Case Summary (A.C. No. 10540)
Allegations of Notarization Without Presence
The Spouses Soriano accused the respondents of notarizing mortgage documents without their presence, alleging that their signatures on said documents were forged. They claimed that the mortgage transactions carried out by Montero, who they alleged to have unlawfully used the documents, were not authorized and that the Community Tax Certificates cited in the documents were not theirs, as the acknowledgment indicated they were secured from Manila, while they resided in Cavite.
Discovery of Forgery
The Spouses Soriano discovered the unauthorized mortgages when their sister, Marciana Reyes, learned from acquaintances about the mortgaging of the title they had entrusted to a third party. Upon confronting Montero and subsequently visiting the Register of Deeds, they found a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006, which they contested on the grounds of forgery and lack of knowledge.
Respondents’ Defense
Respondent Atty. Ortiz denied any involvement in the notarization, asserting that he was no longer commissioned as a notary at the time the documents were signed, having requested the termination of his notarial commission due to suspected forgery of his signature. Respondent Atty. Arca admitted to notarizing the documents but refuted the Spouses Soriano's claims about their absence during the notarization, arguing that their subsequent actions undermined their assertions of nullity.
Investigative Findings and Recommendations
Following an investigation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Atty. Ortiz due to insufficient evidence. For Atty. Arca, it was recommended that he be suspended from legal practice for one year and disqualified from future notarial commissioning for two years.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolutions
The IBP Board of Governors later modified the recommendations, initially adjusting Arca’s suspension but ultimately reverting back to the original recommendation of one year. Atty. Arca contested the penalties, arguing for leniency given that it was his first offense.
Court’s Ruling on Atty. Ortiz
The Court upheld the dismissal of complaints against Atty. Ortiz, noting his lack of involvement in the notarization of the disputed documents and observing that he acted promptly upon discovering the potential fraud. His proactive approach was seen as sufficient to absolve him of liability.
Court’s Ruling on Atty. Arca
In contrast, the Court sustained the decision against Atty. Arca, emphasizing that he had failed to verify the identities of the signers and had shown negligence in notarizing the documents under dubious circumstances – having relied solely on Community Tax Certificates rather than valid identification. The Court noted the serious implications of such negligence not only for the immediate parties but for th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10540)
Case Background
- The complaint was filed by the spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano on October 23, 2007.
- Respondents: Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, Jr. and Atty. Roberto B. Arca.
- Allegations: Notarization of documents without the presence of the complainants, which violates the Notarial Law.
Property Ownership and Intended Sale
- The Spouses Soriano are registered owners of a parcel of land in Barrio Bagbagan, City of Muntinlupa, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 162098.
- They intended to sell the property to Mila Soriano's sister, Marciana Reyes.
- Marciana entrusted the owner's copy of the title to Susan Manito in February 2006 for tax assessment but did not receive the documents back.
Discovery of Mortgage
- Marciana discovered that the title was mortgaged to Gaila Montero for P260,000.00.
- The Spouses Soriano were initially unaware but learned of the mortgage from Marciana.
- Upon confronting Montero, the Spouses Soriano were unexpectedly approached by individuals claiming to be from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG).
Investigation and Findings
- The Spouses Soriano checked with the Register of Deeds in Muntinlupa City and found a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006, indicating they were mortgagors for a loan of P60,000.00.
- They denied the authenticity of the signatures on the mortgage documents and claimed they never authorized anyone to mortgage the property.
- They also pointed out discrepancies regarding Community Tax Certificates