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

Case Summary (A.C. No. 9807)

Factual Background

Complainants alleged that Atty. Ogena, as their late father’s legal counsel, “wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously” falsified several documents, including a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, an Affidavit of Identification of Heirs, a Deed of Donation, and a Deed of Absolute Sale. The alleged falsification purportedly consisted in making it appear that all the children of Manuel and their mother, Erlinda, executed the documents. Complainants linked the alleged falsification to the cancellation and subdivision of TCT No. 60467, registered in the name of “Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented by Manuel Sistual,”** into several lots. They further alleged that those subdivided lots were sold to “interested buyers.”

Atty. Ogena denied the allegations. He asserted that he had been engaged in 1987 by Manuel to represent the heirs of Martin Sistual in a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Abid Mendal and Abundio Sistual. He claimed the heirs obtained a favorable decision, after which Lot 464 was awarded to the heirs of Martin Sistual and TCT No. T-60467 was issued in their names.

Atty. Ogena then narrated events after Manuel’s death on November 15, 1993. He stated that the heirs executed an SPA dated December 31, 1993 appointing Bienvenido Sistual as attorney-in-fact, and that Erlinda expressed her desire to represent the heirs, prompting the execution of an SPA in her favor by her two children, Isidro Sistual and Flordelisa Sistual. He further stated that the heirs opposed Erlinda’s appointment and executed another SPA dated October 5, 1995 in favor of Bienvenido. Atty. Ogena added that in the October 5, 1995 SPA, the names of complainants Erlinda and Flordeliza Sistual were written by him but that they did not sign.

As to the subdivision of the property, Atty. Ogena explained that Bienvenido, allegedly urged by the heirs of Martin Sistual except complainants, caused TCT No. T-60467 to be subdivided into several sub-lots identified by TCT Nos. 76078, 76079, 76080, 76081, 76082, 76083, 76084, 76085, and 76086, with subdivision plans and technical descriptions approved by the Regional Director, Bureau of Lands, Davao City. He maintained that the subdivided lots were issued in the names of all the heirs of Martin Sistual, including the complainants.

He also cited an Extrajudicial Settlement executed on September 7, 1996, wherein the heirs of Dolores Sistual Tulay waived their one-seventh (1/7) share in favor of their father, Domingo Tulay. He likewise stated that the heirs of Manuel Sistual executed an extrajudicial settlement waiving their 1/7 share in favor of their mother Erlinda. Additionally, on April 10 and 15, 1997, he claimed that the heirs of Martin Sistual, including complainants, executed two deeds of donation in favor of Barangay Lamian for use for its public market, involving TCT Nos. T-76083 and T-76086. Concerning the Absolute Deed of Sale dated July 18, 1989, he denied falsification, asserting that it was duly executed and signed by Manuel and Erlinda as vendors and by Socorro Langub as vendee, and he submitted a copy of the deed.

Proceedings Before the IBP

In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP-CBD stated it was “bereft of any jurisdiction” to determine whether Atty. Ogena committed forgery. It nevertheless found irregularities in documents notarized by Atty. Ogena. The IBP-CBD noted that, in the SPA, the signatures of Flordelisa Sistual and Isidro Sistual were absent, and that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) of certain signatories—Bernardina Sistual Anson, Jesusa Sistual Espanol, and Erlinda—were not indicated. It observed that in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Manuel’s estate, although all the heirs signed, only the CTC of Erlinda and Flordelisa were indicated. It further found that in an Affidavit of Identification of Heirs of Martin Sistual, the CTC of Solfia S. Maribago was absent, and that in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Dolores Sistual with waiver of hereditary shares, only the CTC of Domingo Tulay was indicated.

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

On December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the CBD’s recommendation with modification. It revoked Atty. Ogena’s notarial commission and permanently disqualified him from reappointment as Notary Public, but it deleted the suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Ogena filed a motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2012, which the IBP Board of Governors denied in a Resolution dated November 10, 2012, affirming its action while further revoking his notarial commission indefinitely.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Alleged Forgery and Evidentiary Sufficiency

On review, the Court agreed with the IBP’s findings insofar as they related to the notarial irregularities and Atty. Ogena’s notarial responsibility. The Court, however, addressed the discipline penalty. It held that complainants’ allegation of forgery was not clearly substantiated and that they failed to show concrete proof that they were prejudiced by the alleged falsification. The Court noted that complainants submitted affidavits for falsification executed by Erlinda and Flordelisa, both subscribed before the City Prosecutor on February 20, 2006, along with memoranda and orders from the Office of the City Prosecutor and the Bureau of Lands, but these materials did not suffice to prove forgery and/or falsification.

The Notarial Rule Violations Found by the Court

Even in the absence of adequate proof of forgery, the Court found that Atty. Ogena violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Rule IV, Section 2(b), which prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the person involved as signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known or otherwise identified by competent evidence.

The Court reasoned that Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duties as a notary public. It found that he notarized documents without the signatures of all the parties and without requiring the personal presence of the signatories. The Court also found that he failed to comply with the fundamental requirement that a notary public require the presentation of residence certificates or other documents to prove identity.

