SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 4751. July 31, 2000]
EMELITA
SOLARTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. TEOFILO F. PUGEDA, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is an administrative charge for
gross misconduct, filed by complainant Emelita Solarte against a member of the
bar, respondent Atty. Teofilo F. Pugeda. Respondent was a municipal judge in
the 1960s when, as notary public ex officio, he allegedly notarized
certain documents involving the sale of land situated in Cavite, particularly
two deeds of sale dated circa 1964 and 1967 involving parcels of land located
at General Trias.
The lots belonged to Catalino Nocon, and was
the subject of an extrajudicial partition made by Catalino and his children.
One of the children, Herminia, was not a signatory thereto because she was
still a minor at that time.
Complainant claimed an interest in the lots
sold because she was a descendant of the original owner, Catalino Nocon.
Complainant’s paternal grandfather, Felimon, was one of Catalino’s children.
Some 30 years after the sale thereof, or in mid-1990s complainant requested
respondent for copies of the aforesaid deeds of sale. She suspected them to be
spurious and wanted to have them examined by the NBI. Unable to obtain copies from
respondent, she went to Herminia Nocon, another child of Catalino, who did not
give her copies but allowed her to look at the documents. Complainant recorded
the contents of the document on video and retyped the contents.
Complainant avers that respondent Pugeda
could not have legally notarized a document to which he also acted as witness.
She also cites as irregular or anomalous the absence of the vendee’s signature
in one of the deeds of sale. Complainant claims that respondent and his wife
are in fact administering the property at General Trias and they were
responsible for the wrongful partition of the property belonging to
complainant’s kin. According to complainant, the acts of respondent constitute
gross misconduct.
Complainant alleges in particular that
respondent participated in the fraudulent partition and sale of the property of
Catalino. She discovered the fraud only recently according to her, when she
sought the titling of his father’s portion of the property. She now assails the
validity of the partition made by Catalino and his children – particularly
since Herminia was not a signatory thereto and the deeds of sale pertaining to
the property.
In his comment, respondent countered that,
first, he was no longer under any obligation to provide petitioner with the
documents she was asking for because he is no longer a notary public ex
officio. He says he was willing to look for the documents he notarized some
30 years ago, but petitioner was impatient and had left for the United States
of America before he could find the documents.
Second, respondent says there is nothing in
the law that prohibits the notary public from signing as witness the same
documents he notarized.
Third, as municipal judge, he avers he was
empowered to notarize documents under the Judiciary Act of 1948 and the Revised
Administrative Code. The documents in question were notarized in the 1960s.
According to respondent, this was before the Supreme Court declared in 1980,[1] that an ex officio notary public can only
notarize documents if such notarization is in connection with the exercise of
his official functions and duties.
Fourth, respondent denies that he or his
wife was responsible for the partition of the lot subject of the deeds of sale,
so neither of them can be faulted therefor.
Attached to respondent’s comment are copies
of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch 1, in Civil
Case No. TM-273, and of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
49757-R. Both decisions upheld the validity of the partition and the deeds of
sale.
The complaint, together with respondent’s
comment, was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP recommends that the charge be dismissed, thus:
"It appears
that complainant was not a party to the documents which respondent notarized
and witnessed. The respondent cannot be faulted for failure of the National
archives to provide complainant with copies of the requested documents. Nowhere
in the records is it shown that respondent and his wife had a hand in the
partition and sale of the properties. Further, there is no prohibition for a
notary public to witness a document which he ratified nor for his wife to sign
as witness."[2]
We agree with the foregoing recommendation
of the IBP.
Nothing in the law prohibits a notary public
from acting at the same time as witness in the document he notarized.[3] The only exception is when the document to be
notarized is a will.[4]
Complainant offered no proof, but only mere
allegations, that (1) respondent was involved in the partition of the subject
property, and that (2) respondent employed fraud to effect such partition. Such
a grave charge against a member of the bar and former municipal judge needs
concrete substantiation to gain credence. It could not prosper without adequate
proof.
We note with dismay complainant’s effort to
mislead this Court when she claimed in her petition that she discovered the
fraudulent partition of the property only recently. For the records show that
on June 7, 1967, Purificacion Alfaro, petitioner’s paternal grandmother, along
with her children, had filed an action for partition and annulment of document
before the Court of First Instance of Cavite.[5] Purificacion and her co-plaintiffs lost their case
in the trial court and again in the Court of Appeals, which rendered its
decision on July 31, 1979.[6] Complainant was not unaware of that case.[7] In fact, she was wondering why respondent also knew
of the case when he was merely the notary public who notarized the documents.
Ultimately, what complainant wants is to
annul the partition and the sale of the subject property. However, both matters
were already brought before and upheld by the courts as far back as 1979. After
the lapse of more than 20 years, without any appeal having been interposed, the
judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 49757-R upholding the validity
of the partition and the deeds of sale has already attained finality.
Complainant cannot now resurrect issues involved in said case. This
administrative charge against respondent lawyer, who as municipal judge
notarized the documents involved, is utterly without merit.
WHEREFORE, as recommended, the instant complaint is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman), on official leave.