G.R. No. 166620 - Banda vs. Ermita

Complainant Conrado Abe Lopez charged respondents Atty. Arturo C. Mata, Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas, and Atty. Gines N. Abellana with dishonesty, malpractice, and violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, praying for their disbarment.
The complaint arose from several documents related to the ownership and disposition of a 49,817 square meter parcel of land formerly owned by Moises Legaspino and his second wife Victoria Lopez.

Moises Legaspino had children from his first marriage (Francisco, Basilia, Amando, Mamerto, and Honorata—surname Legaspino). Victoria Lopez had a son named Restituto Lopez, Complainant’s adoptive father.
The property was divided among Moises' children and Restituto Lopez: half adjudicated to Moises' children; half to Restituto.
After Honorata (one of Moises’ children) died intestate, her share was inherited by her children (surname Lucmayon), notably Pedro Lucmayon, who later consolidated shares.
The property division eventually stood as:

20,637 sqm to spouses Pedro Lucmayon and Anastacia Sacayan (including Pedro’s inheritance share from Honorata)
24,908 sqm to heirs of Restituto Lopez, namely Honorata Lopez and Conrado Lopez (complainant)
712 sqm each to other Lucmayon heirs.

On December 29, 1953, Restituto executed a “Katapusang Pamigon Intervivos” (Last Will), bequeathing the 24,908 sqm property (Lot No. 1696-H, mistakenly indicated as Lot No. 1718) to Conrado. Restituto retained possession of this document until his death, after which it passed on to Honorata Abe Lopez, Conrado’s mother.
Judge Rogelio Lucmayon, son of Pedro Lucmayon and then Presiding Judge, requested Conrado to execute a First SPA on July 12, 2004, authorizing the sale of inherited property to Cebu Progress Development Company. This was duly notarized by Atty. Arturo C. Mata.
A Second SPA was requested on October 11, 2004, naming Judge Lucmayon as Attorney-in-Fact. Although Conrado admitted signing, he did not personally appear before notary Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas who notarized it.
On October 28, 2004, a Third SPA with a “Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership over Lot No. 1696-H” was executed by Conrado but not personally appeared before Atty. Mata, who notarized it.
Conrado later discovered a Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004, purporting that he sold his share of Lot No. 1696-H to one Loreto Lecanda, notarized by Atty. Gines N. Abellana without his presence or signature acknowledgment.

Atty. Sentillas invoked the presumption of regularity, stating Complainant admitted signing the Second SPA, thus presumed to have appeared before him.
Atty. Mata claimed honest belief that Complainant was among persons present before him and explained he did not verify identities out of respect for Judge Lucmayon.
Atty. Abellana neither admitted nor denied charges but argued lack of a complete complaint and claimed non-submission of his notarial report and document copies to the Clerk of Court were immaterial.
Prior criminal complaint for falsification involving Judge Lucmayon and some respondents was dismissed.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended revocation of notarial commissions, disqualification from reappointment as notaries for two (2) years, and suspension from practice of law for three (3) months for all three respondents.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified the suspension penalties to: six (6) months each for Atty. Mata and Atty. Sentillas, and three (3) years for Atty. Abellana (due to prior sanctions), in addition to revocation of commissions and disqualification from reappointment for specified periods.
Motions for reconsideration filed by Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Abellana were denied.
Complainant filed an affidavit of desistance in conjunction with an amicable settlement in the related civil case, but the IBP elevated the records to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Whether respondents should be held administratively liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Whether respondents committed dishonesty and malpractice by notarizing documents without properly ascertaining the signatories’ identities.
What penalties should be imposed on respondents for their misconduct.