You are on page 1of 1

Dolores Natanuaan vs Tolentino

Facts:

Dolores sold her property to Alejo to which TCT is issued in favor of the latter.
However, Alejo failed to pay the remaining balance which causes Dolores to file
reconveyance of the said property and annulement of the sale. The RTC ruled in
favor of Dolores, however, she discovered that the court ruled not on the basis of
the sale between her and Alejo, but on the sale between her father, Jose, and Atty
Tolentino. Dolores claimed that the documents on that sale were falsified as Jose
died prior to the execution of sale and that atty Perfecto who notarized the sale
was not a commissioned notary public on the same year of execution. Moreover, the
deed of sale between Dolores and Atty Tolentino to with respect to another property
is the same as the deed of sale executed by Jose and Atty. Tolentino. Dolores filed
a disbarment case against atty Tolentino, however the IBP only recommended the
suspension of Atty. Tolentino.

Issue: WON Atty. is involved in the falsification.

Ruling: Yes.
We agree with Commissioner Espina�s finding that there is sufficient
proof to hold that Atty. Tolentino was involved in the falsification. The
totality of evidence (consisting of the falsified documents, Dolores�
testimony detailing the transactions surrounding the land, and the
investigation conducted by this Court) leaves no doubt as to Atty. Tolentino�s
involvement in, or at the very least, benefit from the acts of falsification
imputed against him.