PILAR PROSPERO AND CLARINDA CASTILLO vs. ATTY. JOAQUIN DELOS SANTOS AND ATTY.

ROBERTO SAN JOSE

A.C. NO. 11583, December 03, 2019

Per Curiam:

Facts:

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pilar Prospero and Clarinda Castillo against Atty. Joaquin Delos
Santos and Atty. Roberto San Jose. In the complaint, it was narrated that Pilar and Clarinda are the niece
and granddaughter, respectively, of the late Fermina Prospero, the registered owner of a parcel of land in
Cabuyao, Laguna consisting of 20,384 square meters. Fermina sold to Pilar a portion thereof consisting
of 10,000 square meters. Subsequently, Fermina died and left a holographic will which bequeathed the
remaining 10,384 sqm. to Pilar. As of the date of the complaint, however, the provisions of the will have
not yet fully implemented.

In the Complaint-Affidavit it was narrated that respondent Atty. Delos Santos and a real estate agent were
introduced to Pilar to discuss the possible sale of her property. The latter convinced Pilar to execute a
SPA and to give to him the owner’s OCT copy in order to sell the 10,000 sqm. lot. However, the SPA
covered the whole 20,384 sqm. without the understanding of Pilar, who was then already 88 years old.

Then, unknown to Pilar, Atty. Delos Santos was able to secure a new TCT covering the entire 20,384
sqm. in favor of Pilar by falsifying and notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale making it appear that deceased
Fermina sold to Pilar the entire subject property. Furthermore, using the new TCT and the SPA, Atty.
Delos Santos sold the property to Hauskun Housing and Construction Products Corporation for P8.3M. A
Deed of Absolute Sale was executed which was, as alleged by complainants, “irregularly” notarized by
Atty. San Jose.

In his defense, Atty. San Jose denied the accusations against him and claimed that he was not aware of
any defect in the SPA of Atty. Delos Santos.

Atty. Delos Santos failed to file his Comment and Position Paper despite his filing of a motion for
extension to file answer. He reasoned that he was suffering from flu and bronchitis and that he broke his
ribs when he fell in his bike. Due to his consistent failure to appear, he was declared in default. In a
motion for reconsideration he claimed that he be allowed to file his answer because it was the fault of his
staff in misplacing the order declaring him in default.

The CBD-IBP recommended that the complaint against Atty. San Jose be dismissed and that Atty. Delos
Santos be disbarred. The Board of Governors adopted it in its Resolution

Issue:
Whether the Board of Governors erred in adopting the recommendation of the CBD-IBP

Ruling: No

At the outset, Atty. Delos Santos does not deny the fact that he prepared and notarized a
document supposedly signed by Femina. But it was firmly established by her death certificate that she
had already died on May 8, 1983, long before the execution of the deed of sale on May 20, 2008. This
fact alone, is unacceptable and warrants disbarment.

This propensity to deceive is further bolstered by the fact that Atty. Delos Santos made it appear
that the subject documents supposedly executed by the deceased Fermina were entered in his notarial
register s “Doc. No. 140, Page No. 28, Book No. XXXIV, Series of 2008.” But as certified by the Clerk of
Court of the RTC of Binan, Laguna, the document entered as such is not said deeds of sale but an
unrelated document entitled “Katunayan sa Pagkakabili” executed by a certain Carmela Bool. It was
through these fraudulent deeds of sale that Atty. Delos Santos was able to register the subject property in
Pilar’s name, which further propelled him to commit subsequent falsities that ultimately resulted in the
registration of the land in the name of Hauskon. While he may insist on his honest intentions to “help and
serve” people such as the “very old” Pilar, he failed to explain the fact that the checks issued as payment
of parcel of land were all made in his name. In the face of these glaring infractions, the Court cannot
simply uphold an indifference lest a grave and irreversible injustice might prevail.

Atty. Delos Santos’ failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in the damage
to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in the mockery of the integrity of a notary
public and a degradation of the function of notarization.