A.C. No. 9807 - Sistual vs. Ogena

On June 1, 2006, complainants Erlinda Sistual, Flordelisa S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo, and Arlan C. Sistual filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint alleged that Atty. Eliordo Ogena, who served as legal counsel for their late father, Manuel A. Sistual, falsified several documents.

It was alleged that through the falsification, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 60467, originally registered in the name “Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented by Manuel Sistual,” was cancelled and subdivided into several lots which were subsequently sold to buyers.

In his Answer with Affirmative/Special Defenses and Motion to Dismiss, Atty. Ogena denied all allegations of falsification.
He provided a detailed timeline and explanation including:

His engagement in 1987 by Manuel to represent the heirs in a recovery of possession case, resulting in a favorable decision.
The issuance of TCT No. T-60467 in the names of the heirs subsequent to that decision.
The execution of multiple SPAs by various parties, which, according to Ogena, were executed and signed in due form, although some contained irregularities (e.g., missing signatures of complainants in the October 5, 1995 SPA).
An explanation that the subdivision of TCT No. T-60467, resulting in new lots identified by separate TCT numbers, was carried out on the request of the heirs (with the exception of the complainants) and was duly approved by the Regional Director, Bureau of Lands, Davao City.

The heirs of Dolores Sistual Tulay executed an extrajudicial settlement on September 7, 1996, waiving their 1/7 share in the lot for the benefit of Domingo Tulay.
The heirs of Manuel executed another extrajudicial settlement waiving their 1/7 share in favor of Erlinda.
In April 1997, under proper documentation, the heirs of Martin Sistual executed two deeds of donation which conveyed specific subdivided lots (TCT Nos. T-76083 and T-76086) to Barangay Lamian for its public market.

The IBP-CBD determined that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the forgery allegation but noted several notarial irregularities in documents notarized by Atty. Ogena, including:

Missing signatures (e.g., in the SPA where Flordelisa Sistual’s and Isidro Sistual’s signatures were absent).
Incomplete recording of Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) for several signatories across different documents.

Based on these irregularities, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Ogena’s notarial commission be revoked and that he be permanently disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public, along with a suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

On December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors modified the CBD recommendation by revoking Atty. Ogena’s commission and permanently disqualifying him from reappointment as Notary Public, while deleting the suspension penalty.
Atty. Ogena filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on November 10, 2012, affirming the indefinite revocation of his notarial commission.

The Supreme Court examined the allegations and evidence, noting that the complainants did not present clear and concrete proof of prejudicial fraud or forgery.
However, the Court found that Atty. Ogena was negligent in his duty as a notary public, having notarized documents without ensuring:

The personal presence of all required signatories.
Adequate verification of their identities (i.e., absence of residence certificates or other competent evidence).

The Court underscored the vital public interest and integrity inherent in the notarization process, as detailed in previous jurisprudence.

Whether the evidence sufficiently proved that Atty. Ogena intentionally committed forgery or document falsification.

Examination of the complainants’ submissions, including affidavits and investigative memos.
Whether there was any direct prejudice to the complainants as a result of the alleged falsification.

Whether Atty. Ogena violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Rule IV, Section 2(b).

The requirement that the notary ensures the personal presence of the signatory.
The necessity of verifying the identity of the signatories through competent evidence.

The appropriate sanction for Atty. Ogena’s conduct as both a notary public and as a lawyer.

Determining if a suspension from the practice of law and disqualification as a notary public was warranted.