Scribd
Upload
344 views

Conrado Lopez v. Atty. Mata, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty. Abellana AC No. 9334 July 28, 2020 Facts

The Supreme Court found three lawyers guilty of violating notarial rules and practices. Atty. Sentillas failed to properly verify the identity of the person who signed a special power of attorney. Atty. Mata similarly failed to ensure the identity of the person who signed another special power of attorney. Atty. Abellana was found guilty of failing to submit his 2004 notarial report. All three lawyers were suspended from practice for six months and prohibited from being commissioned as notaries public for periods ranging from one to two years.

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
344 views

Conrado Lopez v. Atty. Mata, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty. Abellana AC No. 9334 July 28, 2020 Facts

The Supreme Court found three lawyers guilty of violating notarial rules and practices. Atty. Sentillas failed to properly verify the identity of the person who signed a special power of attorney. Atty. Mata similarly failed to ensure the identity of the person who signed another special power of attorney. Atty. Abellana was found guilty of failing to submit his 2004 notarial report. All three lawyers were suspended from practice for six months and prohibited from being commissioned as notaries public for periods ranging from one to two years.

Uploaded by

Joesil Dianne Sempron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Conrado Lopez v. Atty. Mata, Atty. Sentillas, and Atty.

Abellana
AC No. 9334 July 28, 2020

Facts:
Moises Legaspino married twice during his lifetime. During his first marriage, he sired Francisco,
Basilia, Amando, Mamerto, and Honorata, all surnamed Legaspino. When Moises' first wife died,
he got married to Victoria Lopez who had a son, Restituto Lopez, his (Conrado's) adoptive father.
Moises and Victoria passed away, leaving a 49,817 square meter parcel of land to their heirs. Half
of the property was adjudicated to Moises' children from his first marriage, while the other half,
to Restitute Meanwhile, Honorata died without a will, leaving her share in the property to her
children Basilio, Pedro, Victoriano, Crisostomo, Regulada, Juan and Patricia, all surnamed
Lucmayon. Eventually, the shares of Moises' other children from his first marriage were
consolidated in the name of Honorata's son Pedro.

Restituto executed the "Katapusang Pamigon (Testamento) Intervivos" (Katapusang Panugon)


wherein he bequeathed to Conrado the 24,908 sqm property he inherited. But since Conrado
was then only 8 years old, Restituto kept possession of the document. After Restituto died, the
document was left in the possession of Conrado's mother Honorata Abe Lopez.

In the early 2000s, Judge Rogelio Lucmayon, Presiding Judge of MTCC Branch 1, Mandaue, City
and son of Pedro Lucmayon, asked Conrado to execute a special power of attorney (First SPA) in
favor of his (Judge Lucmayon's) friends because he wanted to sell the property they inherited to
Cebu Progress Development Company. Complainant acceded to the request and executed the
First SPA on July 12, 2004 before Atty. Mata. Judge Lucmayon requested anew for Conrado to
execute another SPA (Second SPA), this time naming him (Judge Lucmayon) as Attorney-in-Fact. It
was Judge Lucmayon who had it notarized by Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas. Judge Lucmayon asked
Conrado a third time to sign an SPA (Third SPA) which was purportedly required by the vendees
before paying for the property in full. Conrado was not aware that the Third SPA contained a
"Waiver of Rights, Interest, Possession, and Ownership.

Later, Conrado discovered the existence of a Deed of Sale dated June 28, 2004 where he allegedly
sold his share in Lot No. 1696-H to one Loreto Lecanda. The Deed of Sale was notarized by Atty.
Abellana, albeit complainant denied signing the document, let alone personally appearing before
Atty. Abellana to have it notarized.

IBP-CBD: Atty. Sentillas failed to secure competent proof of affiant's identity when he notarized
the Second SPA; Atty. Mata failed to ensure it was indeed Conrado who was with Judge Lucmayon
when he notarized the Third SPA; Atty. Abellana had been remiss in his duty to submit his 2004
Notarial Report
IBP-BOG: affirmed with modification

Issue: Whether or not respondents be sanctioned for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.
Held:
The Court adopts the IBP - CBD's factual findings but modifies the recommended penalty.

In the performance of his or her duties, a notary public must observe the highest degree of care
in complying with the basic requirements to preserve the public's confidence in the integrity of
the notarial system.34 This is because notarization of a private document converts it into a public
instrument making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit on its face and, for this reason, notaries public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties, lest,
the public's confidence in the integrity of the document will be undermined.

Here, respondents miserably failed to live up to their duties as notaries public when they
committed irregularities relative to the notarization of the Second SPA, Third SPA, and the Deed
of Sale dated June 28, 2004.

Atty. Sentillas and Atty. Mata failed to ascertain the identity of the "Conrado Lopez" who allegedly
appeared before them. A CTC cannot be considered competent evidence of identity as it does not
bear the photograph and signature of its owner. As such, Atty. Sentillas could not have properly
verified whether the person who appeared before was in fact complainant Conrado.

Atty. Wilfredo M. Sentillas and Atty. Arturo C. Mata are GUILTY of violation of Section 2(b), Rule IV
and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. They are SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months, their incumbent commission as notaries public, if any,
REVOKED, and are hereby PROHIBITED from being COMMISSIONED as notaries public for two (2)
years.

Atty. Gines N. Abellana is found GUILTY of violating Section 246 of the Administrative Code of
1917 for failure to submit his notarial register for the year 2004. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months, his incumbent commission as notary public, if any, REVOKED,
and PROHIBITED from being COMMISSIONED notary public for one (1) year.

You might also like