July 17, 2017, from the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac,
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Christopher A. Basilio GUILTY of
Branch 68 and July 20, 2017, from the RTC of Tarlac City, Branch 64,
violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
both affirming that Basilio did not appear as counsel in said courts from
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court hereby
July 9, 2016 up to the present.
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his
incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him
The Action and Recommendation of the OBC from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective
immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or
In a Report and Recommendation30 dated September 13, 2017, the OBC similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.31 [Emphasis,
recommended that Basilio be meted with an additional penalty of a fine in italics, and underscoring supplied]
the amount of ₱10,000.00 for his failure to immediately comply with the
Court's order of suspension from the practice of law, as mandated in the Accordingly, Basilio's compliance with the order of suspension, as well as
Decision. Likewise, it recommended that the lifting of the order of all the other penalties, should have commenced on the day he received
suspension from the practice of law be held in abeyance pending his the Decision.1âwphi 1

payment of the fine.

According to the OBC, Basilio received the Decision on November 3,
The OBC maintained that Basilio, through his counsel, Robea, received 2015. However, records show that Basilio, through Robea, actually
the Decision on November 3, 2015. Hence, the one (1)-year suspension received the Decision on December 2, 2015, as per the Registry Return
order from the practice of law imposed upon him commenced from the Receipt, and that the same was merely mailed on November 13 (not 3),
said date should end on November 3, 2016. On the other hand, the two 2015.32 The OBC - albeit still inaccurately - must have thought that this
(2)-year order of revocation of notarial commission and prohibition from latter date was to be considered as the date of receipt. In fact, Basilio, in
being commissioned as a notary public should end on November 3, his motion for reconsideration and compliance to the Court's October 5,
2017. However, the OBC observed that Basilio served his suspension 2016 Resolution,33 has repeatedly maintained that he received the
order from the practice of law beginning only on July 9, 2016 and Decision on December 2, 2015. This averment appears to be consistent
desisted from his notarial practice on December 2, 2015, as shown by with the documents on record and hence, ought to prevail.
the attached Certifications; hence, the recommended fine.
This notwithstanding, Basilio himself admitted that he served his
The Issue Before the Court suspension only on July 9, 2016, proffering that he believed that what
was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial
commission and the two (2)-year prohibition against being commissioned Orlando Castello, et al received summons from Metropolitan Trial
as a notary public. Unfortunately, the Court cannot accept such flimsy Court, Branch 22 for an ejectment case filed against them by Leonida
excuse in light of the Decision's unequivocal wording.
Delen and Spouses Nestor and Jesiebel Delen alleged owner of the
residence of the Castellos. Upon verifying, the Castellos discovered
Irrefragably, the clause "effective immediately" was placed at the end of
the enumerated series of penalties to indicate that the same pertained to that the property in contention was actually named previously from
and therefore, qualified all three (3) penalties, which clearly include his Castello heirs parents but was cancelled in favor of the Delens by
suspension from the practice of law. The immediate effectivity of the virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. Irregularities were present in the
order of suspension - not just of the revocation and prohibition against his execution and authorization of the Deed of Absolute Sale. With their
notarial practice - logically proceeds from the fact that all three (3)
discovery, the Castello heirs filed with IBP an administrative case
penalties were imposed on Basilio as a result of the Court's finding that
he failed to comply with his duties as a notary public, in violation of the against Atty. Ching on the lawyer’s gross negligence in notarizing the
provisions of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, and his sworn duties as Deed. After due proceedings, Commissioner Eduardo Robles
a lawyer, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional rendered a report and recommendation finding Atty. CHing guilty of
Responsibility. Thus, with the Decision's explicit wording that the same gross negligence in notarizing the Deed. The IBP on the other hand
was "effective immediately", there is no gainsaying that Basilio's
compliance therewith should have commenced immediately from his
adopted and approved the recommendation with modification.
receipt of the Decision on December 2, 2015. On this score, Basilio
cannot rely on the Maniago ruling as above-claimed since it was, in fact, ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ching was guilty of gross negligence in
held therein that a decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof notarizing the Deed?
if the decision so indicates, as in this case.
RULING:
All told, for his failure to immediately serve the penalties in the Decision
against him upon receipt, Basilio acted contumaciously,34 and thus should The Supreme Court affirmed Commissioner Robles’ observation.
be meted with a fine in the amount of ₱10,000.00,35 as recommended by Giving Atty. Ching the benefit of the doubt, the court cannot skip to
the OBC. Pending his payment of the fine and presentation of proof notice the fact that Atty. Ching still failed in insuring the necessary
thereof, the lifting of the order of suspension from the practice of law is requirements as regards those which were supposed to be entered in
perforce held in abeyance.
the notarial books. This also meant that Atty. Ching failed to secure
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby FINDS respondent Atty. Christopher A.
properly his instruments, so that persons would not have opportunity
Basilio GUILTY of indirect contempt. He is hereby FINED in the amount
1âwphi 1
to forge notarizing documents with his signature affixed therein. With
of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a there facts taken into considerations, the SC found Atty. Ching guilty
repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more of gross negligence in notarizing Deed.
severely. The lifting of the order of suspension from the practice of law
is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending his payment of the fine and
presentation of proof thereof. Malvar vs. Baleros A.C. No. 11346,
CASTELO v. ATTY. CHING 08 March 2017
Orlando S. Castelo, et al. Vs. Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching
A.C. No. 11165 Facts: Dr. Malvar claimed that Atty. Baleros, by notarizing an
February 6, 2017 assailed “Application for Certification of Alienable and
Disposable Land”, made it appear that he executed the same
FACTS: when in truth, he never went to the office of the latter since he
was in Manila at the time of the alleged notarization and was JUDGE GERVACIO A. LOPENA, petitioner,
busy performing his duties as a doctor. Accordingly, Dr. Malvar vs. ATTY. ARTEMIO P.
filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Baleros for acts
amounting to grave misconduct consisting of falsification of
CABATOS, respondent.
public documents. On the other hand, Atty. Baleros argued that
the charges filed against her were all part of Dr. Malvar’s scheme DECISION
to avoid his obligations to the buyer of his lot. CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Baleros should be held Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos (respondent) was
administratively liable. administratively charged[1] by Judge Gervacio A. Lopena
(complainant) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
Decision: Yes. Atty. Baleros shall be made liable not only as a of Tagbilaran-Clarin, Bohol of SERIOUS BREACH OF
notary public who failed to discharge her duties but also as a PROFESSIONAL ETHICS and GRAVE MISCONDUCT
lawyer who exhibited utter disregard to the integrity and dignity allegedly committed as follows:
he owed to the legal profession. Atty. Baleros is ordered:
1. Suspended for six (6) months; 1) Respondent knowingly falsified a Deed of
2. Revoked notarial commission; Donation[2] purportedly executed by one Crispina Panis
3. Disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for by notarizing the same on June 24, 1981 when the donor
two (2) years; had died on January 15, 1981, and
4. Warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely
2) Respondent showed a grave disrespect to the
courts and the administration of justice by holding,
To reiterate, the respondent admitted having signed and notarized the
Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land but based from together with his followers, a parade/rally on September
the foregoing, she indubitably failed to record the assailed document in her 21, 1984 around the principal streets of Tagbilaran City,
notarial book. It is axiomatic that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or
routinary act. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is directed against complainant who had convicted
converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of respondents close relatives in three criminal cases and
preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. "If the document or
instrument does not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it denied the applications for probation of two of the
therein, doubt is engendered that the document or instrument was not really convicts.
notarized, so that it is not a public document and cannot bolster any claim
made based on this document." The respondent's delegation of her notarial
function of recording entries in her notarial register to her staff is a clear
Acting on this Courts Resolution of February 14,
contravention of the explicit provision of the Notarial Rules dictating that such 1990,[3] respondent submitted his COMMENT, by letter of
duty be fulfilled by her and not somebody else.
April 19, 1990,[4] claiming that he had been away from his
Place of Notarization and Personal Presence place of birth, Panaytayon, Tubigon, Bohol since 1958,
hence, when he notarized the questioned deed of
donation, he really did not recognize the person of
Cristina Panis, but he was led by one Gregorio Ricafort
[A.C. No. 3441. August 11, 2005]
to believe that the old woman before him at the time was on April 19, 2002[10] and June 7, 2002, respectively, they
the said Crispina Panis. were reset to June 28, 2002.[11]
Respondent informed that his notarization of the Before the June 28, 2002 scheduled hearing,
questioned document in fact resulted to his indictment in complainant filed before the IBP a MANIFESTATION
court for reckless imprudence resulting in falsification of COUPLED WITH MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
public document, which case was pending trial. PLEADING[12] wherein he expressed wonder . . . why it
took the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP over ten
As for the charge of having conducted a rally/parade,
(10) long years to set th[e] case for hearing.
respondent claimed that the same was staged by PDP
Laban and BAYAN of Bohol as a protest against In the same Manifestation cum Motion, complainant
complainant who showed bias in presiding over the trial informed that his two witnesses, Aniceta P. Tarle, a
of the criminal cases against members of the Cabatos daughter of the deceased Crispina Panis, and Ricafort
family and disregarding the evidence in convicting them. (who, as reflected above, respondent claimed to have
led him to believe that the old woman presented before
By Comment/Reply[5] to respondents COMMENT,
him was Panis) had died.
complainant countered that one of the witnesses to the
questioned document was respondents father, Geronimo Complainant further informed that he and respondent
Cabatos,[6] a permanent resident of Panaytayon who were principal sponsors at a wedding, hence, he had not
knew as he was related by blood to Crispina pressed for the early investigation of the case.
Panis,[7] hence, it is incredible for respondent not to know
Nonetheless, complainant prayed that the case be
of Panis death on January 15, 1981 or that he did not
decided on the basis of the pleadings.
know the person of . . . Panis [even if] he ha[d] been
away from his place of birth since 1958. Respondent, whose comment on complainants
above-said Manifestation cum Motion was sought by the
This Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
IBP by Order of June 28, 2002,[13] filed a Motion to
the Philippines (IBP) by Resolution of June 4, 1990.[8]
Dismiss[14] manifesting that he was joining complainants
The rollo shows that complainant had been motion to have the case resolved on the basis of the
manifesting his zeal in pursuing the case, but until March pleadings, and informing that the criminal complaint
19, 2002 when a Commissioner of the IBP Commission lodged against him in connection with his notarization of
on Bar Discipline issued a Notice of Hearing[9] directing the questioned document was dismissed, he having
the parties to appear at the IBP Building on April 19, proved
2002, the case appears to have in the interim remained
dormant. i) that when he notarized the subject Deed of Donation
one among six similar documents executed in favor
Due to the unavailability of complainant and the IBP of Barangay Panaytayon, Tubigon, Bohol, for
Investigating Commissioner on the scheduled hearings
 purposes of a school site someone represented to helper, until respondent graduated from two (2)
respondent as Crispina Panis; college courses;

