8.

PLACE OF NOTARIZATION AND complainant who showed bias in

PERSONAL PRESENCE presiding over the trial of the criminal
cases against members of the Cabatos
A. family

JUDGE GERVACIO A. By Reply5 to respondent’s COMMENT,

LOPENA, Petitioners, complainant countered that one of the
vs. witnesses to the questioned document
ATTY. ARTEMIO P. was respondent’s father, Geronimo
CABATOS, Respondent. Cabatos,6 a permanent resident of
Panaytayon who knew as he was related
FACTS: by blood to Crispina Panis,7 hence, it is
incredible for respondent not to know of
Atty. Cabatos (respondent) was Panis’ death on January 15, 1981 or
administratively charged1 by Judge that "he did not know the person of
Lopena (complainant) of SERIOUS Panis even if he had been away from his
BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS and place of birth since 1958."
GRAVE MISCONDUCT allegedly
committed as follows:
Complainant filed before the IBP a
MANIFESTATION COUPLED WITH MOTION
1) Respondent knowingly falsified a FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING12
Deed of Donation2 executed by one
Crispina Panis by notarizing the same on
Respondent commented informing that
June 24, 1981 when the donor had died
the criminal complaint lodged against
on January 15, 1981, and
him in connection with his notarization
of the questioned document was
2) Respondent "showed a grave dismissed, he having proved
disrespect to the courts by holding, a
parade around the principal streets of
i) that when he notarized the subject
Tagbilaran City, directed against
complainant who had convicted Deed of Donation – one among six
respondent’s close relatives in three similar documents executed in favor
criminal cases and denied the of Tubigon, Bohol, for purposes of a
applications for probation of two of school site – someone represented to
the convicts. respondent as "Crispina Panis;"

Respondent submitted his COMMENT
claiming that he had been away from his
place of birth Bohol since 1958, hence,
when he notarized the questioned deed
of donation, he "really did not recognize
the person of Crispina Panis," but he was
led by one Gregorio Ricafort to believe
that "the old woman before him at the
time was the said Crispina Panis."
As for the charge of having conducted a
rally/parade, respondent claimed that
the same was staged by PDP Laban and
BAYAN of Bohol as a protest against
ii) that she turned [out] to be the
daughter of Crispina Panis, and that she
ha[d] been instructed by Gregorio
Ricafor[t] who prepared the document to
affix the same Crispina Panis in the
document;
iii) that the donation turned out to be
the will and resolve of the heirs of
Crispina Panis[.]
Respondent accordingly prayed for the
dismissal of the case.
The IBP later received a REITERATIVE
MANIFESTATION (RE: COMPLAINANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS)18 alleging, among other
things,
b) that respondent never personally
knew the late Crispina Panis nor his
relationship to her.
c) that, in fact, the fact of death of said
Crispina Panis was known to respondent
only when he became one of the
accused in a complaint for "falsification
of public document"
Commissioner de los Reyes submitted
her REPORT and
RECOMMENDATION20 the pertinent
portion of which read:
failure of the complainant to
substantiate his serious charges it is
respectfully recommended that this
charge for disbarment be dismissed.
In Flores v. Chua, where the notary
public is a lawyer, a graver responsibility
is placed upon his shoulder by reason of
his solemn oath to obey the laws and to
do no falsehood or consent to the doing
of any. And in the case Nunga v.
Viray, , the Honorable Court ruled that
notaries public must observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in
the performance of their duties.
In the case before us, the respondent
himself admitted that he did not exert
any effort to find out if the person who
acknowledged to have executed the
Deed of Donation was really Crispina
Panis. He merely relied on the assurance
of Mr. Gregorio Ricafort that the person
who appeared before him as Notary
Public was the real Crispina Panis.
Considering that Tubigon, Bohol is a
small town, it would have been easy to
determine the real identity of the person
claiming to have executed the
document.
Moreover, it was easy for the respondent
to require the person who claimed to
have executed the questioned Deed of
Donation to produce his Community Tax
Certificate and any other documents to
identify him or her. This he did not do.
It can therefore be validly concluded
that respondent Atty. Cabatos failed to
exercise with utmost care and diligence
his duties as Notary Public.
ISSUE: WON Atty Cabatos failed to
exercise wirh utmost care and diligence
his duties as Notary Public.
By Notice of RESOLUTION,21 the IBP
National Secretary quoted the IBP
Resolution adopting and approving the
Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner,
That respondent was, if true, exonerated
from the criminal case filed against him
in connection with his notarization of the
questioned document does not
exonerate him from the present
administrative case.
Nor does, if respondent’s information in
his Motion to Dismiss25 is true, that the
person who had been instructed by
Ricafort to affix the signature of Crispina
Panis was the latter’s daughter
exonerate him. By such information,
he in fact impliedly admits that the
document had already been signed
when it was brought to him for
notarization.
That a notary public should not notarize
a document unless the persons who
signed it are the same persons who
executed and personally appeared
before him to attest to the contents of
the truth of what are stated therein
bears reiterating. On pain of sounding
like a broken record, this Court has
repeatedly held that the purpose of the
injunction is to enable the notary public
to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party –
in this case Crispina Panis – and to
ascertain that the document is the
party’s free act of deed.26
Respondent having thus failed to
faithfully discharge his sacred duties as
a notary public, under the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
revocation of his notarial commission
and disqualification from being
commissioned as notary public for a
period of One (1) Year is in order.
As for the charge against respondent of
showing "grave disrespect to the courts
and the administration of justice" by
holding a parade/rally, along with his
followers, during which he imputed bias
to complainant whom he branded as
"worse than President Marcos," it has
not been sufficiently substantiated.
B. CHITA PANTOJA-
MUMAR, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JANUARIO C.
FLORES, Respondent.
FACTS:
Pantoja-Mumar charging respondent
Atty. Flores with fraud,
misrepresentation, deceit, falsification of
document, breach of duty and violation
of his oath as a lawyer.
Complainant is one of the compulsory
heirs of the late Jose Pantoja, Sr. It
appears that respondent had prepared
an Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute
Sale1 for her and 11 other co-heirs
covering a three-hectare property in
Danao City. The deed was executed in
favor of the spouses Filomena and
Edilberto Perez, who were later able to
secure a torrens title2 over the property
under their names.
The complainant alleged that
Respondent knowing fully well that there
actually was no transaction between the
Pantojas and the Perezes, notarized the
same document apparently in violation
of his oath as a lawyer and a breach of
his duty as a notary public. Worst was
the fact that spouses Perez and the
respondent had the document
thumbmarked by Maximina Pantoja as
appearing above in the same
typewritten name.
Moreover, the respondent made it
appear in the falsified/fabricated and
forged document that the same was
acknowledged before him on when in
truth and in fact, he and the spouses
Perez prepared, falsified, fabricated and
forged the said document, when they
were able to fraudulently secure the first
page thereof from Lucresia P. Awe, not
to mention the fact that neither of the
parties to the said document appeared
before him as required under the
notarial law.
On the basis of such falsified, fabricated
and forged document denominated as
Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale,
[the] spouses Perez with the help of
respondent attorney, were able to effect
the issuance of a title over the above-
described property in their names to the
damage and prejudice of complainant.
Respondent denies the charges against
him. His version of what transpired
during the signing and notarization of
the document is as follows:
During the signing of the document at
the ancestral home of the Pantojas by
surviving spouse Celedonia Pantoja and
all the children (except Mrs. Mumar), the
respondent called the attention of Mrs.
Pantoja to the fact that Mrs. Mumar was
not a signatory to the document
because she was absent. Mrs. Pantoja
pleaded with the respondent to proceed
with the notarization of the document
because she badly needed the money.
She promised to have the document
signed by Mrs. Mumar as soon as she
would come to Danao City;
But Mrs. Pantoja did not make good her
promise. So, Edilberto Perez (vendee)
sent a registered letter to Mrs. Chita P.
Mumar at her address at Talibon, Bohol,
informing her of the sale of their 3.3526
hectare property located in Pandan,
Cambanay, Danao City.
Obviously, complainant Mumar already
knew of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition with Sale. Therefore, her right
of action, whether civil, criminal or
administrative, is barred by prescription.
She is also guilty of laches in failing to
assert her right for an unreasonable
length of time;
Lastly, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
with Sale was published in the Sun Star
Daily, a newspaper of general circulation
in the cities and province of Cebu in its
issues of March 18, 23 and 31, 1989, 5.6
The Court referred the matter to the
(IBP).
