Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty. Arca AC No. 10540 November 28, 2019 Facts

Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty.
Arca
AC No. 10540 November 28, 2019
Facts:
Spouses Soriano alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Barrio
Bagbagan, City of Muntinlupa, covered by a TCT. According to them, they intended on selling the
property, to one of their sisters. In order to assess the amount of tax that will be due from such
sale, Marciana Reyes, sister of complainant Mila Soriano, entrusted the owner's copy of the title
to a certain Susan Manito sometime in February 2006. But the title and other pertinent
documents were never returned to Reyes.
Subsequently, Reyes came to know from persons ·close to a certain Gaila Montero that the title
was mortgaged to the latter in the amount of P260,000.00. At first, Reyes was afraid to tell the
Spouses Soriano about her discovery, but when she could no longer solve the problem herself,
she had no choice but to inform them of the same. The Spouses Soriano immediately went to the
house of Montero, introduced themselves to her, and tried to secure a copy of the alleged
mortgage contract. Montero told them to come back the next day. Upon their return, the
Spouses Soriano were surprised to be confronted by persons claiming to be from the Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) who wanted to take them to Camp Crame but they
refused to go.
Instead, the Spouses Soriano went to the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City where they
discovered that a Deed of Mortgage dated March 8, 2006 was registered and annotated at the
back of their title under Entry No. 64418. Based on said deed, they appear to be the mortgagors
of the subject property covering a loan obtained from Montero in the amount of P60,000.00. On
August 16, 2006, the Spouses Soriano went back to the RD of Muntinlupa City and to their
surprise, a new annotation appeared on their title. This time, a document entitled Supplemental
to the Deed of Mortgage was registered under Entry No. 64467 and was notarized by respondent
Arca.
By way of defense, respondent Ortiz denied having prepared and notarized the Deed of Mortgage
between the Spouses Soriano and Montero. He also maintained that the parties never appeared
before him. For his part, respondent Area did not deny notarizing the subject documents and
even admitted the same. Instead, he refuted the claims of the Spouses Soriano that they never
appeared before him and that the signatures on the documents do not belong to them. For Area,
these claims are self serving and must not be sustained.
IBP-CBD: recommended that the complaint against respondent Ortiz be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence. But with respect to respondent Area, it was recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, that his notarial commission be
revoked, and that he be disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2)
years.
IBP-BOG: approved, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent Atty. Arca is guilty of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
Yes. With respect to respondent Atty. Roberto B. Area, however, the Court finds him guilty of
breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
With respect to respondent Ortiz, the Court sustains the dismissal of the complaint against him
for insufficiency of evidence. As the Investigating Commissioner found, it appears that Ortiz had
no participation in the execution of the questioned documents as he immediately sought the pre-
termination of his notarial commission upon his discovery of forgery. He exercised earnest efforts
to protect the sanctity of his notarized documents. Indeed, the fact remains that on the date of
the execution of the Deed of Mortgage, Ortiz was no longer commissioned as notary public in the
City of Manila.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public
interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document,
making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document
is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties;
otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.
The Court SUSPENDS Atty. Arca from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent
commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2)
years, effective immediately.

Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty. Arca AC No. 10540 November 28, 2019 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty. Arca AC No. 10540 November 28, 2019 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty. Arca AC No. 10540 November 28, 2019 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps. Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Ortiz and Atty.

You might also like