Prospero vs. Delos Santos

A lawyer who notarizes a document bearing the signature of a person known to be deceased, and who falsifies entries in the notarial register to cover the irregularity, commits gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice warranting the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Notarization is not a routinary act; it is impressed with public interest and converts a private instrument into a public document entitled to full faith and credit, so that any departure from the basic requirement of personal appearance of the affiant undermines the integrity of the notarial office and the legal profession.

Pilar C. Prospero owned a 10,000-square-meter portion of a larger parcel of land in Cabuyao, Laguna, which she had purchased in 1972 from her aunt, Fermina Prospero. The remaining 10,384 square meters of the property were bequeathed to Pilar in Fermina’s holographic will. Fermina died in 1983. More than two decades later, Atty. Delos Santos, a high-ranking municipal official, approached the then 88-year-old Pilar and offered to help sell the land. He secured her signature on a Special Power of Attorney and obtained the owner’s duplicate of the original certificate of title. Thereafter, without Pilar’s knowledge, Atty. Delos Santos fabricated and notarized several deeds of sale to consolidate title in Pilar’s name and later transfer the entire property to Hauskon Housing and Construction Products Corporation.

• Parties and Property: Complainant Pilar C. Prospero was the niece of Fermina Prospero, the registered owner of a 20,384-square-meter parcel of land (Lot 2-B, OCT No. (0-175) 0-116) in Cabuyao, Laguna. In 1972, Fermina sold a 10,000-square-meter portion to Pilar; the sale was annotated on the title but no separate TCT issued. Fermina executed a holographic will in 1974 bequeathing the remaining 10,384 square meters to Pilar. Fermina died on May 8, 1983.
• Engagement of Atty. Delos Santos: In 2007, Atty. Delos Santos, introduced as a municipal official who approved land development plans, gained Pilar’s trust and convinced her to execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to facilitate the sale of her property. He deliberately expanded the SPA to cover the entire 20,384 square meters rather than only the portion she owned. Pilar, then 88 years old, signed without understanding its full import, and Atty. Delos Santos obtained the owner’s duplicate of the OCT.
• Falsified and Notarized Documents: Without Pilar’s knowledge or consent, Atty. Delos Santos prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 20, 2008, counterfeiting the signatures of Pilar and the deceased Fermina, making it appear that Fermina sold the entire 20,384-square-meter lot to Pilar. He also notarized a second Deed of Absolute Sale – Portion of Land, also dated May 20, 2008, purporting to convey only the 10,384-square-meter remainder to Pilar. Both documents bore the identical notarial entry: “Doc. No. 140, Page No. 28, Book No. XXXIV, Series of 2008.” A certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, showed that the entry corresponding to that doc. number was an unrelated document titled “Katunayan sa Pagkakabili” executed by Carmela Bool.
• Transfer to Hauskon: Armed with the falsified deeds, Atty. Delos Santos secured TCT No. T-707979 in Pilar’s name covering the entire property. Acting as attorney-in-fact, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 2008 conveying the land to Hauskon Housing and Construction Products Corporation for P8,306,480.00. This deed was notarized by respondent Atty. San Jose, Hauskon’s in-house counsel. Complainants alleged that Clarinda had warned Hauskon’s officers of Atty. Delos Santos’ lack of authority, but the sale proceeded nonetheless.
• Additional Falsity: Atty. Delos Santos subsequently falsified another Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 5, 2008, again counterfeiting Pilar’s signature, making it appear she directly sold the property to Hauskon for P3,669,120.00. He notarized this document himself, enabling the cancellation of TCT No. T-707979 and the issuance of TCT No. T-723667 in Hauskon’s name.
• Aftermath: Upon learning of the transfers, complainants demanded an explanation. Atty. Delos Santos returned the owner’s copy of the OCT and surrendered post-dated checks issued by Hauskon, each payable to him in the amount of P646,059.55, representing the purchase price installments.

• Falsification and Notarization of Spurious Documents: Complainants contended that Atty. Delos Santos falsified the May 20, 2008 deeds of sale by counterfeiting the signatures of Pilar and the long-deceased Fermina, and notarized them as if the parties had personally appeared.
• Fraudulent Conveyance: Complainants alleged that Atty. Delos Santos used the falsified documents to secure a new TCT in Pilar’s name and thereafter transferred the property to Hauskon without Pilar’s knowledge or consent, receiving the sale proceeds in checks payable to himself.
• Liability of Atty. San Jose: Complainants asserted that Atty. San Jose irregularly notarized the June 13, 2008 deed of sale despite warnings from Clarinda regarding Atty. Delos Santos’ lack of authority and without requiring competent evidence of identity.

• Atty. Delos Santos — Accommodation and Good Faith: In his belated motion for reconsideration, Atty. Delos Santos claimed that Pilar and the real estate agent Malou persistently sought his help to sell the property because Pilar needed money. He maintained that he acted out of pity and accommodated the request; Pilar and Malou brought him the deeds for notarization without disclosing that Fermina was deceased. He pleaded for a lesser penalty, asserting that any violation was unintentional.
• Atty. San Jose — Good Faith Reliance: Atty. San Jose denied knowledge of any defect in Atty. Delos Santos’ authority as attorney-in-fact. He asserted that when he notarized the June 13, 2008 deed, he reasonably believed the SPA in favor of Atty. Delos Santos was valid and subsisting.

• Liability of Atty. Delos Santos: Whether Atty. Delos Santos committed gross professional misconduct, deceit, malpractice, and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath warranting disbarment for falsifying and notarizing documents with the signature of a deceased person.
• Liability of Atty. San Jose: Whether Atty. San Jose should be held administratively liable for notarizing the June 13, 2008 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Atty. Delos Santos as attorney-in-fact.

• Liability of Atty. Delos Santos: Disbarment was imposed. The evidence established that Atty. Delos Santos prepared and notarized deeds of sale that purported to bear the signature of Fermina Prospero, who had been dead since May 8, 1983. Notarization of a document without the personal appearance of the signatory, especially one already deceased, constitutes a gross violation of the notarial law and the lawyer’s oath. The falsity was compounded by the entry of the deeds under a notarial register number that, as certified by the Clerk of Court, actually pertained to an unrelated document. These fraudulent acts facilitated the issuance of a new TCT in Pilar’s name and the subsequent transfer of the property to Hauskon, with all purchase checks made payable to Atty. Delos Santos. The belated explanation that he merely helped an elderly client was rejected as untenable in light of the overwhelming documentary evidence. The offense warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment, consistent with Fabay v. Atty. Resuena, which disbarred a lawyer for notarizing a document with the signatures of deceased persons.
• Liability of Atty. San Jose: The complaint was dismissed. No sufficient basis existed to impose disciplinary sanction on Atty. San Jose. He had reasonable ground to believe that the SPA authorizing Atty. Delos Santos was valid and in effect. There was no showing of wilful violation of notarial duties or that Pilar had revoked the SPA through any mode recognized by law. Good faith was apparent.

• Doctrine on Notarization as a Substantive Public Act — Notarization is not an empty, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must ensure that the person who signs the document is the same person who executed it and personally appeared to attest to its contents and voluntariness. Failure to observe the personal-appearance requirement degrades the integrity of the notarial office and makes a mockery of the function of notarization.
• Rule on Sanction for Notarizing Documents of Deceased Persons — Notarizing a document that purports to be signed by a person who is already dead constitutes gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The lawyer thereby knowingly participates in a false and simulated transaction and displays ignorance of, or indifference to, the importance of the notarial office.

• “Notarization of a document is not an empty act or routine. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.” — This passage encapsulates the public-interest rationale behind the strict requirements imposed on notaries public and explains why deviations are treated with severity.
• “Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, the notary public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed.” — This statement underscores the indispensable nature of personal appearance for the validity of notarization.

• Fabay v. Atty. Resuena, 779 Phil. 151 (2016) — Followed and applied. In Fabay, the Court disbarred a lawyer who notarized a special power of attorney without the personal appearance of the affiants, two of whom were already deceased. The ruling was directly controlling because Atty. Delos Santos likewise notarized deeds of sale bearing the signature of a long-dead vendor.

• Code of Professional Responsibility and Lawyer’s Oath — Invoked as the general normative standards breached by Atty. Delos Santos’ fraudulent and deceitful conduct, particularly the duties of candor, fairness, and good faith, and the obligation to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Though not cited by specific section, the decision’s discussion of the requirement of personal appearance of the affiant, the prohibition against notarizing documents without verifying identity, and the proper maintenance of a notarial register implicates the core mandates of the Notarial Rules.

Peralta, C.J., Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, and Inting, JJ., concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., were on official business. Zalameda, J., was on official leave.