In her Position Paper, complainant
insisted that respondent forged her
signature, which originally did not
appear on the first page of the
document before it was borrowed. She
added that respondent had also falsified
a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to
make it appear that one of her co-heirs
had authorized another to sign the deed
for her.
In his Comment on the Position Paper,
respondent alleged that the allegations
in the complaint are self-serving and not
supported by evidence. To prove his
point, respondent enclosed the original
duplicate of the SPA which was
notarized.
Regarding Maximina’s thumbmark,
respondent recalled that he, Clarita
Manulat, and vendee Filomena Perez
went to the residence of Celedonia
Pantoja as previously agreed upon. Only
the complainant was not present. After
the other heirs finished signing the
document, Mrs. Pantoja asked
permission from respondent if she could
bring the document inside the bedroom
because she would be coaxing her
daughter to affix her thumbmark. Mrs.
Pantoja told them that Maximina was
"reclusive and suffering from mental
imbalance."
Complainant pointed out that
respondent had admitted that he did not
see Maximina affix her thumbmark on
the assailed Deed, yet he notarized it;
respondent had also admitted that he
had committed a breach of his office as
a notary public on cross-examination in
Civil Case No DNA-574. Respondent’s
belief that Maximina Pantoja was
suffering from some mental ailment
and yet still notarized it only proves his
misconduct.
According to the Investigating
Commissioner:
1. The document, although already
signed by some of the co-heirs/co-
owners was not finalized because the
transaction was not pursued;
2. Respondent notarized the document
on or after June 13, 1988, without the
authority and/or in the absence of some
of the supposed signatories;
3. Respondent did not see one of the co-
heirs, Maximina Pantoja, actually affix
her thumbmark to the document; and
4. Respondent notarized the document
even if Complainant, also a co-heir, did
not sign it.7
ISSUE: WON the act of notarizing on the
part of the respondent is valid.
RULING:
Board of Governors of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline approved
Resolution No. XVII-2006-281, worded as
follows:
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the
above-entitled case, and considering
that respondent was remiss in his duties
as notaries public, Atty. Januario C.
Flores is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years and
Respondent’s notarial commission is
Revoked and Disqualified from
reappointment for two (2) years.
It cannot be overemphasized that
notarization of documents is not an
empty, meaningless or routinary act. It
is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as
notaries public. It is through the act of
notarization that a private document is
converted into a public one, making it
admissible in evidence without need of
preliminary proof of asthenticity and due
execution.10 Indeed, a notarial document
is by law entitled to full faith and credit
upon its face, and for this reason,
notaries public must observe utmost
care in complying with the elementary
formalities in the performance of their
duties.11 Otherwise, the confidence of
the public in the integrity of this form of
conveyance would be undermined.
Hence, a notary public should not
notarize a document unless the persons
who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the
contents and truth of what are stated
therein.12 A notary public is duty-bound
to require the person executing a
document to be personally present, to
swear before him that he is that person
and ask the latter if he has voluntarily
and freely executed the same.13
As correctly found by the Investigating
Commissioner, respondent admitted he
did not actually see one of the
signatories to the subject deed sign, and
that he notarized the deed despite the
absence of the complainant’s
signature:
Thus, in notarizing the Deed of Absolute
Sale without ascertaining that all the
vendors-signatories thereto were the
very same persons who executed it and
personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and truth of what are
stated therein, respondent undermined
the confidence of the public on notarial
documents; he thereby breached Canon
1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which requires lawyers to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01
thereof, which proscribes lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
It must be stressed that disbarment is
the most severe form of disciplinary
sanction, and, as such, the power to
disbar must always be exercised with
great caution for only the most
imperative reasons, and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and
moral character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the
bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not
be decreed where any punishment less
severe – such as a reprimand,
suspension, or fine – would
accomplish the end
desired.15 Considering that this is the
respondent’s first administrative
offense, the Court modifies the IBP’s
recommendation of a two-year
suspension from the practice of law
to one year.16
C. ARTURO L. SICAT, Complainant,
vs. ATTY. GREGORIO E. ARIOLA,
JR., respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Complainant Arturo Sicat, a Board
Member of the Sangguniang
Panglalawigan of Rizal, charged
respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, the
Municipal Administrator of Cainta, Rizal,
with violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by committing fraud,
deceit and falsehood in his dealings,
particularly the notarization of a (SPA)
purportedly executed by Benitez.