ii) that she turned [out] to be the daughter of Crispina c) that, in fact, the fact of death of said Crispina Panis was
Panis, and that she ha[d] been instructed by Gregorio known to respondent only when he became one of
Ricafor[t] who prepared the document to affix the the accused in a complaint for falsification of public
same Crispina Panis in the document; document filed with the MCTC of Tubigon-Clarin,
Bohol[.]
iii) that the donation turned out to be the will and resolve
of the heirs of Crispina Panis[.] The case was set anew for complainant to present
evidence on November 11, 2002 during which, again,
Respondent accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the none of the parties appeared, drawing the Commission
case. to consider the case submitted for resolution by Order of
IBP Commissioner on Bar Discipline Victoria O. de even date.[19]
los Reyes, to whom the case was reassigned, issued a Commissioner de los Reyes submitted her REPORT
Notice of Hearing[15] setting the case for hearing on and RECOMMENDATION[20] the pertinent portion of
October 10, 2002 but not one of the parties showed up. which read:
While the IBP received on October 4, 2002 complainants
Reiterative Manifestation dated September 30, 2002,[16] it xxx
resolved to deny the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, by Order of October 10, 2002[17] upon its In view of the failure of the complainant to substantiate his
finding of a need for complainant to substitute his serious charges against the respondent, it is respectfully
charges. recommended that this charge for disbarment be dismissed.
There is no question that the complainant waived his right to
The IBP later received on October 6, 2002 a present his evidence despite the opportunity given him by this
REITERATIVE MANIFESTATION (RE: Commission and in effect deprived the respondent the right to
COMPLAINANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE confront him and his witnesses.
PLEADINGS)[18] alleging, among other things,
However, this Commission would like to point out that there is
b) that respondent never personally knew the late Crispina no issue that respondent Atty. Cabatos did not exercise that
Panis nor his relationship to her, considering that degree of diligence required of him as a Notary Public.
from 1958 (when respondent set foot on secondary
education) respondent left his native place and It has been held in the case entitled Flores v. Chua, 306 SCRA
resided in a convent with a parish priest (now Msgr. 465, that where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
Saturnino Felicitas) as an altar boy and convent
responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his By NOTICE OF RESOLUTION,[21] the IBP National
solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or Secretary quoted the IBP Resolution No. XVI-2003-89
consent to the doing of any. And in the case Nunga v. Viray, adopting and approving the Report and
306 SCRA 487, the Honorable Court ruled that notaries public Recommendation of the Investigating
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the Commissioner, which notice of Resolution, along with
[22]

performance of their duties. the records of the case, was transmitted by letter of
September 29, 2002 of the IBP Director for Bar
In the case before us, the respondent himself admitted that he Discipline and received on October 9, 2003 by the Office
did not exert any effort to find out if the person who of the Bar Confidant, this Court.[23]
acknowledged to have executed the Deed of Donation was
really Crispina Panis. He merely relied on the assurance of Mr. When will the incidence of violations, by lawyers
Gregorio Ricafort that the person who appeared before him as commissioned as notaries public, of their oath of office
Notary Public was the real Crispina Panis. Considering that decline if not abate?
Tubigon, Bohol is a small town, it would have been easy to Why do notaries public seem to be impervious to the
determine the real identity of the person claiming to have call by this Court to faithfully discharge their sacred
executed the document. duties which are dictated by public policy and impressed
with public interest?
Moreover, it was easy for the respondent to require the person
who claimed to have executed the questioned Deed of Why did respondent rely on Ricaforts alleged leading
Donation to produce his Community Tax Certificate (formerly him to believe that the old woman before him
Residence Certificate) and any other documents to identify was the Crsipina Panis who purportedly executed the
him or her. This he did not do. document for notarization, when one of the
witnesses[24] to the execution of the document was his
It can therefore be validly concluded that respondent Atty. (respondents) father, Geronimo Cabatos, from whom he
Cabatos failed to exercise with utmost care and diligence his could have verified the identity of Crispina Panis, if
duties as Notary Public. indeed he did not know her?
That respondent was, if true, exonerated from the
For these reasons, it is recommended that respondent Atty. criminal case filed against him in connection with his
Artemio P. Cabatos be reprimanded, with a warning that a notarization of the questioned document does not
graver penalty will be recommended to be imposed on him in exonerate him from the present administrative case.
the event he again fails to exercise that high degree of
diligence required of a Notary Public in the performance of his Nor does, if respondents information in his Motion to
duties as such. (Emphasis and italization in the original) Dismiss[25] is true, that the person who had been
instructed by Ricafort to affix the signature of Crispina
Panis was the latters daughter exonerate him. By such
information, he in fact impliedly admits that the document Mumar vs. Atty Flores
had already been signed when it was brought to him for A.C. No. 5426 April 3, 2007
notarization.
CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. JANUARIO C.
That a notary public should not notarize a document FLORES, Respondent.
unless the persons who signed it are the same persons
who executed and personally appeared before him to The instant administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by Chita
attest to the contents of the truth of what are stated Pantoja-Mumar charging respondent Atty.Januario C. Flores with fraud,
therein bears reiterating. On pain of sounding like a misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of document, breach of duty and
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
broken record, this Court has repeatedly held that the
purpose of the injunction is to enable the notary public to Complainant is one of the compulsory heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr. It
verify the genuineness of the signature of the appears that respondent had prepared an Extrajudicial Partition with
acknowledging party in this case Crispina Panis and to Absolute Sale for her and 11 other co-heirs covering a three-hectare property
ascertain that the document is the partys free act of in Pangdan, Cambanay,Danao City. The deed was executed in favor of the
spouses Filomena and Edilberto Perez, who were later able to secure a
deed.[26]
torrens title over the property under their names.
Respondent having thus failed to faithfully discharge
his sacred duties as a notary public, under the facts and In the verified Complaint, complainant alleged that respondent had prepared
the Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1987, but
circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial
averred that the transaction did not push through, and the deed was not
commission and disqualification from being notarized.
commissioned as notary public for a period of One (1)
Year is in order. The Investigating Commissioner found that while the validity of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale is yet to be resolved in the civil case, the
As for the charge against respondent of showing acts and omissions of respondent as notary public have been duly
grave disrespect to the courts and the administration of established. According to the Investigating Commissioner:
justice by holding a parade/rally, along with his followers,
during which he imputed bias to complainant whom he 1. The document, although already signed by some of the co-heirs/co-
owners on or before December 29, 1987, was not finalized because the
branded as worse than President Marcos, it has not
transaction was not pursued; however, the date of notarization was indicated
been sufficiently substantiated. therein to be December 29, 1987;
WHEREFORE, the notarial commission of
2. Respondent notarized the document on or after June 13, 1988, without
respondent, Atty. Artemio P. Cabatos, if still existing, is
the authority and/or in the absence of some of the supposed signatories;
hereby REVOKED and he is hereby DISQUALIFIED to
be commissioned as a notary public for a period of One 3. Respondent did not see one of the co-heirs, Maximina Pantoja, actually
(1) Year, and WARNED that a similar violation by him affix her thumbmark to the document; and
shall be dealt with more severely.
4. Respondent notarized the document even if Complainant, also a co-
heir, did not sign it. Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and
legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes lawyers from
The Investigating Commissioner pointed out that these acts and omissions engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
were established through respondents own admission that he notarized the
document even if Maximina Pantoja did not affix her thumbmark in his It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary
presence, and that complainant did not appear before him to sign the deed. sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with
The Investigating Commissioner also considered respondents testimony in great caution for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of
Civil Case No. DNA-574. Citing Gonzales v. Ramos, Commissioner Herbosa misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
recommended that the notarial commission of respondent be revoked; and officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should
that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand,
two years and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired. Considering that this
is the respondents first administrative offense, the Court modifies the IBPs
Issue: WON respondent violated the Notarial law and his lawyer’s oath? recommendation of a two-year suspension from the practice of law to one
year.
Held:

It cannot be overemphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty,

meaningless or routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, [A.C. No. 5864. April 15, 2005]
such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries
public. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is
converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of
preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. Indeed, a notarial ARTURO L. SICAT, complainant, vs. ATTY.
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this GREGORIO E. ARIOLA, JR., respondent.
reason, notaries public must observe utmost care in complying with the
elementary formalities in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the
RESOLUTION
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined. Hence, a notary public should not notarize a document unless PER CURIAM:
the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of In an affidavit-complaint, complainant Arturo L.
[1]

what are stated therein. A notary public is duty-bound to require the person Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang
executing a document to be personally present, to swear before him that he
Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
is that person and ask the latter if he has voluntarily and freely executed the
same. Gregorio E. Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of Cainta,
Rizal, with violation of the Code of Professional
Thus, in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale without ascertaining that all the Responsibility by committing fraud, deceit and falsehood
vendors-signatories thereto were the very same persons who executed it and in his dealings, particularly the notarization of a Special
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by a one
stated therein, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on
Juanito C. Benitez. According to complainant,
notarial documents; he thereby breached Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the respondent made it appear that Benitez executed the
said document on January 4, 2001 when in fact the latter Service Commission and the Office of the Deputy
had already died on October 25, 2000. Ombudsman for Luzon. According to him, the complaints
were later dismissed based on findings that the assailed
He alleged that prior to the notarization, the
act referred to violations of the implementing rules and
Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract with
regulations of PD 1594, PD 1445, RA 7160 and other
[3] [4] [5]

J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical Management,

pertinent rules of the Commission on Audit (COA). He
represented by Benitez, for the construction of low-cost
stressed that no criminal and administrative charges
houses. The cost of the architectural and engineering
were recommended for filing against him.
designs amounted to P11,000,000 and two consultants
were engaged to supervise the project. For the services In a Resolution dated March 12, 2003, the Court[6]

of the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued a referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the
check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
of P3,700,000, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and recommendation. On August 26, 2003, the IBP
Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The check submitted its investigation report:
was received and encashed by the latter by virtue of the
authority of the SPA notarized by respondent Ariola. x x x it is evident that respondent notarized the Special Power
of Attorney dated 4 January 2001 purportedly executed by
Complainant further charged respondent with the Juanito C. Benitez long after Mr. Benitez was dead. It is also
crime of falsification penalized under Article 171 of the evident that respondent cannot feign innocence and claim that
Revised Penal Code by making it appear that certain he did not know Mr. Benitez was already dead at the time
persons participated in an act or proceeding when in fact because respondent, as member of the Prequalification and
they did not. Awards Committee of the Municipality of Cainta, personally
In his Comment, respondent explained that, as early
[2] knew Mr. Benitez because the latter appeared before the
as May 12, 2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA. Committee a number of times. It is evident that the Special
He claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on Power of Attorney dated 4 January 2001 was part of a scheme
January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it. of individuals to defraud the Municipality of Cainta of money
Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on January 4, which was allegedly due them, and that respondent by
2001 was not at all necessary because Benitez had notarizing said Special Power of Attorney helped said parties
signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime before succeed in their plans.
[7]

his death, on May 12, 2000. Because it was no longer

necessary, the SPA was cancelled the same day he The IBP recommended to the Court that respondents
notarized it, hence, legally, there was no public notarial commission be revoked and that he be
document that existed. Respondent prayed that the suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping year.[8]

since similar charges had been filed with the Civil

 After a careful review of the records, we find that In the case at bar, the records show that Benitez died
respondent never disputed complainants accusation that on October 25, 2000. However, respondent notarized the
he notarized the SPA purportedly executed by Benitez SPA, purportedly bearing the signature of Benitez, on
on January 4, 2001. He likewise never took issue with January 4, 2001 or more than two months after the
the fact that on said date, Benitez was already dead. His latters death. The notarial acknowledgement of
act was a serious breach of the sacred obligation respondent declared that Benitez appeared before him
imposed upon him by the Code of Professional and acknowledged that the instrument was his free and
Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which voluntary act. Clearly, respondent lied and intentionally
prohibited him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, perpetuated an untruthful statement. Notarization is not
immoral or deceitful conduct. As a lawyer and as an an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It converts a
[13]

