FRANCISCA SALOMON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FROILAN BLANCO, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative case against above-named respondent with
respect to which the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum dated October 13, 1981, from which the
following is quoted:

“The complaint against respondent Froilan Blanco, then
Municipal Judge of Pilar, Bataan and now Judge of the Municipal Circuit Court
of Orion-Pilar, Bataan, revolves around his notarization of the ‘Extra-Judicial
Partition and Absolute Deed of Sale’ in the absence of complainant Francisca
Salomon and Abraham Gatdula and without seeing them signed the document and at
the time when Abraham Gatdula was only 13 or 14 years old.

“The findings of PC Document Examiners Manuel Doctura and
Crispin Tabo is that the signatures of Francisca Salomon and Abraham Gatdula on
the Extra-Judicial Partition and Absolute Sale were forged.  In fact, in Civil Case No. 3861 of the Court
of First Instance of Bataan, entitled: 
Francisca Salomon, et al. vs. Araceli Calimbas, et al. for the nullifi­cation
of said document, the court rendered judgment declaring null and void said
instrument, ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. 7544 and 7545, and the
restoration of TCT No. 5333.”^[1]

The memorandum submitted by Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D.
Mendoza, also dated October 13, 1981,
is likewise hereunder quoted:

“Mrs. Francisca Salomon in an administrative complaint dated July 29, 1974, filed with the CFI of
Bataan, Branch I, charged Judge Froilan Blanco of the Municipal Circuit Court
of Orion-Pilar, Bataan, with gross misconduct,
irregularity and falsification in the perform­ance of his duties as Ex-Officio
Notary Public.

“Complainant alleged that she is the registered pro-indiviso
owner together with her sister Josefa Salomon (now deceased) survived by two
sons Rogelio and Abraham Gatdula, of the property described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 5333 of the Registry of Property of Bataan; that
sometime in 1972, herein complainant discovered that the aforecited property
have been conveyed to one Araceli Calimbas of Pilar, Bataan, by virtue of an
Extra-Judicial Partition and Deed of Absolute Sale, purportedly executed by
canplainant and her two nephews and notarized by res­pondent judge in his
capacity as Ex-Officio Notary Public; that she and her two nephews never ceded
nor conveyed the said property registered in her name to anybody else; that
they never appeared before the res­pondent judge to execute the aforecited
intrument nor exhibited their respective Residence Certificate to respondent,
more particularly, Abraham Gatdula, who was then barely fourteen (14) years old
and therefore did not have any residence cer­tificate and suspicious that gross
irre­gularity, misconduct and falsification were resorted to in the execution
of the questioned instruments, complainant submitted a cer­tified xerox copy of
the said Extra-judicial Partition and Deed of Absolute Sale for examination and
analysis at the Crime Labo­ratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City which came up with
the findings that the sig­natures of both Francisca Salomon and Abraham Gatdula
were forged.

“Complainant further alleged that respondent judge personally
worked for the registration of the questioned property and received from the
Register of Deeds of Bataan Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7545 with Araceli
Calimbas as the registered owner thereof.

“Respondent filed a Motion dated August 6, 1974 praying for
the suspension of filing an answer and hearing of Administrative Case No. 23,
until after the final termination of Civil Case No. 3861 (Francisca Salomon, et
al. vs. Araceli Calimbas, et al.) alleged to be a condition precedent to
Administrative Case No. 23.  (Now
docketed as AM 2505-MJ).

“Hon. Abraham P. Vera, Executive Judge, Court of First
Instance of Bataan, Branch I at Balanga in an Order dated August 26, 1974 denied said Motion and respondent
was required to file his answer.

“The respondent judge filed his answer dated September 6, 1974, and alleged:

a)   that he admits having notarized an
Extra-judicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale, in his capacity as
Ex-Officio Notary Public but the same was regularly, properly and legally made.
He complied with all the requirements and formalities of law in notarizing the
questioned instruments;

b)   that he contests the allegations of
complainant as to the findings of the Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crime, the same being misleading
and erroneous.  Respondent claims that
complainant Salomon, did not mention in her complaint whose specimen signatures
were submitted to hand writing experts and when those signatures were written
in her effort to determine the genuineness of the questioned signatures;

c)   that he admits par. 4 and 5 of the complaint
relative to the transfer made and he finds nothing illegal or irregular in
working for the registration of the questioned property in favor of Araceli
Calimbas; and,

d)   that the complaint is groundless and is
purely for harassment purposes only.

“Respondent further avers that there is a pending case
docketed as Civil Case No. 3861 entitled ‘Francisca Salomon, et al. vs. Araceli
Calimbas, et al.’ for nullifi­cation of Document and Titles, with Damages
before the CFI of Bataan.

“Considering that Administrative Case No. 23 and Civil Case
No. 3861 involves the same parties and involves the same question of fact, the
counsel for the comp­lainants moved for the issuance of an Order directing the
parties’ respective evidence in Civil Case No. 3861 insofar as they are con­cerned
be adopted as evidence in the Admi­nistrative Case.  In an Order dated March 9, 1977 Hon. Abraham P. Vera, finding said
Motion to be meritorious, directed complainant to submit a written motion
and/or an offer of the relevant evidence he has presented in Civil Case No.
3861 so that such evidence may be considered as his evidence in the adminis­trative
case.  Complainant and respondent further
agreed to suspend the investigation of Administrative Case No. 23 (AM 2505-MJ)
until after the termination of Civil Case No. 3861 as the evidences adduced
therein will be adopted in this administrative case.  The inquest judge, examining the documents
and other records of the case, found the following apparent and visible
infirmities and discrepancies:

‘1.   Ramon Gatdula, husband of Josefa, was stated
in the document to have died on November
18, 1950 but certified to have died on May 17, 1951 (Exhibit J);

‘2.   Josefa, mother of Abraham and Rogelio Gatdula
was stated in the document to have died on May 18, 1951 but certified to have
died on November 18, 1950 (Exhibit I);

‘3.   The signature of Abraham (Exhibit-A-4;
Exhibit 21-B) on the left hand margin of page one of the document and his
signature (Exhibit 21-F-2) on page two of the same document are visibly
different;

‘4.   To the typewritten title ‘Notary Public’ on
page two of the document was added ‘Ex-Officio’ in hand writing and under the
typewritten phrase ‘Until December
31, 1953’ was added the handwritting ‘Justice of the Peace’.

These additions in handwritting which were of the judge would belie
the judge’s testimony that he himself prepared the document (tsn, p. 4 May 3, 1979). Otherwise, there would
be no need for the additions in handwriting.

‘5.   Rogelio was supposed to have exhibited
Residence Certificate No. A-3799787 issued on February 26, 1953 at Pilar, Bataan
and Abraham was supposed to have exhibited Residence Certificate No. 3799788
issued also on February 26, 1953
at Pilar, Bataan. 
The issuance of the residence certificates seemed to be dubious
considering that the brothers were issued the consecutive certificates on the
same day in February 1953, a good six-month period before the execution of the
document.  This would be quite abnormal
and not in the regular performance of official business.  The issuance of the residence certificate to
Abraham appeared to be more patently a last minute move as its number ‘3799788’
and its date of issuance ‘February 26’ were typewritten on what before ire
blank spaces of the document.  Moreover,
Abraham was a minor who ought not to be issued a residence certificate.

‘6.   Francisca Salomon was stated in the document
to be a resident of and with postal address at 11th
Avenue, Caloocan, Rizal and yet
exhibited Residence Certificate No. A-0326637 issued on June 17, 1953 in Manila
and not in Caloocan City, her supposed residence at the time.

“From the foregoing defects in the documents, the
investigating judge is correct to conclude that the questioned documents was
(sic) inaccurately and hurriedly prepared and as a result thereof, vital data
were mis-stated and some necessary details were added.

“It is clear that respondent judge has been negligent in not
requiring vendees Francisca Salomon and Abraham Gatdula to personally appear
before him and attest to the truth of the contents of the ins­trument which is
one of the basic require­ments of the acknowledgment.  Why he ratified a document with infirmities
and intercalations without being wary about them is perhaps indicative that he
was really in haste and careless.  If he
had only observed the formalities required by law before notarizing the
questioned ins­trument, Araceli Calimbas would not have been able to register
the residential lot, subject of the controversy owned by the complainants
herein.