According to complainant, respondent
made it appear that Benitez executed
the said document on January 4, 2001
when in fact the latter had already died
on October 25, 2000.
He alleged that prior to the notarization,
the Municipality of Cainta had entered
into a contract with J.C. Benitez Architect
and Technical Management, represented
by Benitez, for the construction of low-
cost houses. The cost of the
architectural and engineering designs
amounted to P11,000,000 and two
consultants were engaged to supervise
the project. For the services of the
consultants, the Municipality of Cainta
issued a check dated January 10, 2001
in the amount of P3,700,000, payable to
J.C. Benitez Architects and Technical
Management and/or Cesar Goco. The
check was received and encashed by
the latter by virtue of the authority of
the SPA notarized by respondent Ariola.
Complainant further charged respondent
with the crime of falsification by making
it appear that certain persons
participated in an act or proceeding
when in fact they did not.
Respondent explained that, as early as
May 12, 2000, Benitez had already
signed the SPA. He claimed that due to
inadvertence, it was only on January 4,
2001 that he was able to notarize it.
Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him
on January 4, 2001 was not at all
necessary because Benitez had signed a
similar SPA in favor of Goco sometime
before his death, on May 12, 2000.
Because it was no longer necessary, the
SPA was cancelled the same day he
notarized it, hence, legally, there was no
public document that existed.
Respondent prayed that the complaint
be dismissed on the ground of forum-
shopping since similar charges had been
filed with the Civil Service Commission
and the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon.
Court referred the complaint to the (IBP)
it is evident that respondent notarized
the Special Power of Attorney dated 4
January 2001 purportedly executed by
Benitez long after Mr. Benitez was dead.
It is also evident that respondent cannot
feign innocence and claim that he did
not know Mr. Benitez was already dead
at the time because respondent, as
member of the Prequalification and
Awards Committee of the Municipality of
Cainta, personally knew Mr. Benitez
because the latter appeared before the
Committee a number of times. It is
evident that the Special Power of
Attorney was part of a scheme of
individuals to defraud the Municipality of
Cainta of money which was allegedly
due them, and that respondent by
notarizing said Special Power of Attorney
helped said parties succeed in their
plans. The IBP recommended to the
Court that respondent's notarial
commission be revoked and that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one year.
ISSUE: WON Atty Ariola engaged in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, conduct in
notarizing the SPA despite prior death of
the signatory.
RULING: YES, his act was a serious
breach of the sacred obligation imposed
upon him by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1. As a lawyer and as an officer of
the court, it was his duty to serve the
ends of justice,9 not to corrupt it. Oath-
bound, he was expected to act at all
times in accordance with law and ethics,
and if he did not, he would not only
injure himself and the public but also
bring reproach upon an honorable
profession.10
In the case at bar, the records show that
Benitez died on October 25, 2000.
However, respondent notarized the SPA,
purportedly bearing the signature of
Benitez, on January 4, 2001 or more
than two months after the latter's death.
The notarial acknowledgement of
respondent declared that Benitez
"appeared before him and
acknowledged that the instrument was
his free and voluntary act." Clearly,
respondent lied and intentionally
perpetuated an untruthful statement.
Notarization is not an empty,
meaningless and routinary act.13 It
converts a private document into a
public instrument, making it admissible
in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of its authenticity and
due execution.
Neither will respondent's defense that
the SPA in question was superfluous and
unnecessary, and prejudiced no one,
exonerate him of accountability. His
assertion of falsehood in a public
document contravened one of the most
cherished tenets of the legal profession
and potentially cast suspicion on the
truthfulness of every notarial act. As the
Municipal Administrator of Cainta, he
should have been aware of his great
responsibility not only as a notary public
but as a public officer as well.
D. MANUEL MALLARI and MILLIE
MALLARI, Petitioners,
vs.
REBECCA ALSOL, Respondent.
FACTS:
Stalls No. 7 and 8 of the Supermarket
Section of the Cabanatuan City Public
Market were awarded to and occupied
by Abelardo Mallari ("Abelardo"), father
of Manuel Mallari ("Manuel") and
Rebecca Alsol ("respondent"). Before
Abelardo’s death he gave the stalls to
Manuel and respondent. Manuel and
his wife Millie Mallari ("petitioners")
occupied Stall No. 7 while
respondent and her husband
Zacarias Alsol occupied Stall No. 8.
