Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Ang Vs Gupana Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ken ChaseMaster
    Carlito Ang alleged that attorney Gupana participated in forging documents related to the transfer of ownership of a property covered by TCT No. T-22409, including an affidavit of loss and deed of sale. Ang claimed Gupana made himself attorney-in-fact for several heirs and sold the property. The court found Gupana administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating his notarial functions, which likely led to forged signatures, and for notarizing an affidavit supposedly by a person who had died years before. The court ruled Gupana failed in his duty as a notary public.

    Copyright:

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

    Ang Vs Gupana Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ken ChaseMaster
    52 views1 page
    Carlito Ang alleged that attorney Gupana participated in forging documents related to the transfer of ownership of a property covered by TCT No. T-22409, including an affidavit of loss and deed of sale. Ang claimed Gupana made himself attorney-in-fact for several heirs and sold the property. The court found Gupana administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating his notarial functions, which likely led to forged signatures, and for notarizing an affidavit supposedly by a person who had died years before. The court ruled Gupana failed in his duty as a notary public.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Ang vs Gupana Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Carlito Ang alleged that attorney Gupana participated in forging documents related to the transfer of ownership of a property covered by TCT No. T-22409, including an affidavit of loss and deed of sale. Ang claimed Gupana made himself attorney-in-fact for several heirs and sold the property. The court found Gupana administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating his notarial functions, which likely led to forged signatures, and for notarizing an affidavit supposedly by a person who had died years before. The court ruled Gupana failed in his duty as a notary public.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Ang Vs Gupana Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ken ChaseMaster
    Carlito Ang alleged that attorney Gupana participated in forging documents related to the transfer of ownership of a property covered by TCT No. T-22409, including an affidavit of loss and deed of sale. Ang claimed Gupana made himself attorney-in-fact for several heirs and sold the property. The court found Gupana administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by delegating his notarial functions, which likely led to forged signatures, and for notarizing an affidavit supposedly by a person who had died years before. The court ruled Gupana failed in his duty as a notary public.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Ang vs. Gupana A.C. No.

    4545, February 5, 2014

    Facts:
    Carlito Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of Candelaria Magpayo executed
    an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition involving Lot No. 2066-B-2-B
    covered by TCT No. T-22409. He was given his share of 2,003 square meters but when
    he tried to secure a TCT, he found that the original TCT was already cancelled. He said
    that Atty. Gupana had direct participation in the commission of forgeries and
    falsifications because he was the one who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss
    and Deed of Absolute Sale which led to the transfer and issuance of new TCTs. He said
    that the Absolute Sale was antedated and the late Magpayo’s signature was forged and
    as for the Affidavit of Loss, Ang said it could not have been executed by Magpayo as
    she died three years prior to the execution. Further, Ang alleged that Atty. Gupana
    made himself the attorney-in-fact of William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia
    Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante Jr. and Fe D. Montero and pursuant to the
    Special Power of Attorney in his favor executed a Deed of Sale selling the lot to Lim Kim
    so Mercantile Co.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Atty. Gupana is administratively liable for violating the Code of
    Professional Responsibility

    Ruling:
    The Court found Gupana administratively liable on violations of the Code of
    Professional Responsibility when he delegated his notarial functions to the clerical staff
    of their office which may have been the reason for the forged signatures of the parties in
    the questioned document in the civil case. Gupana failed to require the personal
    presence of Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Magpayo allegedly
    executed. The respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted in
    undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization.
    With this, Gupana violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 when he relied on his clerical staff to
    determine the completeness of documents brought to him for notarization, limiting his
    participation in the notarization process to simply inquiring about the identities of the
    persons appearing before him and in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead person.

    You might also like