Jurisprudential Basis: Notarization as a Public-Trust Function

The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless routine act and that it is invested with substantive public interest. It explained that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. It relied on the principle that courts and the public accord notarized documents full faith and credit on their face. Accordingly, a notary public must observe basic requirements with utmost care to preserve public confidence in the integrity of documents and in the notarial system.

Citing Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, the Court held that by notarizing the questioned documents, Atty. Ogena engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and that his negligence bore dangerous implications given the conclusiveness attributed to notarized documents. It further characterized his failure not only as negligence as a notary public, but also as negligence in his capacity as a lawyer, because his conduct undermined complainants’ rights and degraded the function of notarization.

Ruling on Sanctions and Disposition

The Court deleted the IBP’s penalty structure and imposed a sanction consistent with its pronouncements in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice (now indicated as A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015). It directed that Atty. Ogena be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from becoming a notary public.

The Court thus suspended respondent Atty. Eliordo Ogena from the practice of law for two y

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 9807)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants were Erlinda C. Sistual, Flordelisa S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo, and Arlan C. Sistual, and the respondent was Atty. Eliordo Ogena.
The complainants filed a Complaint dated June 1, 2006 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Ogena.
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued a Report and Recommendation finding certain irregularities in documents notarized by Atty. Ogena.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation with modification, revoking Atty. Ogena’s notarial commission and permanently disqualifying him from reappointment as Notary Public, but deleting suspension from law practice.
Atty. Ogena filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP.
The IBP Board of Governors denied reconsideration through a resolution dated November 10, 2012, and indefinitely revoked Atty. Ogena’s notarial commission.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which agreed with the IBP’s findings as to the nature of the violations, but adjusted the penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainants alleged that Atty. Ogena, who was legal counsel of their late father Manuel A. Sistual, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsified multiple documents.
The alleged falsified documents included a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, an Affidavit of Identification of Heirs, a Deed of Donation, and a Deed of Absolute Sale.
The complainants alleged that Atty. Ogena made it appear that all the children of Manuel and their mother, Erlinda, executed the documents.
The complainants alleged that the alleged falsification led to the cancellation and subdivision of TCT No. 60467 registered in the name of “Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented by Manuel Sistual,” into multiple lots.
The complainants alleged that the subdivided lots were sold to interested buyers.
In his Answer, Atty. Ogena denied falsification and asserted that the documents were executed and signed by the parties.
Atty. Ogena claimed he was engaged in 1987 to represent the heirs of Martin Sistual in a complaint for recovery of possession.
Atty. Ogena averred that a favorable decision in that earlier case resulted in an award of Lot 464 to the heirs of Martin Sistual and the issuance of TCT No. T-60467.
Atty. Ogena asserted that upon Manuel’s death on November 15, 1993, the heirs executed an SPA dated December 31, 1993 designating Bienvenido Sistual as attorney-in-fact.
Atty. Ogena claimed Erlinda desired to represent the heirs and thus caused the execution of an SPA by her children Isidro Sistual and Flordelisa Sistual in her favor.
Atty. Ogena stated that the heirs opposed Erlinda’s appointment and executed another SPA dated October 5, 1995.
As to a document incident involving the subdivision, Atty. Ogena explained that Bienvenido caused the subdivision of TCT No. T-60467 into sub-lots approved by the Regional Director, Bureau of Lands, Davao City.
Atty. Ogena stated that the resulting subdivided lots were in the names of all the heirs of Martin Sistual, including the complainants.
Atty. Ogena further invoked several extrajudicial settlements and deeds, including:
- an Extrajudicial Settlement on September 7, 1996 in which a 1/7 share of the mother’s portion was waived in favor of Domingo Tulay, and
- another extrajudicial settlement in which the heirs waived their 1/7 share in favor of Erlinda.
Atty. Ogena also relied on two deeds of donation on April 10 and 15, 1997 conveying lots covered by TCT Nos. T-76083 and T-76086 to Barangay Lamian for a public market.
Atty. Ogena denied that these actions prejudiced the complainants, asserting that issuance of new separate titles in the names of all heirs as co-owners was beneficial to all.
Finally, Atty. Ogena denied falsification of an Absolute Deed of Sale dated July 18, 1989 in favor of Socorro Langub, and submitted a copy of the deed to show due execution and signing.

IBP Findings and Irregularities

The IBP-CBD concluded that it was bereft of jurisdiction to determine whether Atty. Ogena committed forgery in the documents.
The IBP-CBD, however, identified irregularities in the documents notarized by Atty. Ogena.
In the SPA, the IBP found that the signatures of Flordelisa Sistual and Isidro Sistual were absent.
In the SPA, the IBP found that the Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) of certain signatories were not indicated, and it listed omissions relating to Bernardina Sistual Anson, Jesusa Sistual Espanol, and Erlinda.
In the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Manuel, the IBP found that although all heirs signed, only the CTCs of Erlinda and Flordelisa were indicated.
In the Affidavit of Identification of Heirs of Martin Sistual, the IBP found that the CTC of Solfia S. Maribago was absent.
In the Extrajudicial Settl