Respondent’s daughter became sick
and the Alsol family had to stay in
Manila for two months for the
medical treatment. They returned to
Cabanatuan City only to find out that
petitioners were already occupying
Stall No. 8. The partition between
Stalls No. 7 and 8 had been removed
and respondent’s merchandise and
things were already gone. Petitioners
refused respondent’s demand to
vacate Stall No. 8.
Respondent sought the help of the
Market Committee ("Committee"). The
Committee passed Kapasiyahan Blg. 1,
s-1989 granting Stall No. 7 to Manuel
and Stall No. 8 to respondent.
Respondent and the City Government of
Cabanatuan represented by ("Mayor
Perez"), executed a ("Lease Contract").
The Lease Contract granted respondent
the right to occupy Stall No. 8 for a
monthly rental of P316 subject to
increase or decrease in accordance with
the rules and ordinances of the City
Government.
However, petitioners still refused to
vacate Stall No. 8. Instead, they filed an
action for annulment of the Lease
Contract
Respondent filed an action for recovery
and possession before the trial court.
RTC: judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the respondents
CA: sustained respondent’s right to
occupy Stall No. 8 by virtue of the
Lease Contract she entered with the
City Government.
ISSUES:
Petitioners raise the following issues:
Whether the Lease Contract executed
between respondent and the City
Government is valid.
RULING:
Validity of the Lease Contract
Petitioners insist that the Lease Contract
is not valid because the City Treasurer
should have signed the Lease Contract
and not Mayor Perez. Petitioners further
allege that granting Mayor Perez has the
authority to sign the Lease Contract,
Mayor Perez did not appear before the
notary public who notarized the Lease
Contract. Hence, the Lease Contract did
not produce any right in favor of
respondent.
The Court agrees with petitioners that
RA 7160 is not the applicable law.
Instead, the Court of Appeals should
have applied Batas Pambansa Blg.
3379 or the old Local Government Code.
Still, even under BP 337, city mayors
have the authority to sign contracts on
behalf of city governments.
Applying BP 337, there is nothing in the
powers and functions of the city
treasurer that gives the city treasurer
authority to sign contracts for the city
government. Instead, it clearly provides
that the city mayor shall represent the
city in its business transactions and sign
contracts of the city. Hence, Mayor Perez
has the authority to sign the Lease
Contract on behalf of the City
Government. Even under the Revenue
Code of Cabanatuan City of 1974, the
authority of the city treasurer is limited
to direct and immediate supervision,
administration and control over the
Cabanatuan public markets and its
personnel.10 The city treasurer has the
authority to designate spaces and stalls
to vendors,11 but the authority does not
include signing of contracts on behalf of
the City Government.
Petitioners also allege that the Lease
Contract is not valid because Mayor
Perez did not appear before the notary
public who notarized the document.
We cannot sustain this argument.
Notarization converts a private
document into a public
document.12 However, the non-
appearance of the parties before the
notary public who notarized the
document does not necessarily nullify
nor render the parties’ transaction void
ab initio.13 Thus:
x x x Article 1358 of the New Civil Code
on the necessity of a public document is
only for convenience, not for validity or
enforceability. Failure to follow the
proper form does not invalidate a
contract. Where a contract is not in the
form prescribed by law, the parties can
merely compel each other to observe
that form, once the contract has been
perfected. This is consistent with the
basic principle that contracts are
obligatory in whatever form they may
have been entered into, provided all
essential requisites are present.14
Hence, the Lease Contract is valid
despite Mayor Perez’s failure to appear
before the notary public.
E. ST. MARY'S FARM, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
PRIMA REAL PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiff was the registered owner of land
situated at Bo. Pugad Lawin, Las Piñas City.
In compliance with a final court decision,
plaintiff passed and approved on a board
resolution authorizing defendant Rodolfo A.
Agana to cede to T.S. Cruz Subdivision
(4,000) square meters of the land covered by
the aforecited Transfer Certificate of Title No.
