FACTS: On 17 November
1997, Rodolfo Espinosa and his wife Elena Marantal sought Omana’s legal advice
on whether they could dissolve their marriage and live separately. Omana
prepared a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” Espinosa and Marantal
started implanting the conditions of the said contract. However, Marantal took
custody of all their children and took possession of most of the conjugal
property. Espinosa sought the advice of Glindo, his fellow employee who is a
law graduate, who informed him that the contract executed by Omana was not
valid. They hired the services of a lawyer to file a complaint against Omana
before the IBP-CBD. Omana denied that she prepared the contract. She admitted
that Espinosa went to see her and requested for the notarization of the
contract but she told him that it was illegal. Omana alleged that Espinosa
returned the next day while she was out of the office and managed to persuade
her part-time office staff to notarize the document. Her office staff forged
her signature and notarized the contract.
ISSUE: W/N Omaña
violated the CPR in notartizing the “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay.” W/N the
Kasunduaan ng Paghihiwalay is valid.
HELD: SC has ruled
that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial
approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should not
facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment