FACTS:
1. Complainant Atty. Miniano B. Dela Cruz charged
respondent, Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala, for violating his oath as a notary
public. Complainant further alleged that respondent notarized with unknown
witnesses, a fake deed of sale allegedly executed by two dead people, in gross
violation of his oath as a Commissioned Notary Public in Quezon City.
2. Complainant averred that he was retained by a certain
Demetrio C. Marero to finance and undertake the filing of a Petition for the
Issuance of a Second Duplicate Original of the Owners copy OCT in the names of
Sps. Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. However, complainant was not able to
register the property because the property was already registered in the name
of Antipolo Properties, Inc.,
3. Mr. Marero filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Title
of the land, subject of the Deed of Sale which was notarized by respondent,
with damages against the complainant and his wife. The Deed of Sale was the
same document Marero used when he filed a complaint for Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Document and in a disbarment case against complainant.
4. Purportedly, to clear his name, complainant filed this
complaint for disbarment against respondent. According to complainant,
respondent notarized an irregular document where one of the parties to the
transaction was already dead, grossly violating his oath as a notary public.
5. Respondent, in his Answer alleged that as a notary, he
did not have to go beyond the documents presented to him for notarization. In
notarial law, he explains, the minimum requirements to notarize a document are
the presence of the parties and their presentation of their community tax
certificate. As long as these requirements are met, the documents may be
notarized. Furthermore, he adds, when he notarized the Deed of Sale, he had no
way of knowing whether the persons who appeared before him were the real owners
of the land or were merely poseurs.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Zabala was violated the Notarial Law?
RULING:
Yes. It appears that there was negligence on respondents part which, in our
view, is quite serious. Thus, we cannot conclude that he did not violate the
Notarial Law, and our rules regarding Notarial Practice. Nor could we agree
that, as recommended by the IBP, he should only be reprimanded. At least his
commission as Notary Public should be revoked and for two years he should be
disqualified from being commissioned as such.
The
IBP noted that on its face, the Deed of Sale was not executed by the purported
vendee and that only Pedro Sumulong appeared and executed the deed even though
the property was co-owned by Pedro Sumulong and Cirila Tapales. In addition, a
copy of the title was not attached to the said Deed of Sale when it was
presented for notarization. The aforementioned circumstances should have
alerted respondent. Given the ease with which community tax certificates are
obtained these days, respondent should have been more vigilant in ascertaining
the identity of the persons who appeared before him.
Notarization
is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive
public interest. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary
public converts a private document into a public document, making that document
admissible in 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 performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of
the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined
No comments:
Post a Comment