S-1648 (11521-A). Allegedly, after the
consummation of this transaction, defendant
Rodolfo A. Agana did not return to plaintiff the
borrowed aforementioned title and instead,
allegedly forged a board resolution of the
plaintiff corporation supposedly to the effect
that plaintiff had authorized him to sell the
remaining (21,598) square meters of the
subject property. A series of transactions
thereafter took place between defendant
Rodolfo A. Agana and defendant Prima Real
Properties, Inc. (Prima) which transactions
culminated to the signing of an absolute deed
of sale transferring the ownership of the
subject land from herein plaintiff to herein
defendant Prima. After the consummation of
the sale, defendant Prima effected the
cancellation of TCT in the name of plaintiff and
in lieu thereof another TCT in the name of
defendant Prima was issued by Register of
Deeds.
defendant Prima duly purchased from T.S.
Cruz Subdivision the aforementioned four
thousand (4,000) square meters portion of the
subject property.
In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that the
authorization certified to by Agcaoili,
Corporate Secretary of the plaintiff and used
by defendant Agana in selling the subject
property to defendant Prima was a forgery as
the board of directors of the plaintiff never
enacted a resolution authorizing herein
defendant Agana to sell herein subject
property to defendant Prima or to anyone else
for that matter. Plaintiff further claimed that
defendant Prima in collusion with defendant
Rodolfo A. Agana acted maliciously and in bad
faith in relying on the forged authority without
taking any step to verify the same with the
plaintiff as owner of the subject property.
defendant Prima separately with defendant
Rodolfo A. Agana in their respective answers,
sought and insisted constantly on the
dismissal of the complaint based solidly on the
ground that Venice B. Agana and Ma.
Natividad A. Villacorta who filed in behalf of
the plaintiff the original complaint and the
amended and the second amended
complaints as well, respectively, lacked legal
capacity to sue because they were not
authorized therefor by the board of directors of
the plaintiff. Furthermore, defendant Prima
argued that it acted in good faith when it relied
solely on the face of the purported
authorization of defendant Rodolfo A. Agana
and entered into the deed of absolute sale
and paid in full the purchase price This fact,
according to defendant Prima, made it a buyer
in good faith and for value. To cap its
argument, defendant Prima in adopting the
defense of defendant Agana asserted that
even assuming that the authorization of
defendant Agana was forged when plaintiff,
through its President, Marcelino A. Agana, Jr.
accepted/received part of the aforestated
purchase price knowing fully well the same to
be the proceeds of the sale of the subject
property, plaintiff has been precluded as it is
now estopped from asking for rescission of
the deed of absolute sale and reconveyance
of the subject property.
RTC: dismissing the complaint for annulment
of sale with damages filed by the petitioner.4
CA: affirmed in toto.
Petitioner insists that "the sale of the realty
entered into between respondent Agana,
purportedly on behalf of the petitioner, and
respondent Prima is null and void for lack of
authority on the part of respondent Agana to
sell the property."7 The board resolution
allegedly granting Agana the authority to sell
in behalf of the company, as certified by Atty.
Agcaoili, is alleged to be a forgery.
ISSUE: WON Respondent Agana was duly
authorized by Petitioner to enter into the sale
of the subject property with Respondent Prima
Real.
WON the board resolution is inadmissible
despite nonappearance before notary public.
RULING:
Anent the forged signature of Atty. Agcaoili,
the CA did not err in not giving evidentiary
weight to the findings of (NBI) on the ground
that the findings were not really conclusive. In
the first place, the procedure for the
investigation of questionable handwriting was
not properly followed. There is nothing on
record that will conclusively show that the
alleged standard sample signatures of Atty.
Antonio Agcaoili, which were submitted to the
NBI and made the basis of comparison, were
the genuine signatures of the same Atty.
Antonio Agcaoili.
Moreover, the examiner testified that it was
possible to have variations in the standard
signatures of Atty. Agcaoili, caused by certain
factors such as passage of time, pressure and
physical condition of the writer which may
have decisive influences on his handwriting’s
characteristics.8
Thus, in the instant case, it cannot readily be
concluded that a particular signature
appearing in those documents is not genuine
for lack of proper identification and a more
accurate comparison of signatures. Mere
allegation of forgery is not evidence and the
burden of proof lies in the party making the
allegation.9 Unfortunately, in the case at bar,
the petitioner failed to discharge this burden.
