SECOND
DIVISION
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES A.C. No. 6270
LUCAS and FRANCISCA VILLANUEVA,
Complainants, Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
ATTY. SALUD P. BERADIO, Promulgated:
Respondent. January 22, 2007
x - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a
disbarment case against Atty. Salud P. Beradio (respondent), filed by the heirs of the late
spouses Lucas and Francisca Villanueva (spouses Villanueva), namely: Ardenio M. Fonacier, Araceli M. Fonacier, Alano M. Fonacier, Eusebio M. Fonacier, Jr., Rolando
V. Nazarro, Alejandro V. Nazarro,
Margarita V. Collado, Felisa
Collado, and Herminigildo Ylhi (complainants).
The Facts
During their
lifetime, the spouses Villanueva acquired several parcels of land in Pangasinan, one of which was covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2522. Francisca died in 1968, and Lucas in 1974.
Their five children, namely, Simeona, Susana, Maria,
Alfonso, and Florencia, survived them.
On
Contrary to
the misrepresentations of Alfonso, his sister Florencia
was still alive at the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication and the
deed of sale, as were descendants of the other children of the spouses
Villanueva. Complainants claimed that respondent was aware of this fact, as
respondent had been their neighbor in Balungao, Pangasinan, from the time of their birth, and respondent
constantly mingled with their family. Complainants accused respondent of
knowing the “true facts and surrounding circumstances” regarding the properties
of the spouses Villanueva, yet conspiring with Alfonso to deprive his co-heirs
of their rightful shares in the property.
In a
resolution dated
In her
Comment,[3] respondent admitted that
she notarized the affidavit of adjudication and the deed of sale executed by
Alfonso in 1984. However, respondent denied that she conspired with Alfonso to
dispose of fraudulently the property. Respondent alleged that Alfonso executed
the two documents under the following circumstances:
That the properties of the late spouses [Villanueva] have
been divided equally among their compulsory heirs, but said old couple left for
themselves one titled lot, the subject now of the complaint x x x That said titled property was
the only property left by the old couple, to answer for their needs while they
are still alive until their deaths x x x. Alfonso [and his wife] were tasked to take care of
the old couple, as they were the ones living in the same compound with their
late parents. This fact was and is known by the other compulsory heirs, and
they never questioned the said act of their parents, as they already had their
own share on the estate of the late [spouses Villanueva]. This fact was also
known to me because [Lucas] and [Alfonso] lived across the street from our
house and I was requested to the house of the old man when he gave said title
to [Alfonso and Tomasa, his wife]. The other
compulsory heirs who were still alive at the time just made visits to their
parents and never stayed in their old house to help in the care of their
parents. Even [when] the parents died,
it was [Alfonso and his wife] who took charge of the funeral and all other acts
relative thereto.
x x x
x
That said title remain[ed] in the custody of [Alfonso]
and after the death of the old man, when the spouses Alfonso [and Tomasa] needed money to finance the schooling of their
children, it was then that they thought of disposing the land x x x and said land was sold by
them to one Adriano Villanueva of which in both documents, I notarized the same
(sic).
x x x
x
I can say with all clean and good intentions, that if
ever I notarized said documents, it was done in good faith, to do my job as
expected of me, to help, assist and to guide people who come to me for legal
assistance, as contained in my oath as a lawyer when I passed the bar. x x x[4] (Emphasis supplied)
According to
respondent, the fact that none of Alfonso’s co-heirs filed their objections at
the time he executed the affidavit of adjudication proved that most of the
properties of the spouses Villanueva had earlier been distributed to the other
heirs. It also proved that the heirs had agreed to abide by the intention of
the spouses Villanueva to leave the property to Alfonso. Respondent asserted
that “the personal appearances and acknowledgment by the party to the document
are the core of the ritual that effectively convert a private document into a
public document x x x.”
On
The IBP’s Findings
In his Report
dated
The Court’s Ruling
We sustain
partly the IBP’s findings and recommendations.
A notary public is empowered to perform a variety of notarial acts, most common of which are the acknowledgment and affirmation of a document or instrument. In the performance of such notarial acts, the notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal as affixed on a document. The notarial seal converts the document from private to public, after which it may be presented as evidence without need for proof of its genuineness and due execution.[5] Thus, notarization should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act.[6] As early as Panganiban v. Borromeo,[7] we held that notaries public must inform themselves of the facts to which they intend to certify and to take no part in illegal transactions. They must guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements.[8]
On its face,
Alfonso’s affidavit does not appear to contain any “illegal or immoral”
declaration. However, respondent herself admitted that she knew of the falsity
of Alfonso’s statement that he was the “sole heir” of the spouses Villanueva.
Respondent therefore notarized a document while fully aware that it contained a
material falsehood, i.e., Alfonso’s assertion of status as sole heir.
The affidavit of adjudication is premised on this very assertion. By this
instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his parents’ estate all to himself, to
the exclusion of his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, respondent notarized the
deed of sale, knowing that the deed took basis from the unlawful affidavit of
adjudication.
Respondent
never disputed complainants’ allegation of her close relationship with the
Villanueva family spanning several decades. Respondent even underscored this
closeness by claiming that Lucas himself requested her to come to his house the
day Lucas handed to Alfonso a copy of OCT No. 2522, allegedly so she could hear
the conversation between them.
Respondent
claims she is not administratively liable because at the time Alfonso executed
the affidavit, his co-heirs had already received their respective shares from
the estate of the spouses Villanueva. However, we are not concerned here with
the proper distribution of the spouses Villanueva’s estates. Rather,
respondent’s liability springs from her failure to discharge properly her
duties as a notary public and as a member of the bar.
Where
admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or
information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix
his or her notarial seal on it, the Court must not
hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of
the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization
process may be undermined and public confidence on notarial
documents diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach
of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes. Respondent also violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
We also view
with disfavor respondent’s lack of candor before the IBP proceedings. The
transcript of hearings shows that respondent denied preparing or notarizing the
deed of sale,[9]
when she already admitted having done so in her Comment.
WHEREFORE, for violation of
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we REVOKE
the commission of respondent Atty. Salud P. Beradio as Notary Public, if still existing, and DISQUALIFY her from being commissioned a notary
public for one (1) year. We further SUSPEND respondent from the practice
of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this decision.
Let copies
of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended
to respondent’s personal record as attorney.
Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice