Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Emilita Solarte Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda for allegedly notarizing fraudulent documents involving the sale of land in Cavite in the 1960s when he was a municipal judge and notary public. Solarte claims Pugeda improperly notarized documents where he was also a witness and participated in a fraudulent partition of property belonging to Solarte's kin. However, the court found that Solarte was not party to the documents notarized by Pugeda and that there is no evidence Pugeda participated in any fraudulent partition. The court also noted there is no prohibition on a notary public witnessing a document they notarize, with the exception of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Emilita Solarte Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    142 views2 pages
    Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda for allegedly notarizing fraudulent documents involving the sale of land in Cavite in the 1960s when he was a municipal judge and notary public. Solarte claims Pugeda improperly notarized documents where he was also a witness and participated in a fraudulent partition of property belonging to Solarte's kin. However, the court found that Solarte was not party to the documents notarized by Pugeda and that there is no evidence Pugeda participated in any fraudulent partition. The court also noted there is no prohibition on a notary public witnessing a document they notarize, with the exception of

    Original Description:

    digest case in civil procedure

    Original Title

    Emilita Solarte case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda for allegedly notarizing fraudulent documents involving the sale of land in Cavite in the 1960s when he was a municipal judge and notary public. Solarte claims Pugeda improperly notarized documents where he was also a witness and participated in a fraudulent partition of property belonging to Solarte's kin. However, the court found that Solarte was not party to the documents notarized by Pugeda and that there is no evidence Pugeda participated in any fraudulent partition. The court also noted there is no prohibition on a notary public witnessing a document they notarize, with the exception of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    142 views2 pages

    Emilita Solarte Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marilou Garal
    Emelita Solarte filed an administrative charge of gross misconduct against Atty. Teofilo Pugeda for allegedly notarizing fraudulent documents involving the sale of land in Cavite in the 1960s when he was a municipal judge and notary public. Solarte claims Pugeda improperly notarized documents where he was also a witness and participated in a fraudulent partition of property belonging to Solarte's kin. However, the court found that Solarte was not party to the documents notarized by Pugeda and that there is no evidence Pugeda participated in any fraudulent partition. The court also noted there is no prohibition on a notary public witnessing a document they notarize, with the exception of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EMELITA SOLARTE, complainant,

    vs.
    ATTY. TEOFILO F. PUGEDA, respondent.
    A.C. No. 4751

    July 31, 2000

    QUISUMBING, J.:
    Nature of the case:
    Before us is an administrative charge for gross misconduct, filed by
    complainant Emelita Solarte against a member of the bar, respondent Atty.
    Teofilo F. Pugeda. Respondent was a municipal judge in the 1960s when, as
    notary public ex officio, he allegedly notarized certain documents involving
    the sale of land situated in Cavite, particularly two deeds of sale dated circa
    1964 and 1967 involving parcels of land located at General Trias.

    Facts:

    Complainant avers that respondent Pugeda could not have legally notarized
    a document to which he also acted as witness. She also cites a irregular or
    anomalous the absence of the vendees signature in one of the deeds of sale.
    Complainant claims that respondent and his wife are in fact administering
    the property at General Trias and they were responsible for the wrongful
    partition of the property belonging to complainants kin.

    According to complainant, the acts of respondent constitutes gross


    misconduct. Complainant alleges in particular that respondent participated in
    the fraudulent partition and sale of property of Catalino. She discovered the
    fraud only recently according to her, when she sought the titling of his
    fathers portion of the property.

    She now assails the validity of the partition made by Catalino and his
    children, particularly since herminia was not signatory thereto and the deeds
    of sale pertaining to the property.
    Issue:
    Whether or not a notary public is absolutely prohibited from being a witness
    to the document the he notarizes.

    Held:
    No. It appears that complainant was not a party to the documents which
    respondent notarized and witnessed. The respondent cannot be faulted for
    failure of the National archives to provide complainant with copies of the
    requested documents. Nowhere in the records is it shown that respondent
    and his wife had a hand in the partition and sale of the properties. Further,
    there is no prohibition for a notary public to witness a document which he
    ratified nor for his wife to sign as witness.
    Nothing in the laws prohibits a notary public from acting at the same time as
    witness in the document he notarized. The only exemption is when the
    document to be notarized is a will.
    Complainant offered no proof, but only mere allegations, that:
    1.) respondent was involved in the partition of the subject property, and
    2.) respondent employed fraud to effect such partition.
    Such a grave charge against a member of the bar and former municipal judge
    needs concrete substantiation to gain credence. It could not prosper without
    adequate proof.

    You might also like