Title
L. R. Aguinaldo and Co., Inc. vs. Velez
Case
Exp. Adm. No. 800
Decision Date
Feb 21, 1940
A lawyer negligently ratified conflicting property deeds, causing disputes, but was cleared of bad faith and only admonished for lack of diligence.

Case Summary (Exp. Adm. No. 800)

Background of the Case

The complaint stemmed from accusations that the respondent conspired with Nicolas P. Caballero to defraud L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. by preventing the execution of a judgment in favor of the petitioner. The judgment was rendered in a civil case numbered 2804, where the court ruled in favor of Aguinaldo against the defendants, including Caballero. Following the judgment, the local sheriff executed a seizure and sale of Caballero's property, ultimately leading to L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. acquiring the land involved.

Events Leading to Legal Action

On February 28, 1934, a favorable judgment was issued against Caballero, and by May 11 of the same year, execution proceedings were initiated. The sheriff sold the property to L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. on July 10, 1934. However, complications arose when the sale was not registered due to existing encumbrances on the property. After a year, the sheriff issued a definitive deed of sale on December 2, 1935, which was notarized by the respondent on December 16, 1935.

Allegations of Misconduct

On April 12, 1935, the respondent, in his capacity as a notary public, notarized another deed of sale involving the same piece of property, this time from Caballero to Cleofe Velez Viuda de Neri, also a client of the respondent. The affidavit presented by Caballero, claiming the prior mortgage to Luzon Surety Co., Inc. was for the fulfillment of obligations as an agent, raised concerns about the legitimacy of the transactions. L.R. Aguinaldo & Co., Inc. claimed that it had not gained possession of the land or collected on its judgment due to the complications stemming from the respondent's actions.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The investigation led by Judge Benito Natividad focused on whether the respondent acted in bad faith or was complicit in a fraudulent scheme. The respondent's defense rested on the argument that he was unaware of the prior sale and believed in the legitimacy of the subsequent transaction. The evidence presented did not conclusively demonstrate the respondent's knowledge of the fraud, attributing the issues primarily to his negligence ra

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.