G.R. No. 186499 - People vs. Delos Santos, Jr.

Complainant Oscar M. Baysac is the registered owner of a property measuring 322 sq. m., covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-58159.
On December 20, 2000, the property was mortgaged to Spouses Emmanuel and Rizalina Cruz, secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage notarized by Atty. Renelie B. Mayuga-Donato.

In February 2003, during preparations for a prospective sale, complainant visited the Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City and discovered that TCT No. T-58159 had been cancelled.
In its place, a new title, TCT No. T-67089, had been issued in favor of Spouses Cruz.
Further inquiry revealed that a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed on January 13, 2003 had been used to effect the transfer of the property.

The Deed of Absolute Sale, executed for the consideration of P100,000.00, was notarized by respondent Atty. Eloisa M. Aceron-Papa on January 13, 2003.
Complainant vehemently denied ever signing the Deed of Absolute Sale or appearing before a notary public on that date.
Complainant maintained that on January 13, 2003, he was in Tanza, Cavite with Ms. Flocerfida A. Angeles while actively searching for a buyer for his property.
It was noted that the notarial certificate on the Deed of Absolute Sale stated that the acknowledgment was made by the same person who executed the document and, notably, it indicated the use of his Community Tax Certificate (CTC) issued on May 26, 2000 – an identical CTC previously used in notarizing the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.

Ms. Angeles, through her affidavit, corroborated that she was with complainant throughout January 13, 2003, and confirmed that he did not execute nor appear for notarization of the alleged sale.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) issued the Questioned Documents Report No. 515-703, establishing that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale differed from those of documents genuinely executed by the complainant.
After the title transfer, Atty. Estrella O. Laysa (counsel for Spouses Cruz and respondent’s partner) sent a letter to complainant demanding that he vacate the property.

Based on the aforementioned anomalies, complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on April 14, 2009, alleging a violation of Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Despite orders to submit a response, respondent failed to file a position paper—her Order to Answer was returned marked “Moved Out, Left No Address.”
During the mandatory conference on August 27, 2009, only the complainant’s counsel was present, yet the Commission proceeded to terminate the conference and move for early disposition.

Investigating Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag found respondent administratively liable for notarizing a fictitious or spurious document.
Although Atty. Hababag recommended a penalty of suspension as notary public for two years, the IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XX-2013-136 dated February 13, 2013, modified the penalty.
The final recommendation imposed disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for three years with a stern warning and indicated that repetition of the act would be met with more severe sanctions.

Whether respondent Atty. Eloisa M. Aceron-Papa violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal appearance of the purported executee.

The issue centered on the failure to verify the identity and presence of the signer, a fundamental requirement in notarization.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the affidavit of Ms. Angeles and the NBI’s Questioned Documents Report, sufficiently established that complainant did not execute the document.

Whether the reliance on an outdated Community Tax Certificate (CTC) as competent evidence of identity was justifiable under the law.

The appropriateness of the administrative penalties imposed on respondent in light of existing jurisprudence regarding the negligence of notarial duties.

Assessing if the modification of the recommended penalty to disqualification from commissioning and suspension from practicing law adequately served the public interest.