Baysac vs.

Aceron-Papa

A.M. Case No. 10231, August 10, 2016

Complainant Oscar M. Baysac owns a property which was mortgaged by complainant to Spouses
Emmanuel and Rizalina Cruz (Spouses Cruz). Complainant went to the Registry of Deeds to get a
certified true copy of the certificate of title of the property because the property had a prospective buyer.
Complainant was surprised to find out that TCT had already been cancelled and a new TCT was issued to
Spouse Cruz. After further investigation, complainant found out that the property was transferred in the
name of Spouses Cruz pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale. The Deed of Absolute Sale which was
allegedly signed by complainant, as the owner of the property, was notarized by respondent.

More, a few months after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale, and subsequent to the transfer of
the title to Spouses Cruz, Atty. Estrella 0. Laysa (Atty. Laysa) as counsel for Spouses Cruz, allegedly sent
a letter to complainant. The letter demanded him to vacate the property subject of the alleged sale.
complainant filed a Complaint for Disbarment.

Whether respondent is guilty for violation of Notarial Practice?

We affirm the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent administratively liable, but we
modify the penalty imposed. We note that the complainant and the IBP Board of Governors cited Section
1, Rule II of the Rules on Notarial Practice as basis for the complained acts of respondent. By notarizing a
spurious document, respondent has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment. Respondent's failure to perform her duty as a notary public resulted not only in the
damage to those directly affected by the notarized document, but also in undermining the integrity of a
notary public, and in degrading the function of notarization. Precisely because of respondent's act,
complainant was unlawfully deprived of his property.