Per Rec. No. 3527, 3408 - Monterey vs. Arayata

Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata – charged with professional misconduct in connection with the drafting and execution of a deed of sale and a marriage application.
Notary Public Tereso Ma. Montoya – charged with legalizing the allegedly fictitious deed of sale.

On August 27, 1931, while practicing his profession, respondent Arayata prepared a deed of sale (Exhibit A) for the land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7591.
The deed stated that the seller was his father, Arcadio Arayata, for a sum of P4,000.
It is established that Arcadio Arayata had died on November 5, 1916, which makes the claim of his representation in the document false.
The respondent presented an old man and two witnesses to Notary Public Montoya, assuring him that the old man was indeed Arcadio Arayata and that the witnesses had attested to the transaction.
Notary Montoya, acting in good faith, relied on these assurances, legalized the document, and later, the register of deeds canceled the original title and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8370 in favor of Arayata.

On June 5, 1933, the respondent, who was legally married to Aurora L. Saguil, filed an application to marry Engracia F. Ortega.
In the application, he falsely declared himself as single, despite still being married, since his previous marriage had not been dissolved.
The marriage application was registered and, upon payment of the prescribed fee, a license was issued on September 25, 1933.
The intended marriage was not solemnized, and subsequently, Arayata’s wife filed a bigamy complaint against him, which is pending before the justice of the peace court of Santa Rosa, Laguna.

The investigation was conducted by the Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite.
Findings regarding the deed of sale:

It was confirmed that the deed misrepresented the seller’s identity, as the actual seller, Arcadio Arayata, was dead.
Although the notary public legalized the document, it was based on erroneous assurances provided by Arayata.

The document contained false affidavits regarding Arayata’s marital status.
For reasons not fully detailed, the investigator recommended no action on the second charge involving the marriage application.

In his first answer, he admitted to having executed the sale document attributing the sale to his father, arguing that he was the rightful heir and that no one suffered prejudice.
In his second answer, he later claimed that his uncle, Januario Arayata (who assumed the name Arcadio Arayata in the deed), was the actual vendor.
The court found this latter defense unsubstantiated and improbable.

Whether Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata engaged in malpractice and unprofessional conduct by preparing and executing a deed of sale that misrepresented the true vendor of the land.
Whether the notary public, Tereso Ma. Montoya, who legalized the document based on the respondent’s assurances, acted in good faith and should be held accountable.
Whether the false declaration under oath in the marriage application, where Arayata represented himself as single despite being married, merits disciplinary action.
The issue of whether any real or direct prejudice to the complainant Justa Monterey exists in the disputed transaction, considering Arayata’s claim of being the only true heir.