officer of the court, it was his duty to serve the ends of private document into a public instrument, making it
justice, not to corrupt it. Oath-bound, he was expected
[9]
admissible in evidence without the necessity of
to act at all times in accordance with law and ethics, and preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.
[14]

if he did not, he would not only injure himself and the

Neither will respondents defense that the SPA in
public but also bring reproach upon an honorable
question was superfluous and unnecessary, and
profession. [10]

prejudiced no one, exonerate him of accountability. His

In the recent case of Zaballero v. Atty. Mario J. assertion of falsehood in a public document contravened
Montalvan, where the respondent notarized certain
[11]
one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession
documents and made it appear that the deceased father and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of
of complainant executed them, the Court declared the every notarial act. As the Municipal Administrator of
respondent there guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 Cainta, he should have been aware of his great
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
[12]
responsibility not only as a notary public but as a public
was emphatic that lawyers commissioned as notaries officer as well. A public office is a public trust.
public should not authenticate documents unless the Respondent should not have caused disservice to his
persons who signed them are the very same persons constituents by consciously performing an act that would
who executed them and personally appeared before deceive them and the Municipality of Cainta. Without the
them to attest to the contents and truth of what are fraudulent SPA, the erring parties in the construction
stated therein. The Court added that notaries public must project could not have encashed the check amounting
observe utmost fidelity, the basic requirement in the to P3,700,000 and could not have foisted on the public a
performance of their duties, otherwise the confidence of spurious contract ― all to the extreme prejudice of the
the public in the integrity of notarized deeds and very Municipality of which he was the Administrator.
documents will be undermined. According to the COA Special Task Force:
Almost all acts of falsification of public documents as Stalls No. 7 and 8 of the Supermarket Section of the
enumerated in Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Cabanatuan City Public Market were awarded to and occupied by
Abelardo Mallari, father of Manuel Mallari and Rebecca Alsol. Before
Revised Penal Code were evident in the transactions of the Abelardo’s death, he gave the respective stalls to Manuel and Rebecca.
Municipality of Cainta with J.C. Benitez & Architects
Technical Management for the consultancy services in the Sometime in 1988, respondent’s daughter became sick and the
conduct of Detailed Feasibility Study and Detailed Alsol family had to stay in Manila for two months for the medical
treatment. Upon their return, they found out that petitioners were
Engineering Design of the Proposed Construction of Cainta already occupying Stall No. 8. The partition between Stalls No. 7 and 8
Municipal Medium Rise Low Cost Housing, in the contract had been removed and respondent’s merchandise and things were
amount of P11,000,000. The agent resorted to already gone. The Mallaris refused Alsol’s demand to vacate the stall.
misrepresentation, manufacture or fabrication of fictitious
With the help of the City Market Committee, Stall No. 7 was
document, untruthful narration of facts, misrepresentation, and granted Mallari and Stall No. 8 to Alsol. Alsol and the city government
counterfeiting or imitating signature for the purpose of creating executed a lease contract with the right to occupy Stall No. 8 for a
a fraudulent contract. All these were tainted with deceit monthly rental of P316 subject to increase or decrease in accordance
perpetrated against the government resulting to undue injury. with the city rules and ordinances. However, the Mallaris still refused
to vacate and instead, they filed an action for annulment of such
The first and partial payment, in the amount of P3,700,000.00 contract before the RTC.
was made in the absence of the required outputs. x x x [15]

ISSUE: Whether or not the lease contract executed is valid.

We need not say more except that we are
HELD:
constrained to change the penalty recommended by the
IBP which we find too light. YES. Petitioners insist that the Lease Contract is not valid
because the City Treasurer should have signed the Lease Contract and
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, not Mayor Perez, the City Mayor. The Court agrees with petitioners
Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby that RA 7160 is not the applicable law. It should have applied Batas
DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let copies of this Pambansa Blg. 337 or the old Local Government Code. Still, even
Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant under BP 337, city mayors have the authority to sign contracts on
behalf of city governments.
and entered in the records of respondent, and brought to
the immediate attention of the Ombudsman. Petitioners also allege that the Lease Contract is not valid
because Mayor Perez did not appear before the notary public who
SO ORDERED. notarized the document. Such argument was not sustained by the
MANUEL MALLARI and MILLIE MALLARI v. REBECCA Court.
ALSOL
G.R. No. 150866, March 6, 2006 (Carpio, J.) Notarization converts a private document into a public
document. However, the non-appearance of the parties before the
FACTS: notary public who notarized the document does not necessarily nullify
nor render the parties’ transaction void ab initio. Thus:
 x x x Article 1358 of the New Civil Code on the necessity of a document was merely presented to the notary public for notarization
public document is only for convenience, not for validity or without Atty. Agcaoili appearing before him.
enforceability. Failure to follow the proper form does not 3. Consequently, the deed of absolute sale was void for being a result
invalidate a contract. Where a contract is not in the form of a fraudulent transaction.
prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to Prima contends:
1. It acted in good faith when it relied solely on the face of the
observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This
authorization of Agana and paid in full the purchase price of
is consistent with the basic principle that contracts are P2,567,760.00 making it a buyer in good faitgh and for value.
obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, 2. Even assuming that the authorization of Agana was forged, St.
provided all essential requisites are present. Mary’s, through its president, accepted and received part of the
purchase price knowing fully well the same to be the proceeds of the
Hence, the Lease Contract is valid despite Mayor Perez’s failure to sale of the property, St. Mary’s is now estopped from asking for
appear before the notary public. rescission.
St. Mary’s Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties FIRST ISSUE:
Nachura, J. 1. Whether or not Prima was a buyer in bad faith
July 31, 2008 HELD:
No, Prima was a buyer in good faith and for value.
Facts: On the basis of the board resolution, Prima had every reason to rely
 St. Mary’s was the registered owner of an originally 25,598 sqm of on Agana’s authority to sell the land.
land in Las Pinas under TCT S-1648.  A buyer for value and in good faith is one who buys property
 In compliance with a final court decision in another civil case, St. of another, without notice that some other person has a right
Mary’s passed and approved in 1988 a board resolution authorizing or interest in such property and pays full and fair price for the
defendant Rodolfo Agana to cede to T.S. Cruz Subdivision 4,000 same, at the same time of such purchase, or before he has
sqm of the abovementioned land. notice of the said claim or interest. To prove good faith, a
 Agana did not return to plaintiff the said title. Instead, allegedly buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he
forged a board resolution of St. Mary’s authorizing Agana to sell relied on the face of the title of the property. Sufficient that
the remaining 21,598 sqm of land. This board resolution was duly the following conditions concur:
notarized. Agana was also with a Special Power of Attorney when it a. The seller is the registered owner of the land
dealt with T.S. Cruz and Prima Real Properties. b. Owner has possession of the land
 Eventually, a deed of absolute sale was signed by Agana and c. At the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of
Prima Real Properties transferring ownership of the land from St. any claim or interest of some other person in the
Mary’s to Prima. property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of
 Prima effected the cancellation of TCT S-1648 in the name of St. the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the
Mary’s and another TCT T-6175 in its name was issued by the property
Registry of deeds, Villanueva. All the three conditions are present in the case.
 Prima purchased from T.S. Cruz Subdivision the 4,000 sqm portion 1. Prima exerted efforts to verify the true background of the subject
of the land. land
 St. Mary’s filed an action for rescission of the sale and the 2. Agana presented to Prima the notarized board resolution, separate
reconveyance of the property. Certification by St. Mary’s president authorizing Agana to sell the
land, and a TCT of the property
According to St. Mary’s:
1. Sale of the realty entered into between Agana and Prima is null and SECOND ISSUE: Whether or not Agana was authorized to sell the subject
void for lack of authority on the part of Agana to sell the property. property
2. The board resolution allegedly granting Agana the authority to sell in
behalf of the company, as certified by Corp. Secretary Agcaoili is a HELD:
forgery as no board meeting was held on June 27, 1988; the said
 Yes, Agana had the authority to sell the subject property by virtue of Satisfied that the Trinidads owned the property, Metrobank
the notarized board resolution and the Special Power of Attorney.
RATIO:
accepted it as collateral and lent them money.
The document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is
duly notarized. It is a public document where the notarial acknowledgement Arguelles filed a complaint against the Trinidads and
is prima facie evidence of the fact of its due execution. A buyer presented Metrobank for the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title
with such a document would have no choice between knowing and finding
out whether a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial
and of the real estate mortgage over the property. They alleged
acknowledgment has removed that choice from him replacing it with a that the Trinidads used a fictitious deed of sale notarized by
presumption sanctioned by law that the affiant appeared before the notary Atty. Saulog Jr. to effect the transferrin their names.
public and acknowledged that he executed the document, understood its
import and signed it. The buyer is given the luxury to rely on the presumption
of regularity of a duly notarized SPA.
The RTC and CA held that the deed was not authentic
based on that fact that the notary public who notarized the
Prima also relied on the confirmation and certification of the Register document could not recall if the Arguelleses personally
of Deeds of Las Pinas and Mr. T.S. Cruz. When Agana first sold the 4,000
sqm portion to T.S. Cruz, he showed a similar authorization by the petitioner appeared and signed the deed of sale before him.
which was also signed by the corporate secretary, Atty. Agcaoili. Agana
acted as St. Mary’s authorized agent and had full authority to bind the ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of sale is authentic.
company in that first transaction with Cruz.
HELD: Yes.
The board resolution also negates the assertion by St. Mary’s that
Agana’s authority was only limited to negotiate and not to sell. The
It is too much to expect a notary public who had but a
resolution further averred that Agana was “authorized and empowered
to sign any and all documents, instruments, papers or writings which brief time with the Arguelleses during the notarial ceremony to
may be required and necessary for this purpose to bind the corporation remember their faces 12 years later. What matters is Atty.
in this undertaking.” The certification of St. Mary’s president also attests to Saulog, Jr.’s testimony respecting the ritual of notarization that
this fact. With this, Agana, undeniably had the authority to cede the subject he invariably followed. He gave unbending assurance that he
property, carrying with it all the concomitant powers necessary to implement
ascertained the identities of the parties to documents who
said transaction.
appeared before him, including the Arguelleses, by requiring
METROBANK vs ARGUELLES them to show documentary proofs of the same and to sign the
documents in his presence.
FACTS:

Respondent Arguelleses were registered owners of a

parcel of land. They entered into a conditional deed of sale of
the land to Edgardo Trinidad and his wife. The Trinidads gave
Arguelleses 50,000php as down payment; the balance to be
paid in monthly installments. With a deed of sale in their favor,
the Trinidads had the land titled in their names. They applied
with Metrobank for a loan offering the land as collateral.
 On August 24, 1999, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, counsel for
MARY JANE D. respondents, filed a Motion for Extension to File Comment
praying that an extension of sixty (60) days from August 16,
VELASCO, 1999 be given to them to file their comment.[3]

COMPLAINANT,VERS On October 4, 1999, the Court granted the Motion for Extension

US ATTY. CHARLIE with a warning that the same shall be the last and no further
extension will be given.[4]

DOROIN AND ATTY.