(2) We do not agree, because in the past, we
have already held that the non-appearance of
the party before the notary public who
notarized the deed does not necessarily nullify
or render the parties’ transaction void ab
initio.10 However, the non-appearance of the
party exposes the notary public to
administrative liability which warrants sanction
by the Court. This fact notwithstanding, we
agree with the respondent court that it is not
enough to overcome the presumption of the
truthfulness of the statements contained in the
board resolution. To overcome the
presumption, there must be sufficient, clear
and convincing evidence as to exclude all
reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the
certificate.11 In the absence of such proof, the
document must be upheld. Notarization
converts a private document into a public
document, making it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity.12
1avvphi1
On the basis of this notarized board
resolution, respondent had every reason to
rely on Agana’s authority to sell the subject
property. Undeniably then, the respondent is
an innocent purchaser for value in good faith.
It is of no moment that the checks were made
payable to Agana and not to the company
which, according to the petitioner, should have
alerted the respondent to inquire further into
the extent of Agana’s authority to transfer the
subject property. This was no longer
necessary considering that respondent had
every reason to rely on Agana’s authority to
sell, evidenced by the notarized Certification
In sum, all things being equal, a person
dealing with a seller who has [in his]
possession title to the property but whose
capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a
buyer in good faith if he proves that he
inquired into the title of the seller as well as
into the latter’s capacity to sell; and that in his
inquiry, he relied on the notarial
acknowledgment found in the seller’s duly
notarized special power of attorney. He need
not prove anything more for it is already the
function of the notarial acknowledgment to
establish the appearance of the parties to the
document, its due execution and authenticity.19
Aside from the pertinent documents
presented, respondent also relied on the
confirmation and certification of the Register
of Deeds of Las Piñas City and Mr. Timoteo S.
Cruz, owner of the land likewise sold by
Rodolfo Agana for the petitioner, with similar
authorization by the petitioner and signed by
the corporate secretary Atty. Agcaoili. Agana
acted as petitioner’s authorized agent and had
full authority to bind the company in that
transaction with Cruz.
Contrary to the allegations of the petitioner
that respondent Agana’s authority was only
limited to negotiate and not to sell the subject
property, suffice it to state that the board
resolution further averred that he was
"authorized and empowered to sign any and
all documents, instruments, papers or writings
which may be required and necessary for this
purpose to bind the Corporation in this
undertaking."20 The certification of the respondent Agana with the intention to end
President, Marcelino Agana, Jr. also attests to the rift in the family corporation.
this fact. With this notarized board resolution,
respondent Agana, undeniably, had the Considering all the foregoing, it cannot be
authority to cede the subject property, carrying gainsaid that respondent Prima is an innocent
with it all the concomitant powers necessary purchaser in good faith and for value.
to implement said transaction. On the strength
of the deed of absolute sale executed
pursuant to such authority, title over the land
in petitioner’s name was cancelled and a new
certificate of title – TCT No. T-617521 – was
already issued in the name of Prima Real
Properties, Inc.

Thus, it is too late in the day to have the sale

voided, notwithstanding the retraction made
by Rodolfo Agana in his Comment 22 on the
Petition filed with this Court. Therein, he
admits that he acted solely and without proper
authority of the corporation. Agana states that
he wishes to end once and for all the rift that
had occurred in the corporation; and in order
to buy peace for all the parties and for himself,
he is willing to return the money paid by Prima
so that ownership of the property can be
returned to the petitioner. In light of this
admission that Agana had no authority,
petitioner posits that there is justifiable reason
for the Court to re-visit or evaluate the facts of
the case anew.

Unfortunately, the Court cannot give weight to

this magnanimous gesture of Agana; neither
will the Court lend credence to Agana’s
assertion that he acted solely and without
proper authority from the corporation,
inasmuch as it was raised for the very first
time in this Court and only after 8 years from
the inception of the case. In all the pleadings
filed by respondent Agana in court, he was
steadfast in his position that he had authority
to sell the subject property. A judicial
admission conclusively binds the party making
it. He cannot thereafter take a position
contradictory to, or inconsistent with his
pleadings. Acts or facts admitted do not
require proof and cannot be contradicted
unless it is shown that the admission was
made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.23 In the instant
case, there is no proof of these exceptional
circumstances. Clearly, the retraction was
merely an afterthought on the part of