“The hearing judge rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 3861
on May 5, 1981, the dispositive portion of which are as follows:

‘Resultingly, judgment is hereby rendered:

1.    Declaring as null and void the Extra
Judicial Partition and Deed of Abso­lute Sale dated August 10, 1953;

2.    Cancelling Transfer Certificate of Title No.
7544 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7545 covering Lot 50 of the Pilar
(Bataan) Irrigation cadastre;

3.    Restoring the efficacy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 5333, likewise, covering Lot 50 of the Pilar (Bataan)
Irrigation cadastre;

4.    Ordering defendant Araceli Calimbas to
remove at her expense her house constructed on Lot 50 and directing the said
defendant to pay to plaintiffs the amount of P50.00 as rea­sonable monthly
rental on Lot 50 since the construction of her house on the said lot;

5.    Restoring
plaintiffs to the possession of Lot 50;

6.    Directing defendants, jointly and severally,
to pay attorney’s fees in the sum of P3,500 and to pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.’

“From the foregoing dispositive portion of the decision in
Civil Case No. 3861, it is clear that respondent’s notarization of the
questioned document was irregular, improper and not in accordance with law.  The discrepancies, infirmities and
intercalations very plainly reveal that the requirements of the law had been
ignored in the notarial act.  While it is
true that during the time that the respondent judge was following up the
registration of the changes in the Transfer Certificate of title of the land,
Municipal Judges were allowed to practice, nonetheless for a judge to follow-up
papers in registering document with the Register of Deeds, is not appropriate
and befitting of the conduct of a judge. 
As a notary public, he should show impartiality and integrity.  Respondent’s parti­cular conduct in this case
is wanting for which reason we find him negligent and careless.”^[2]

After we have thoroughly and conscientiously gone over the
records of the case, We are sufficiently satisfied that the observations and
conclusions contained in the foregoing memoranda are fully substantiated and
supported by the evi­dence on record in that respondent Judge had been
nonchalantly negligent in notarizing the alleged “Extrajudicial Partition
and Deed of Absolute Sale”, supposedly executed by complainant and her
nephews sans their presence, and in further determin­ing the right age of
Abraham Gatdula before notarizing the said deed, which led to the ceding to one
Araceli Calimbas of a residential parcel of land in Pilar, Bataan, especially
so, that Article 1327 (1) of the new Civil Code is quite explicit that an
unemancipated minor, like Abraham at the time of the execution of the document
in question, cannot give consent to a contract, consent being one of the
essential requisites of a contract, as provided by Article 1318 of the same
Code.

Had it not been for the notarized deed in question, the property
involved herein could not have possibly been registered in Araceli’s name,
which registration was made easier thru respondent’s ill-advised act of
notarizing said deed without requiring the supposed deponents to personally
appear before him and attest to the truth of the contents of said document
which is one of the basic requirements of an acknowledgment.  It is worth noting, as it is significant,
that a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face, and for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to
comply with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties.  Otherwise, the confidence of the public in
the integrity of this form of conveyancing would be undermined.^[3]

Be that as it may, however, We take the view that the penalty of
suspension from office for a period of six (6) months without pay, as
recommended both by the Court Admi­nistrator and the Deputy Court
Administrator, is too severe a penalty under the premises.  We believe that the act commit­ted by
respondent Judge is not so grave enough to warrant suspension.  A fine equivalent to one (1) month of
respondent’s salary will be sufficient, if only to remind respondent and other
notaries public of the delicate nature of their sworn duties.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent, Judge Froilan Blanco,
guilty of notarizing the questioned Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of
Absolute Sale in the absence of complainant, one of the supposed deponents to
said document, he is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary of one (1)
month, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar errors will not be
countenanced and will be the subject of a stern dis­ciplinary action.

Let this decision be noted in respondent’s record.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

^[1]
p. 123, Rollo.

^[2]
pp. 124-130, Id.

^[3]
Ramirez v. Ner, 21 SCRA 207.