HECTOR CENTENO, The respondent lawyers failed to file their comment.

RESPONDENTS., A.C. On June 20, 2001, the Court ordered respondent lawyers and
their counsel to show cause why they should not be
NO. 5033, 2008 JULY disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and
to comply with the resolution requiring the comment. Copies of
28, EN BANC the resolution dated June 20, 2001 were returned unserved
from Atty. Alcid and Atty. Centeno with notations “party
This case refers to a disbarment complaint filed by Mary Jane out/unknown at/party moved out” and “moved out.” Atty. Doroin
D. Velasco on March 31, 1999, against respondent lawyers for received the said resolution on July 27, 2001.[5]
forgery and

falsification constitutive of malpractice.[1]

On April 17, 2002, complainant was required to submit the
correct addresses of Atty. Alcid and Atty. Centeno, while Atty.
Charlie Doroin was fined Php 500.00 for failure to comply with
On June 21, 1999, the Court’s Second Division required the
the show cause resolution dated June 20, 2001 and was
respondent lawyers to comment on the complaint within (10)
ordered to submit his comment.[6]
days from notice.[2]
Complainant failed to comply with the directive of the Court. On July 27, 2005, the Court issued a resolution noting the
compliance of the complainant as well as the latter’s
manifestation and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
On July 23, 2003, the Court required the complainant to show Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation within
cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with for her ninety (90) days from receipt of the record.[10]
non-compliance with the said directive and to submit her
compliance within ten (10) days from notice. In the same
resolution, the fine imposed on Atty. Charlie Doroin was On October 3, 2005, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
increased from Php 500.00 to Php 1,000.00 for his failure to file through Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva Maala issued a
his comment on the complaint as required by the Court, or to Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing to the parties to the
suffer imprisonment of five (5) days in case he fails to pay and case scheduled on October 26, 2005 with a strict note that
to submit his comment on the complaint within ten (10) days “[n]on-appearance by any of the parties shall be deemed a
from notice.[7] waiver of their right to participate in further proceedings.”[11]

In a report dated August 2, 2004, the Clerk of Court informed On October 26, 2005, only Mr. Juanito Perez, attorney-in-fact of
the Court that respondent Atty. Doroin paid the fine of Php the complainant, together with his counsel Atty. Andres Villaruel,
1,000.00. However, Atty. Doroin still failed to submit the Jr. appeared. As respondents Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty.
comment on the administrative complaint required of him and Hector Centeno had not filed their comment, they were directed
has not complied with the show cause resolution dated April 17, to submit it within (10) days from receipt of notice. The hearing
2002 by submitting the correct addresses of Atty. Quintin P. of the case was reset on November 30, 2005.[12]
Alcid and respondent Atty. Hector Centeno.[8]

On November 30, 2005, again, only Mr. Juanito Perez, attorney-

In a Manifestation submitted June 23, 2005, the complainant in-fact of the complaint, together with his counsel, Atty. Villaruel,
submitted the addresses of Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty. Hector appeared. The notices sent to respondents were returned to the
Centeno as well as a copy of a Special Power of Attorney Commission on Bar Discipline with a notation “RTS-Moved.” As
authorizing Mr. Juanito C. Perez to prosecute the instant respondents had not filed their comment on the complaint, they
case.[9] were declared in default. In an Order dated November 30, 2005,
Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva Maala submitted her report
and recommendation, viz.[13]
To partially satisfy complainant’s share of Php 1,216,078.00,
Atty. Doroin required complainant to sign a paper which was an
alleged Confirmation of Authority to Sell the property of
The Commission on Bar Discipline reported that:
complainant’s father located at Kingspoint subdivision, Bagbag,
Novaliches, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 34885,
xxx xxx xxx Complainant told Atty. Doroin that she will first consult a lawyer
regarding the legality of the said Confirmation of Authority to
Sell before she signs the same. Eventually, she was not able to
In her Affidavit-Complaint, complaint alleged that she was sign the said Confirmation because complainant’s lawyer, Atty.
appointed as Administratrix in Special Proceedings Case No. Q- Marapao, failed to confer and negotiate with Atty. Doroin
96-27628 pending consideration before the Regional Trial regarding the same.
Court, Quezon City, Branch 87, entitled “In the matter of the
Settlement of the Estate of the Late Eduardo Doroin, Monina E.
Doroin, petitioner.” The deceased, Eduardo Doroin, died on 21 When the complainant visited the lot situated at Kingspoint
January 1996, in Papua New Guinea. In this Special Subdivision sometime in June 1996, there was no house
Proceedings case, respondents were collaborating counsels for constructed thereon, but when she visited it again on January
Oppositor, Josephine Abarquez. 1999, there was already a four-door townhouse constructed.
Complainant was informed by the caretaker at the site that the
owner is one Evangeline Reyes-Tonemura. Complainant also
On 21 March 1996, Atty. Doroin fooled complainant by deceitful learned later on that the property, which was one of the
means into making her sign an Extra-Judicial Settlement and properties submitted to the Court handling the Special
Deed of Partition, allotting complainant the sum of Proceedings case in the Inventory of Property dated 3 April
P1,216,078.00 giving the paramour of complainant’s father, 1996, was sold by Atty. Doroin to Evangeline Reyes-Yonemura
Josephine Abarquez, the share of P7,296,468.00 and also [sic], by forging the signature of complainant’s late father. Atty.
allotting complainant’s two (2) alleged illegitimate brothers and Hector B. Centeno, a Notary Public of Quezon City, knowing
an alleged illegitimate sister, a similar sum of P1,216,075.00 that complainant’s father was already dead as of 21 January
each alleging that such sharing is in accordance with law. But 1996, made it appear in the said Deed of Absolute Sale, that
no share was assigned to complainant’s mother, who was the
legal wife of Dr. Eduardo Doroin.
complainant’s father appeared before him in Quezon City on 17
January 1997.
The Notice of Resolution and the Report and Recommendation
by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, were submitted to the
Court, through the Director for Bar Discipline, in a transmittal
Records show that a case for Falsification of Public Document
letter dated January 22, 2007.
was filed against respondent Atty. Hector Centeno before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 39, docketed as
Criminal Case No. 104869. Atty. Centeno was arraigned on 12
The issue before us is whether Atty. Charlie Doroin and Atty.
September 2001 and pleaded “not guilty.” After the arraignment,
Hector Centeno are guilty of violating their lawyer’s oath and
Atty. Centeno did not anymore appeared [sic] in court and
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
jumped bail.[14]
which would merit their disbarment.

The Commission found that respondents violated Rule 1.01,

We agree with the findings of the Board of Governors of the
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when they
IBP, but modify the penalty to be imposed on respondent Atty.
caused “extreme and great damage to the complainant.”[15]
Hector Centeno.
The Commissioner also noted that the failure of the respondents
to answer the complaint for disbarment despite due notice on
several occasions and to appear on the scheduled hearing set Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that:
showed “flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and
illustrates despiciency for his oath of office as a lawyer, which
deserves disciplinary sanction.”[16] The Commissioner “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
recommended that the respondent lawyers be disbarred. deceitful conduct.”[17]

On November 18, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at
Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar large,[18] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
Discipline with the modification that respondent lawyers be profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty,
suspended indefinitely instead of being disbarred. including suspension and disbarment.[19] In Marcelo v.
Javier,[20] we reminded the members of the legal profession disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
that: established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[22]

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the In the case at bar, complainant claims that respondent lawyers
legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed forged the deed of sale and forced her to sign the deed of
by clients require in the attorney a high standard and extrajudicial settlement by explaining to her that it was “in
appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts accordance with law.”
and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal
proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally
speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by The complained actuations of the respondent lawyers constitute
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the a blatant violation of the lawyer’s oath to uphold the law and the
courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by basic tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility that no
any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in lawyer shall engage in dishonest conduct. Elementary it is in
any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty succession law that compulsory heirs like the widowed spouse
and integrity of the profession. shall have a share in the estate by way of legitimes[23] and no
extrajudicial settlement can deprive the spouse of said right
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege
except if she gives it up for lawful consideration, but never when
burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to
the spouse is not a party to the said settlement.[24] And the
practice law during good behaviour and can only be deprived of
Civil Code reminds us, that we must “give every man his due.”
it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the
court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. Without The guilt of the respondent lawyers is beyond dispute. They
invading any constitutional privilege or right, and attorney’s right failed to answer the complaint filed against them. Despite due
to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or notice, they failed to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the
disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a IBP. Hence, the claims and allegations of the complainant
license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an remain uncontroverted. In Ngayan v. Tugade,[26] we ruled that
attorney. “[a lawyer’s] failure to answer the complaint against him and his
failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof generally rests
resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his
upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its
despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule
138, Rules of Court.” [27]
 FACTS:
The Court is mindful that disbarment is a grave penalty.
Considering that the license to practice law, though it is not a Susan Loberes-Pintal (Susan) filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.
property right, sustains a lawyer’s primary means of livelihood Baylosis for committing perjury, falsification of public documents and the use
of falsified documents. She alleged that Roldan C. Pintal (Roldan) filed a
and to strip someone of such license amounts to stripping one Petition for Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage before the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City (RTC); that Atty. Baylosis conspired with Roldan by
of a career and a means to keep himself alive, we agree with making it appear that he was a resident of Caloocan City when in fact he was
the modification submitted by the Integrated Bar of the a resident of Quezon City; and that Atty. Baylosis notarized the verification
and certification against non-forum shopping of the petition on May 13, 2011,
Philippines that an indefinite suspension would be the more but, at that time, Roldan was out of the country. Susan submitted a
appropriate penalty on Atty. Charlie Doroin. However, we Certification from the Barangay Chairman and a Certification from the Bureau
of Immigration as proof.
cannot be as lenient with Atty. Hector Centeno who, aside from
committing a dishonest act by depriving a person of her rightful Atty. Baylosis denied the accusation and insisted that when Roldan went to
his office in January 2011, he personally interviewed him and asked him to
inheritance, also committed a criminal offense when he submit his personal documents; that Roldan provided him a Certification from
falsificated a public document and thereafter absconded from the Chairman, that Roldan reviewed the petition and affixed his signature in
the Verification and Certification; that Roldan personally appeared before
the criminal proceeding against him after having posted bail. him, swore in accordance with law and verified his petition in accordance
with the Rules of Court. Atty. Baylosis further averred that the date of
We also take this opportunity to remind the Integrated Bar of the recording on May 13, 2011 of the Verification and Certification of the petition
was an honest mistake and excusable error on the part of his staff but his
Philippines and their regional and city chapters to maintain an claim that Roldan personally appeared before him was true.
updated record of the office and residence addresses of their
The IBP-Board of Governors reversed and set aside the report and
members to help facilitate looking for lawyers. As officers of the
recommendation of the CBD. In its Extended Resolution, the IBP-Board
court, lawyers should be readily available upon the Court’s ofGovernors found Atty. Baylosis guilty of violating the 2004 Rules onNotarial
Practice when he made it appear that Roldan was present during
beckoning. thenotarization of the petition on May 13, 2011 and recommended the
immediate revocation of his notarial commission and his disqualificationfrom
IN VIEW WHEREOF, Atty. Charlie Doroin is suspended being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years.
indefinitely, and Atty. Hector Centeno is hereby DISBARRED
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baylosis guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on
SUSAN LOBERES-PINTAL, Complainant - versus - ATTY. RAMONCITO B. Notarial Practice
BAYLOSIS, Respondent
HELD:
A.C. No. 11545
YES. Without a quibble, Atty. Baylosis was negligent in the performance of
January 24, 2017 his duty as a notary public when he notarized the petition for declaration of
the nullity of marriage without the presence of Roldan. This was evidenced
by the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration that Roldan was not
in the Philippines on May 13, 2011 as he had left the Philippines on April 10,
2011 and came back only on September 8, 2011. Atty. Baylosis'contention came to his office on June 17, 1996, due to the absence of the supposed
that he personally interviewed Roldan when the latter went into his office and affiant thereof. He said that he only notarized the SPA when the
personally read and signed the petition cannot be accorded a shred of complainant's wife came back to his office on June 26, 1996, together with a
credence. In notarizing a document in the absence of a party, Atty. Baylosis
person whom she introduced to him as Charles Baylon. He further contended
violated not only the rule on notarial practice but also the Code of
Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any that he believed in good faith that the person introduced to him was the
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By affixing his signature complainant because said person presented to him a Community Tax
and notarial seal on the document, he attested that Roldan personally Certificate bearing the name Charles Baylon. To corroborate his claims, the
appeared before him on the day it was notarized and verified the contents respondent attached the affidavit of his secretary, Leonilita de Silva.
thereof. His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the
conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the ISSUE:
public accord to notarized documents. It must be emphasized that a lawyer
commissioned as a notary public, is mandated to discharge with fidelity the Whether or not respondent had been negligent in the performance of
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public his duties as a notary public in this case.
policy and impressed with public interest. It is for this reason that a notary
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the RULING:
performance of their duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity
of the document would be undermined. The Supreme Court held that respondent had indeed been negligent
in the performance of his duties as a notary public in this case.
Competent Evidence of Identity
In Santiago v. Rafanan, Notarization is not an empty, meaningless,
CHARLES B. BAYLON
routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only
vs. those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO converts a private document into a public document thus making that
document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely
FACTS: upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a
private instrument.
Complainant averred that Pacita Filio, Rodolfo Llantino, Jr. and his
late wife, Rosemarie Baylon, conspired in preparing an SPA1 authorizing his For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the
wife to mortgage his real property located in Signal Village, Taguig. He said solemn duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their
that he was out of the country when the SPA was executed. To prove that his performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are
signature on the SPA was forged, the complainant presented a report 4 from expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties, which are
the National Bureau of Investigation stating to the effect that the questioned dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.
signature on the SPA was not written by him.
Mindful of his duties as a notary public and taking into account the
The complainant likewise alleged that because of the SPA, his real nature of the SPA which in this case authorized the complainant's wife to
mortgage the subject real property, the respondent should have exercised
property was mortgaged to Lorna Express Credit Corporation and that it was
utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person who
subsequently foreclosed due to the failure of his wife to settle her mortgage represented himself and was represented to be the complainant.12 He should
obligations. not have relied on the Community Tax Certificate presented by the said
impostor in view of the ease with which community tax certificates are
In his answer, the respondent admitted notarizing the SPA, but he obtained these days.13 As a matter of fact, recognizing the established
argued that he initially refused to notarize it when the complainant's wife first unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person
who wishes to have his document notarized, we did not include it in the list of  Fatima, however, assailed that the signatures in the Real Estate
competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining Mortgage as well as in the Affidavit, both notarized on June 22, 2006,
the identity of persons appearing before them to have their documents
notarized. were forgeries.
 She asserted that Atty. Parado did not require the persons who
Moreover, considering that respondent admitted15
in the IBP hearing appeared before him to present any valid identification.
on February 21, 2005 that he had already previously notarized some  More importantly, Fatima averred that Atty. Parado had no notarial
documents16 for the complainant, he should have compared the authority, as certified8 by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
complainant's signatures in those documents with the impostor's signature
before he notarized the questioned SPA.
Court of Cebu (RTC).

WHEREFORE, the notarial commission, if still extant, of respondent IBP

Atty. Jose A. Almo is hereby REVOKED. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED to be
reappointed as Notary Public for a period of two years.  Commissioner Cachapero opined that there was no evidence to
support that Atty. Parado lied as the court had not set aside his
MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA vs. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO testimonies. Consequently, he concluded that it was not proven that
Atty. Parado forged the assailed documents and notarized the same.
 On June 22, 2006, Atty. Parado notarized the Real Estate Mortgage  Commissioner Cachapero, however, found that Atty. Parado was
between RC Lending Investors, Inc. (RC Lending), as mortgagee, and dishonest when he testified that he was issued a notarial commission
Maria Theresa G. Japitana (Theresa) and Ma. Nette Japitana (Nette), effective until 2008. His claim was belied by the certification issued by
as mortgagors. the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that Atty. Parado had not been
 It was supposedly witnessed by Maria Sallie Japitana (Sallie) and issued a notarial commission for 2006. As such, he recommended
Maria Lourdes Japitana-Sibi (Lourdes) and her husband Dante Sibi that Atty. Parado be suspended from the practice of law for one (1)
(Dante), Fatima's sisters and brother-in-law, respectively. year.
 The mortgage covered a parcel of land on which the family home of
the Japitanas was constituted. IBP-BOG
 On the same date, Atty. Parado notarized the Affidavit allegedly
executed by Theresa, Nette, Lourdes, Dante, and Sallie to show their  resolved to revoke Atty. Parado's notarial commission, if presently
conformity to the Real Estate Mortgage over the land where their commissioned, for testifying that he had a notarial commission valid
family home was situated. until 2008, contrary to the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of
 On October 23, 2006, RC Lending, through Cristeta G. Cuenco the RTC and for ignoring the notices sent by the Commission on Bar
(Cuenco), filed its Petition for ExtraJudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Discipline. Likewise, the Board of Governors disqualified Atty.
Mortgage. Parado from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
 Consequently, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued years and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6)
under the name of RC Lending. months.
 On February 3, 2009, it filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a
break-open order, for RC Lending to effectively take the possession of The Court's Ruling
the subject property as it was gated and nobody would answer in spite
of the sheriffs repeated knocking. The Court agrees with the IBP BOG but modifies the penalty imposed.
A close perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Parado had no existing Estate Mortgage and the Affidavit of Conformity with the persons who
notarial commission when he notarized the documents in question in 2006. executed the said documents merely presenting their Residence Certificate or
This is supported by the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC Community Tax Certificate (CTC) before him.
stating that based on the Notarial Records, Atty. Parado had not been issued
a notarial commission for the year 2006. He failed to refute the same as he Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the
neither appeared during the mandatory conference nor filed his position paper. presentation of a competent evidence of identity, if the person appearing
before the notary public is not personally known by him. Section 12, Rule II of
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,16 a person commissioned as a the same Rules defines competent evidence of identity as: (a) at least one
notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the
jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one
commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction, who is
made. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial or personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the
the written evidence of authority.17 individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the
instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, and shows to the notary public a documentary identification.
meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that
only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It must Atty. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the
be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a said documents. Hence, the presentation of their CTCs was insufficient
private document into a public document making that document admissible in because those cannot be considered as competent evidence of identity, as
evidence without further proof of authenticity.A notarial document is by law defined in the Rules. Reliance on the CTCs alone is a punishable indiscretion
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries by the notary public.19
public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of their duties. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for two (2) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the from being commissioned as Notary Public.
court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws
particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the A.C. No. 9676, April 02, 2018
Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from
IN RE: DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A,
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO* B. DIUYAN
to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence
of a notarial commission for the said period. Further, he was dishonest when The Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) furnished the Court a copy of its
September 26, 2012 Decision1 in Case No. OMB-M-A-10-023-A (Andrea M.
he testified in court that he had a notarial commission effective until 2008, Camilo v. Raul C. Brion, Agrarian Reform Program Technologist (SG-10),
when, in truth, he had none. Atty. Parado's misdeeds run afoul of his duties Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, Mati, Davao Oriental). In the said Decision,
and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public. the Office of the Ombudsman noted, viz.:

On a final note, this Office finds it unsettling that the Deed of Partition
Moreover, even if Atty. Parado had a valid notarial commission, he still failed submitted before the DAR was notarized by Atty. Robellito B. Diuyan on 23 July
to faithfully observe the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the Real 2003, when one of the signatories therein, Alejandro F. Camilo, had earlier
died on 23 August 2001. On this matter, let a copy of this Decision be asked them if this is true and [they] answered in the positive. Then having
furnished the Supreme Court of the Philippines for its information and been satisfied of their answer I let them [sign] one by one in front of me after
appropriate action. which I notarized the same for free. [The] parties [were] personally present
and acknowledged that they [were the] same parties to the document and
In a Resolution2 dated July 24, 2013, this Court treated the September 26,
[they showed] to me their respective CTC.10
2012 Decision in OMB-M-A-10-023-A and the Deed of Partition as an
In a Report and Recommendation11 dated September 24, 2014, the IBP--
administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Robelito B. Diuyan and
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found respondent guilty of violating the
required the latter to file a comment thereon.3
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. While it found no deceit or malice on the part
of the respondent, and even considered the fact that respondent was a former
In a letter4 dated October 30, 2013, and by way of comment, respondent
public official with no previous record of misconduct, as well as the fact that
admitted notarizing the Deed of Partition in his capacity as District Public
the affiants in the subject Deed of Partition were farmers who did not have any
Attorney of the Public Attorney's Office in Mati City and all of Davao Oriental.
IDs and only had Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) to present and prove
He claimed that:
their identities, the IBP-CBD nonetheless found him grossly negligent in the
[The] signature as Notary Public in that [July 23, 2003] Deed of Partition
performance of his functions.
subject matter of the complaint was indeed mine. I was still connected with the
Public Attorney's Office as District Public Attorney at that time. I retired on
The IBP-CBD thus recommended as follows:
April 20, 2008. My function [included] the execution and/or notarization of a
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned finds respondent
document x x x.
guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and accordingly,
recommends revocation of his notarial commission, if any, for one (1) year,
1n the case at bar, eight (8) persons appeared before me with the document
effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
deed of partition prepared by them subject matter of the complaint. I asked
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.12
them one by one if the document is true and correct [and] with their
In a Resolution13 dated December 14, 2014, the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG)
Community Tax Certificates, they answered me in the affirmative and after
adopted the IBP-CBD's Report and Recommendation but increased the
being satisfied with their answer I notarized the document for free as they are
recommended penalty, to wit:
considered as indigents. Of course, they signed it one by one in front of me.5
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,
In a Resolution6 dated February 3, 2014, the Court referred the case to the
with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution
recommendation.
as Annex "A", and finding Respondent [guilty] for violation of the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice, Atty. Robellito R. Diuyan's notarial commission if presently
A mandatory conference was set on May 29, 20147 in Pasig City; however,
commissioned is immediately REVOKED. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from
respondent was unable to attend the same since he had not fully recovered
being commissioned for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of
from a debilitating stroke that he suffered in 2012; he cannot stand or walk
law for six (6) months.14
unassisted; has difficulty speaking; and only relies on his meager monthly
The case is now before us for final disposition.
pension of P12,000.00. Thus, in an Order8 dated May 29, 2014, the mandatory
conference was terminated and respondent was required to submit his Position
Paper. Issue

By way of explanation, respondent narrated in his Position Paper9 that: Whether respondent should he held administratively liable for notarizing a
x x x I have nothing to do with present [charge]. [A]s public officer[,] I [enjoy] Deed of Partition on the basis of the affiants' CTCs.
the presumption of good faith and regularity in [the discharge] of my function
as Chief Public Attorney in Mati and all in Davao Oriental x x x; there is no Our Ruling
showing that I have committed any wrong since x x x becoming a lawyer and
member of x x x the [I]ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as [during my] This Court finds nothing. irregular with respondent's act of notarizing the Deed
22 years of x x x service in [the Public Attorney's Office] and in my private life of Partition on July 23, 2003 on the basis of the affiants' CTCs. The law
x x x. applicable at the time of the notarization only required the presentation of the
CTCs.
With regard to the deed of partition x x x there is no showing that it was done
with irregularity x x x. In Mabini v. Atty. Kintanar,15 this Court dismissed the administrative complaint
filed against the lawyer therein because the lawyer complied with the notarial
On July 23, 2003 the parties in the document appeared and requested to have law extant at the time of notarizing the contested document, to wit:
their document notarized for free[. A]s Public Attorney I am bound to do so It is a truism that the duties performed by a Notary Public are not just plain
[since the affiants were indigents] I x x x then read the said document and ministerial acts. They are so impressed with public interest and dictated by
public policy. Such is the case since notarization makes a private document
into a public one; and as a public document, it enjoys full credit on its In fine, respondent did not violate any of his duties as Notary Public when he
face. However, a lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation his duties as notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003.
Notary-Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not
provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench. (Emphasis
supplied; citation omitted) Judges and Clerk of Court as Notaries Public Ex Officio
Similarly, respondent notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003,
or prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,16 of which he is
being held accountable by the IBP. However, when the Deed was notarized on
July 23, 2003, the applicable law was the notarial law under Title IV, Chapter
11, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code,17 Section 251 of which
states: [ G.R. No. 203786, October 23, 2013 ]
SECTION 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of (cedula) residence
tax. - Every contract, deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary
public shall have certified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their AQUILES RIOSA, PETITIONER, VS. TABACO LA
proper (cedula) residence certificates or are exempt from the (cedula)
residence tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a part of such SUERTE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
certification the number, place of issue, and date of each (cedula) residence
certificate as aforesaid.
In addition, Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 46518 also reiterated the need to DECISION
present a residence certificate when acknowledging documents before a notary
public, viz.: MENDOZA, J.:
Section 6. Presentation of residence certificate upon certain occasions. - When
a person liable to the taxes prescribed in this Act acknowledges any document
before a notary public, x x x it shall be the duty of such person or officer of
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
such corporation with whom such transaction is had or business done or from 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the
whom any salary or wage is received to require the exhibition of the residence
certificates showing the payment of the residence,taxes by such person: May 30, 2012 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA),
Provided, however, That the presentation of the residence certificate shall not
be required in connection with the registration of a voter. and its September 20, 2012 Resolution,[2] in CA-G.R.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
CV No. 96459, reversing the September 30, 2010
Thus, it was incorrect for the IBP to have applied the 2004 Rules on Notarial Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15,
Practice in holding respondent liable for notarizing the Deed of Partition. To
reiterate, the Deed was notarized on July 23, 2003. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Tabaco City, Albay (RTC), which granted the complaint
Practice were not yet in effect at that time.
for annulment/declaration of nullity of the deed of
Here, respondent was then the District Public Attorney in Mati, Davao Oriental
when affiants, who were indigent farmers and who did not have any personal
absolute sale and transfer certificate of title,
identification card or any other form of competent evidence save for their
CTCs,19 requested the notarization of the Deed of Partition. These eight
reconveyance and damages.
individuals who approached him presented themselves to be the affiants of the
said Deed and signed the same in respondent's presence. There was nothing
irregular on the face of the Deed that would have alerted respondent to ask The Facts
probing questions or inquire about the circumstances behind the execution of
the said instrument. On the contrary, the Deed was a valid exercise of the
farmers' right to divide the title in their favor as beneficiaries. The Ombudsman
affirmed this when it dismissed the administrative case filed against an
On February 26, 2002, petitioner Aquiles
agrarian reform officer concerning the Deed. In fact, the Ombudsman rule,d Riosa (Aquiles) filed his Complaint for
that "[t]he eventual breaking of TCT20 CLOA21 No. 454 into individual titles in
favor of the farmer-beneficiaries named in said collective CLOA is not irregular Annulment/Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute
as it is, in fact, provided by DAR22 rules and regulations."23
Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title, Reconveyance Aquiles claimed that by means of fraud,
and Damages against respondent Tabaco La Suerte misrepresentation and deceit employed by Sia Ko Pio,
Corporation (La Suerte) before the RTC. he was made to sign the document which he thought
was a receipt and undertaking to pay the loan, only to
In his complaint, Aquiles alleged that he was the owner find out later that it was a document of sale. Aquiles
and in actual possession of a 52-square meter averred that he did not appear before the notary public
commercial lot situated in Barangay Quinale, Tabaco to acknowledge the sale, and that the notary public, a
City, Albay; that he acquired the said property through municipal judge, was not authorized to notarize a deed
a deed of cession and quitclaim executed by his of conveyance. He further claimed that he could not
parents, Pablo Riosa, Sr. and Sabiniana Biron; that he have sold the commercial building on the lot as he had
declared the property in his name and had been no transmissible right over it, as it was not included in
religiously paying the realty tax on the said property; the deed of cession and quitclaim. He, thus, prayed for
that thereafter, his daughter, Annie Lyn Riosa the nullification of the deed of sale and certificate of
Zampelis, renovated the commercial building on the lot title in the name of La Suerte and the reconveyance of
and introduced improvements costing no less than the subject property to him.[4]
P300,000.00; that subsequently, on three (3)
occasions, he obtained loans from Sia Ko Pio in the In its Answer, La Suerte averred that it was the actual
total amount of P50,000.00; that as a security for the and lawful owner of the commercial property, after
payment of loans, Sia Ko Pio requested from him a purchasing it from Aquiles on December 7, 1990; that
photocopy of the deed of cession and quitclaim; that it allowed Aquiles to remain in possession of the
Sia Ko Pio presented to him a document purportedly a property to avoid the ire of his father from whom he
receipt for the P50,000.00 loan with an undertaking to had acquired the property inter vivos, subject to his
pay the total amount of P52,000.00 including the obligation to vacate the premises anytime upon
P2,000.00 attorney's fees; that without reading the demand; that on February 13, 1991, the Register of
document, he affixed his signature thereon; and that Deeds of Albay issued Transfer Certificate of
in September 2001, to his surprise, he received a letter Title (TCT) No. T-80054 covering the subject property
from La Suerte informing him that the subject lot was in its name; that Aquiles necessarily undertook the cost
already registered in its name. of repairs and did not pay rent for using the premises;
that Aquiles transacted with it, through Sia Ko Pio,
now deceased, who was then its Chief Executive 1. Ordering the annulment of sale of the subject lot
Officer; that his opinion that only the land was sold purportedly executed by plaintiff Aquiles Riosa in
was absurd because the sale of the principal included favor of defendant corporation;
2. Annulling the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
its accessories, not to mention that he did not make
80054 in the name of defendant corporation;
any reservation at the time the deed was executed; that 3. Ordering defendant corporation to pay plaintiff
it repeatedly asked Aquiles to vacate the premises but the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
to no avail; that, instead, he tried to renovate the (P20,000.00) as Attorney's fees;
building in 2001 which prompted it to lodge a 4. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount
complaint with the Office of the Mayor on the ground of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) as exemplary
that the renovation work was without a building damages; and
5. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount
permit; and that Aquiles' complaint was barred by
of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as
prescription, laches, estoppel and indefeasibility of La Attorney's fees.
Suerte's title.[5]
SO ORDERED.[6]
During the trial, Aquiles and his daughter, Anita Riosa
Cabanele, testified to prove his causes of action. To The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Aquiles that
defend its rightful claim, La Suerte presented the he was made to sign an instrument of sale without his
testimony of Juan Pielago Sia (Juan), the son of Sia Ko knowledge because he trusted Sia Ko Pio and he was of
Pio and a member of the board. Aquiles also presented the belief that what he had signed was merely an
his wife, Erlinda, as rebuttal witness. instrument of indebtedness. It cited, as legal basis,
Article 1330 of the Civil Code which provides that a
On September 30, 2010, the RTC ruled in favor of contract where the consent is given thru violence,
Aquiles, disposing as follows: intimidation, undue influence or fraud is voidable.
Inasmuch as the property was acquired thru fraud, the
person who obtained it by force of law was considered
a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the
Wherefore, foregoing premises considered, judgment
person from whom the property came. Thus,
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
according to the RTC, La Suerte was bound to reconvey
the defendant.
to Aquiles the subject property.
 plaintiff-appellee's daughter to a
With its motion for reconsideration denied, La Suerte reimbursement for the renovation works
appealed to the CA. In its May 30, 2012 Decision, the she made on the structure/building on the
lot; and
CA reversed the RTC decision and upheld the validity
of the subject deed of sale in favor of La Suerte. It 2. GRANTING defendant-appellant's counterclaim
declared La Suerte as the lawful owner of the subject although in the reduced amount of
lot and improvements thereon, subject to the right of P100,000.00.
reimbursement for the renovation expenses. The CA
held that tax declarations or realty tax payments by SO ORDERED.[8]
Aquiles were not conclusive evidence of ownership,
citing Spouses Camara v. Spouses Malabao,[7] where it Aquiles filed his Motion for Reconsideration[9] of the
was ruled that a party's declaration of real property CA decision, but the same was denied by the CA in its
and his payment of realty taxes could not defeat a September 20, 2012 Resolution.
certificate of title which was an absolute and
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in Hence, Aquiles filed the present petition before this
favor of the person whose name appeared thereon. Court raising the following
The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

ISSUES
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
appeal is GRANTED. The September 30, 2010 1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City, committed serious error in reversing the decision of
Albay, Branch 15, is REVERSED and SET the Trial Court disregarding the conclusion and
ASIDE and a new one is rendered: findings of the Trial court;

2. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals

1. DISMISSING the complaint for annulment of
deed of sale and transfer certificate of committed serious error of law in holding that the
title, without prejudice to the right of personal loan of petitioner obtained and granted by Sia
Ko Pio is a consideration of sale of the property in Ko Pio came from La Suerte; and (4) he did not appear
favor of the respondent corporation La Suerte before the notary public for notarization of the
Corporation; instrument of sale. Moreover, there was a discrepancy
in the date appearing in the deed of sale and the date in
3. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in the acknowledgment and the notarial reference.
finding that there was a valid and perfected contract of
sale of real property between petitioner and La Suerte, in its Comment,[11] argued that Aquiles'
respondent corporation La Suerte Corporation; petition should be dismissed because it raised only
questions of fact as only pure question of law is allowed
4. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. It counters
committed serious error of law and applicable that the notarized deed of sale was the very evidence of
jurisprudence in resolving petitioner's actual physical the agreement between them. According to it, said
possession of the property in question; and deed of sale was binding and enforceable between
them, albeit there was a discrepancy in the dates, for
5. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals committed the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of
serious error of law by awarding damages to the sale of real estate produces legal effect between the
respondent.[10] parties. La Suerte adds that the absence of a board
resolution for the purchase of the property has no
controlling consequence as La Suerte had ratified the
The primordial issue to be resolved is whether there
act of Sia Ko Pio.
was a perfected and valid contract of sale for the
subject property between Aquiles and La Suerte,
through its Chief Executive Officer, Sia Ko Pio.
The Court's Ruling
Aquiles argues that there was no perfected contract to
sell because (1) there was no transaction between La
Notably, the issues raised in the petition are factual in
Suerte and Aquiles for the sale of the property in
nature. Essentially, Aquiles asks the Court to review
question; (2) there was no board resolution authorizing
the factual determination of the CA. As a rule, only
Sia Ko Pio to purchase the property; (3) there was no
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
evidence that the money received by Aquiles from Sia
on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts Nevertheless, We rule that the subject deed of sale is
and is not to review or calibrate the evidence on valid. We are not convinced of [Aquiles'] bare assertion
record.[12] When supported by substantial evidence, that the said document was executed through fraud,
the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive and misrepresentation or deceit, and that his wife's
binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this signature thereon was forged. The rule is that for an
Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the
exceptions.[13] An acceptable exception is where there party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and
is a conflict between the factual determination of the convincing evidence his title to the property and the
trial court and that of the appellate court. In such a fact of fraud. It must be stressed that mere allegations
case, it becomes imperative to digress from this general of fraud are not enough. Intentional acts to deceive and
rule and revisit the factual circumstances surrounding deprive another of his right, or in some manner, injure
the controversy.[14] him, must be specifically alleged and proved.[15]

In this case, although the RTC and the CA were one in

After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary
ruling that the prescriptive period of reconveyance did
records, the Court holds otherwise.
not run against Aquiles because he remained in
possession of the subject property, they differred in
The Court agrees with the finding of the RTC that there
their findings of fact and conclusions on the question
was no perfected contract of sale. It is a hornbook
of whether there was a perfected and valid contract of
doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are
sale.
entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because
The RTC annulled the sale of the subject properties on
the trial court is in a better position to examine the
the ground of fraud as Aquiles was made to sign an
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[16]
instrument which he believed to be a receipt of
indebtedness. On the contrary, the CA ruled that the
The elements of a contract of sale are: a] consent or
contract of sale was valid. The CA wrote:
meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer
ownership in exchange for the price; b] determinate
subject matter; and c] price certain in money or its
equivalent.[17]
 rebut his consistent claim that he was not aware that
In this case, there was no clear and convincing what he had signed was already an instrument of sale,
evidence that Aquiles definitely sold the subject considering his trust and confidence on Sia Ko Pio who
was his long-time friend and former employer.
property to La Suerte, nor was there evidence that La
Suerte authorized its chief executive officer, Sia Ko Pio, The fact that the alleged deed of sale indubitably bore
to negotiate and conclude a purchase of the property. Aquiles' signature deserves no evidentiary value there
Aquiles' narration in open court is clear that he did not being no consent from him to part with his property.
intend to transfer ownership of his property. Had he known that the document presented to him
was an instrument of sale, he would not have affixed
Evidently, it was a series of transactions between his signature on the document. It has been held that
Aquiles and Sia Po Ko, but not between the parties. the existence of a signed document purporting to be a
The transactions were between Aquiles, as borrower, contract of sale does not preclude a finding that the
and Sia Ko Pio, as lender. It was not a sale between contract is invalid when the evidence shows that there
Aquiles, as vendor, and La Suerte, as vendee. There was no meeting of the minds between the seller and
was no agreement between the parties. As the first buyer.[19]
element was wanting, Aquiles correctly argued that
there was no contract of sale. Under Article 1475 of the Indeed, if Aquiles sold the property in favor of La
Civil Code, the contract of sale is perfected at the Suerte, he would not have religiously and
moment there is a meeting of minds on the thing which continuously paid the real property taxes. Also of
is the object of the contract and on the price. note is the fact that his daughter spent
P300,000.00 for the renovation of
Aquiles acknowledged that he signed the receipt for the improvements. More important, La Suerte did not
total loan amount of P50,000.00 plus P2,000.00 as earlier ask him to transfer the possession
attorney's fees. There is, however, no proof that it thereof to the company. These uncontroverted
came from La Suerte as the consideration of the sale. attendant circumstances bolster Aquiles' positive
Accordingly, there is no basis for a holding that the testimony that he did not sell the property.
personal loan of Aquiles from Sia Ko Pio was the
consideration for the sale of his property in favor of La And for said reasons, the CA should not have favorably
Suerte. considered the validity of the deed of absolute sale
absent any written authority from La Suerte's board of
As to La Suerte's contention that a deed of absolute directors for Sia Ko Pio to negotiate and purchase
sale was purportedly executed by Aquiles in its favor, it Aquiles property on its behalf and to use its money to
failed to adduce convincing evidence to effectively
pay the purchase price. The Court notes that when Sia lawful business of the corporation may reasonably and
Ko Pio's son, Juan was presented as an officer of La necessarily require, subject to the limitations
Suerte, he admitted that he could not find in the prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
records of the corporation any board resolution
authorizing his father to purchase the disputed xxxx
property.[20] In Spouses Firme v. Bukal Enterprises Under these provisions, the power to purchase
and Development Corporation,[21] it was written: real property is vested in the board of directors
or trustees. While a corporation may appoint agents
to negotiate for the purchase of real property needed
It is the board of directors or trustees which exercises by the corporation, the final say will have to be with the
almost all the corporate powers in a corporation. Thus, board, whose approval will finalize the transaction. A
the Corporation Code provides: corporation can only exercise its powers and transact
its business through its board of directors and through
SEC. 23. The board of directors or trustees. Unless its officers and agents when authorized by a board
otherwise provided in this Code, the corporate powers resolution or its by-laws. As held in AF Realty &
of all corporations formed under this Code shall be Development, Inc. v. Dieselman Freight Services, Co.:
exercised, all business conducted and all property of
such corporations controlled and held by the board of Section 23 of the Corporation Code expressly provides
directors or trustees to be elected from among the that the corporate powers of all corporations shall be
holders of stock, or where there is no stock, from exercised by the board of directors. Just as a natural
among the members of the corporation, who shall hold person may authorize another to do certain acts in his
office for one (1) year and until their successors are behalf, so may the board of directors of a corporation
elected and qualified. x x x validly delegate some of its functions to individual
officers or agents appointed by it. Thus, contracts or
SEC. 36. Corporate powers and capacity. Every acts of a corporation must be made either by the board
corporation incorporated under this Code has the of directors or by a corporate agent duly authorized by
power and capacity: the board. Absent such valid
delegation/authorization, the rule is that the
x x x x declarations of an individual director relating
to the affairs of the corporation, but not in the
7. To purchase, receive, take or grant, hold, convey, course of, or connected with, the performance
sell, lease, pledge, mortgage and otherwise deal with of authorized duties of such director, are held
such real and personal property, including securities
and bonds of other corporations, as the transaction of a
not binding on the corporation.[22] [Emphases
supplied] The document was dated 1999, but the date in the
acknowledgment and notarial reference was an earlier
In the case at bench, Sia Ko Pio, although an officer of date, 1990. The ex-oficio notary public, Judge Base,
La Suerte, had no authority from its Board of Directors was not presented to explain the apparent material
to enter into a contract of sale of Aquiles' property. It discrepancy of the dates appearing on the questioned
is, thus, clear that the loan obtained by Aquiles from document. This only confirms the claim of Aquiles that
Sia Ko Pio was a personal loan from the latter, not a he signed the receipt representing his loan at the
transaction between Aquiles and La Suerte. There was bodega of Sia Ko Pio sometime in 1990, and not at the
no evidence to show that Sia Ko Pio was clothed with office of Judge Base in 1999.
authority to use his personal fund for the benefit of La
Suerte. Evidently, La Suerte was never in the picture. La Suerte insists that the discrepancy on the dates was
a mere clerical error that did not invalidate the deed of
The CA also failed to consider the glaring material sale. It is worthy to stress that a notarial document is
discrepancies on the dates appearing in the purported evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner
deed of absolute sale notarized by Judge Arsenio Base, therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption
Municipal Court Presiding Judge of Tabaco City (Judge of regularity. While it is true that an error in the
Base). notarial inscription does not generally invalidate a sale,
if indeed it took place, the same error can only mean
An examination of the alleged contract of sale shows that the document cannot be treated as a notarial
three (3) dates: document and thus, not entitled to the presumption of
regularity. The document would be taken out of the
realm of public documents whose genuineness and due
execution need not be proved.[23]
1. In witness whereof, I have hereunto affixed my
signature this 8th day of December 1999 in An even more substantial irregularity raised by Aquiles
Tabaco, Albay, Philippines; pertains to the capacity of the notary public, Judge
2. Before me, this 7th day of December, 1990 in Base, to notarize the deed of sale. Judge Base, who
Tabaco, Albay; and acted as ex-oficio notary public, is not allowed under
3. Doc. No. 587; the law to notarize documents not connected with the
Page No. 12; exercise of his official duties. The case of Tigno v.
Book No. 4; Aquino[24] is enlightening:
Series of 1990.
There are possible grounds for leniency in connection the deed of sale would not invalidate the transaction
with this matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 evidenced therein,[26] yet an irregular notarization
permits notaries public ex officio to perform any act reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that of a
within the competency of a regular notary public private document, which requires proof of its due
provided that certification be made in the notarized execution and authenticity to be admissible as
documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary evidence.[27]
public in such municipality or circuit. Indeed, it is only
when there are no lawyers or notaries public that the It should be noted that the deed of sale was offered in
exception applies. The facts of this case do not warrant evidence as authentic by La Suerte, hence, the burden
a relaxed attitude towards Judge Cariño's improper was upon it to prove its authenticity and due
notarial activity. There was no such certification in the execution. La Suerte unfortunately failed to discharge
Deed of Sale. Even if one was produced, we would be this burden. Accordingly, the preponderance of
hard put to accept the veracity of its contents, evidence is in favor of Aquiles.
considering that Alaminos, Pangasinan, now a city, was
even then not an isolated backwater town and had its In fine, considering the irregularities or defects in the
fair share of practicing lawyers.[25] execution and notarization of the deed of sale, the
Court finds Itself unable to stamp its seal of approval
In this case, no such certification was attached to the on it. The RTC was correct in ordering its annulment.
alleged notarized document. Also, the Court takes note
of Aquiles' averment that there were several lawyers WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The May
commissioned as notary public in Tabaco City. With 30, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
Judge Base not being authorized to notarize a deed of CV No. 96459 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
conveyance, the notarized document cannot be September 30, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial
considered a valid registrable document in favor of La Court, Branch 15, Tabaco City, Albay, is
Suerte. REINSTATED.

Moreover, Aquiles' wife, Erlinda, who appeared to have REX M. TUPAL, vs. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO,
affixed her signature as a witness to the purported Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
document of sale, categorically stated that she never Bacolod City, Negros Occidental,
signed such an instrument and never appeared before
a notary public. A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842

February 24, 2014

Although it is true that the absence of notarization of
 wife for at least 5 years and the absence of any legal impediment to
marry each other. The judge must also execute a sworn statement that
he personally ascertained the parties’ qualifications to marry and found
FACTS: no legal impediment to the marriage.

Rex M. Tupal filed a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo for Remedial Law / Legal Ethics – Notarial Practice
violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the
Mathaeus vs. Spouses Medequiso (GR No.196651,
law. Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without the required
marriage license. He instead notarized affidavits of cohabitation and
February 03, 2016)
issued them to the contracting parties.
Ponente:

Justice Del Castillo

ISSUE:
Doctrine:
WON Judge Rojo is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Clerks of court are notaries public ex-officio, and may thus
notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the
HELD: matter is related to the exercise of their official
functions. Clerks of court should not, in their ex-officio
YES. Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must capacity, take part in the execution of private documents
personally interview the contracting parties and examine the bearing no relation at all to their official functions.
requirements they submitted. The parties must have complied with all
the essential and formal requisites of marriage. Among these formal Facts:
requisites is a marriage license. A marriage license is issued by the
local civil registrar to parties who have all the qualifications and none The Tagbilaran MTCC rendered a decision ordering petitioner
of the legal disqualifications to contract marriage. Before performing to pay respondents P30,000. Petitioner interposed an appeal
the marriage ceremony, the judge must personally examine the before the RTC of Bohol. The RTC affirmed the decision of
marriage license presented. If the contracting parties have cohabited as the MTCC. Petitioner moved to reconsider but the RTC upheld
husband and wife for at least 5 years and have no legal impediment to its judgment. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the
marry, they are exempt from the marriage license requirement. Instead, CA however it was dismissed by the court. The Court of
the parties must present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to before Appeals ratiocinated that the Verification and Certification on
any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The judge, as Non-Forum Shopping was sworn to not before a notary public
solemnizing officer, must personally examine the affidavit of but before a clerk of court ergo considered as improperly
cohabitation as to the parties having lived together as husband and verified and treated as unsigned and dismissible.
Issues: “Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the
 Whether or not clerks of court are at liberty to notarize RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may
complaints, answers, petitions, or any other pleadings file a verified petition for review with the CA, submitting
on a daily or regular basis; together with the petition a certification on non-forum
 Whether or not such action would lead to the dismissal shopping. Under Section 3 of the same Rule, “[t]he failure of
of the case; the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other
Held: lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the
petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
 No, they cannot. The Honorable Supreme Court stated accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
that: dismissal thereof” Specifically with respect to certifications
against forum-shopping, we have repeatedly held that “non-
“Clerks of Court are notaries public ex-officio, and may thus compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification,
notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or
matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. x correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on
x x [C]lerks of court should not, in their ex-officio capacity, the ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of ‘special
take part in the execution of private documents bearing no circumstances or compelling reasons.”‘ Taking the foregoing
relation at all to their official functions. We are not prepared circumstances and considerations to mind, the Court is not
to rule in petitioner’s favor on this score; as it is, the workload inclined to relax the rules for the petitioner’s benefit; it
of a clerk of court is already heavy enough. We cannot add to perceives no compelling reasons or circumstances to rule in his
this the function of notarizing complaints, answers, petitions, favor. Quite the contrary, the CA pronouncement ordering the
or any other pleadings on a daily or regular basis; such a dismissal of his Petition for Review is just, and thus should
responsibility can very well be relegated to commissioned stand.”
notaries public. Besides, if the practice – specifically the
notarization by clerks of court of pleadings filed in cases Notarization and Legal Representation
pending before their own salas or courts – is allowed,
unpleasant consequences might ensue; it could be subject to MALABED VS DELA PENA
abuse, and it distracts the clerks of court’s attention from the FACTS:
true and essential work they perform.”
An administrative case was filed against Atty. Dela Pena for dishonesty
 Yes, it would lead to the dismissal of the case. The grave misconduct. Complainant alleged the following: 1) That respondent
misrepresented submitting a certificate to file action when there was none; 2)
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that:
That respondent did not furnish complainant’s counsel with a copy of OCT
No. 1730 and that such title was fabricated by said respondent; 3) That
respondent is guilty of conflict of interest for notarizing a deed of donation artifice.
executed by complainant’s family and eventually representing became a
counsel for the opposing parties in a case where complainant’s family is Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
involved; 4) That respondent connived with RTC Judge Asis to rule in his contents of a paper, x x x.
client’s favor; and 5) That respondent’s violation of prohibition in employment
in a government office after his dismissal as judge.
 Failure to furnish opposing counsel with copy of title
The IBP Commissioner noted the foul language used by respondent in his
pleadings submitted before the IBP. The Commissioner found the With regard to respondent's alleged act of not furnishing complainant's
respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and recommended his counsel with a copy of the free patent title, we find that it does not constitute
suspension for 1 year. dishonesty.

 Conflict of interest

ISSUE: Notarization is different from representation. A notary public simply performs

the notarial acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely,
WON Respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurat, signature witnessing, and
copy certifications. Legal representation, on the other hand, refers to the act
of assisting a party as counsel in a court action.
HELD:
 Violation of prohibition on reemployment in government office
Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
The prohibition on reemployment does not distinguish between permanent
and temporary appointments. Hence, that his designation was only
 Using of foul language in pleadings
temporary does not absolve him from liability.
For using improper language in his pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01
The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Dela Pena for 2 years.
of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states:

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language Object of Pleadings
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Catungal vs Rodriguez
 Non-submission of certificate to file action
Facts:
Respondent misrepresented that he filed a certificate to file action when
there was none, which act violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.02 of
Agapita T. Catungal (Agapita) owned a parcel of land (Lot 10963) situated
the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
in the Barrio of Talamban, Cebu City. Agapita, with the consent of her
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT. husband Jose, entered into a Contract to Sell[6] with respondent Rodriguez

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of which subsequently purportedly “upgraded” into a Conditional Deed of
any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
Sale.Both the Contract to Sell and the Conditional Deed of Sale were Rodirguez filed a complaint against the Catungal’s for arbitrarily rescinding

annotated on the title. the contract. In a Decision dated May 30, 1992, the trial court ruled in favor

of Rodriguez, finding that: (a) under the contract it was complainant

(Rodriguez) that had the option to rescind the sale; (b) Rodriguez’s
The provisions of the Conditional Deed of Sale pertinent to the present obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price arises only upon
dispute are quoted below: successful negotiation of the road right of way; (c) he proved his diligent

efforts to negotiate the road right of way; (d) the spouses Catungal were

guilty of misrepresentation which defeated Rodriguez’s efforts to acquire the

1.price 25 Million pesos
road right of way; and (e) the Catungals’ rescission of the contract had no
2. downpayment 500 Thousand
basis and was in bad faith.
3. balance shall be paid after the VENDEE have successfully negotiated,
secured and provided a Road Right of Way . If however said Road Right of
During the pendency of the case with the Court of Appeals, Agapita
Way could not be negotiated, the VENDEE shall give notice to the
VENDOR for them to reassess and solve the problem by taking other options Catungal passed away and thus, her husband, Jose, filed on February 17,
and should the situation ultimately prove futile, he shall take steps to rescind
or cancel the herein Conditional Deed of Sale. 1999 a motion for Agapita’s substitution by her surviving children.[46]

He likewise alleged that he actively negotiated for the road right of way as
stipulated in the contract.[9]
The Catungals alleged that the conditional deed of sale was void ab initio

because it violates the mutuality of contract in view of Article 1308 ncc.

On August 31, 1990 the spouses Catungal requested an advance Petitioners rely on Article 1308 of the Civil Code to support their

of P5,000,000.00 on the purchase price for personal reasons. Rodriquez conclusion regarding the claimed nullity of the aforementioned provisions.

allegedly refused on the ground that the amount was substantial and was not Article 1308 states that “[t]he contract must bind both contracting parties; its

due under the terms of their agreement. The Catungal’s rescinded the validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.”

contract.
 Article 1182 of the Civil Code, in turn, provides: with the sale or to waive the condition. This principle is evident in Article

1545 of the Civil Code on sales, which provides in part:

Art. 1182. When the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the
sole will of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void. If it depends
upon chance or upon the will of a third person, the obligation shall take effect Art. 1545. Where the obligation of either party to a contract
in conformity with the provisions of this Code. of sale is subject to any condition which is not performed, such party
may refuse to proceed with the contract or he may waive performance of
the condition x x x.

Issue Paragraph 1(b) of the Conditional Deed of Sale, stating that

respondent shall pay the balance of the purchase price when he has
W/N Conditional Deed of Sale violate the principle of mutuality of
successfully negotiated and secured a road right of way, is not a condition on
contracts under Article 1308 of the Civil Code?
the perfection of the contract nor on the validity of the entire contract or its

compliance as contemplated in Article 1308. It is a condition imposed only

. on respondent’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price. In our

view and applying Article 1182, such a condition is not purely potestative as
Held:
petitioners contend. It is not dependent on the sole will of the debtor but also

on the will of third persons who own the adjacent land and from whom the

road right of way shall be negotiated.

No. In the past, this Court has distinguished between a condition imposed on

the perfection of a contract and a condition imposed merely on the

performance of an obligation. While failure to comply with the first

The condition is a mixed condition which is allowed by Article 1182.
condition results in the failure of a contract, failure to comply with the

second merely gives the other party the option to either refuse to proceed
 "potestative condition" is imposed not on the birth of the obligation
but on its fulfillment, only the condition is avoided, leaving unaffected the the choice either (a) to not proceed with the sale and demand return of his
obligation itself.
downpayment or (b) considering that the condition was imposed for his

benefit, to waive the condition and still pay the purchase price despite the

lack of road access. This is the most just interpretation of the parties’

contract that gives effect to all its provisions.

With respect to petitioners’ argument that paragraph 5 of the

Conditional Deed of Sale likewise rendered the said contract void, we find no
In any event, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the
merit to this theory.
grant to Rodriguez of an option to rescind, in the manner provided for in the

contract, is tantamount to a potestative condition, not being a condition

affecting the perfection of the contract, only the said condition would be

considered void and the rest of the contract will remain valid.

Reading paragraph 5 in its entirety will show that Rodriguez’s option

to rescind the contract is not absolute as it undeniably only limited to the

contingency that Rodriguez shall not be able to secure the road right of WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 8, 2000 and

way. . the Resolution dated January 30, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

CV No. 40627 consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 27565 are AFFIRMED

with the following MODIFICATION:

In sum, Rodriguez’s option to rescind the contract is not purely

potestative but rather also subject to the same mixed condition as his

obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price – i.e., the negotiation of a

road right of way. In the event the condition is fulfilled (or the negotiation is If still warranted, respondent Angel S. Rodriguez is given a period of

successful), Rodriguez must pay the balance of the purchase price. In the thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision to negotiate a road right of
event the condition is not fulfilled (or the negotiation fails), Rodriguez has
way. In the event no road right of way is secured by respondent at the end of

said period, the parties shall reassess and discuss other options as stipulated

in paragraph 1(b) of the Conditional Deed of Sale and, for this purpose, they

are given a period of thirty (30) days to agree on a course of action. Should

the discussions of the parties prove futile after the said thirty (30)-day period,

immediately upon the expiration of said period for discussion, Rodriguez

may (a) exercise his option to rescind the contract, subject to the return of his

downpayment, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1(b) and 5 of

the Conditional Deed of Sale or (b) waive the road right of way and pay the

balance of the deducted purchase price as determined in the RTC Decision

dated May 30, 1992.

Formal Requirements, Procedural Rules and Technicalities