FRANCISCO TAYCO, substituted by LUCRESIA TAYCO and NOEL TAYCO,

Petitioners,
-versus-
HEIRS OF CONCEPCION TAYCO-FLORES, namely: LUCELI F. DIAZ, RONELE F.
BESA, MONELE FLORES, PERLA FLORES, RUPERTO FLORES, WENCESLAO
FLORES, PURISIMA FLORES, andFELIPE FLORES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 168692 December 13, 2010
Notarization of the deed of extrajudicial settlement has the effect of making it a
public document[14] that can bind third parties
FACTS: After the death of their parents, petitioner Francisco Tayco, Concepcion Tayco-
Flores and Concolacion inherited three parcels of land. Francisco and Concolacion
executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of their deceased parent
Diega Regalado with Confirmation of Sale of shares transferring the properties to their
sister Concepcion which was duly notarized. In 1991, Concepcion and Concolacion
executed Confirmation of Quitclaim over the parcels of land and later on both died.

Francisco filed a case for nullity of the said documents and partition with damages
before the RTC of Aklan claiming that the same were null and void and that the
quitclaim that his sisters executed was without his consent. RTC ruled in his favor
ratiocinating that the extrajudicial settlement is a simulated document to make it appear
that Concepcion was the owner of the properties so it would be easy for her for loan
purposes. Hence, the second document had no more basis.

On appeal of Respondent Heirs of Concepcion, the CA revesed said decision and ruled
that the genuiness and due execution of the settlement was not disputed and was duly
signed by the parties and notarized. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was
denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:’W/N the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the deceased Diega
Regalado with Confirmation of Sale of Shares divest co-heir and co-owner Francisco of
his shares in the 3 parcels of land in question

RULING: No. The Supreme Court ruled that an extrajudicial settlement is a contract and
it is a well-entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of a
contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what he
was doing, simply because the contract turned out to be a foolish or unwise investment.
[19] 
However, in the construction or interpretation of an instrument, the intention of the
parties is primordial and is to be pursued. [20] If the terms of a contract are clear and
leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control.[21] If the contract appears to be contrary to the evident
intentions of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. [22] The denomination
given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of the contents. [23] In
this particular case, the trial court, based on its appreciation of the pieces of
evidence presented, rightfully concluded that the intent of the signatories was
contrary to the questioned document's content and denomination.
 
Furthermore, the trial court, before stating its final conclusion as to the nullity of the
document in question, correctly discussed the lack of consideration in so far as that part
of the document which embodies the confirmation of the sale of shares of siblings
Francisco and Consolacion to Concepcion. As to the other questioned document or the
Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in Three Parcels of Land, the nullity of the first
document renders it void because its effectivity is anchored on the validity of the first
document.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.

MANUEL L. LEE, Complainant, - v e r s u s -  ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO,

Respondent February 12, 2008, A.C. No. 5281

FACTS: Complainant Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with
violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for allegedly notarizing a
spurious will. Lee alleged that the signature of his late father Vicente Lee, Sr in the will
was forged and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the absence of
notation of the Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective
voter's affidavit.
Further, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June
30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962,
which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records
Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts
(NCAA). Respondent alleged that complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee,
Sr. and the last will and testament was validly executed and actually notarized by
respondent per affidavit of Gloria Nebato, common-law wife of Vicente Lee, Sr. and
corroborated by the joint affidavit of the children of Vicente Lee, Sr., namely Elena N.
Lee and Vicente N. Lee, Jr. However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy
to the Archives Division of NCAA.
In a resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the decision of which found
respondent guilty of violations of pertinent provisions of the old Notarial Law and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended
the suspension of respondent for a period of three months. The IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved, with modifications, the recommendation of the CBD and ruled
that Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial
commission is Revoked and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for two
years. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the will in question was validly notarized as it complied with the
formalities prescribed by law.
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that defects in the observance of the
solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will invalid. This carelessness
cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate nature of a will,
considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no longer alive to
identify the instrument and to confirm its contents. Accordingly, respondent must be
held accountable for his acts. The validity of the will was seriously compromised as a
consequence of his breach of duty.
The Civil Code requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. The importance of this requirement is highlighted by the fact
that it was segregated from the other requirements under Article 805 and embodied in a
distinct and separate provision.
An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step
undertaken whereby the signatory actually declares to the notary public that the same is
his or her own free act and deed. The acknowledgment in a notarial will has a two-fold
purpose: (1) to safeguard the testators wishes long after his demise and (2) to assure
that his estate is administered in the manner that he intends it to be done.
A cursory examination of the acknowledgment of the will in question shows that this
particular requirement was neither strictly nor substantially complied with. For one, there
was the conspicuous absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial
witnesses Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment. Similarly, the notation of the
testators old residence certificate in the same acknowledgment was a clear breach of
the law. These omissions by respondent invalidated the will.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago is hereby found guilty of
professional misconduct.

DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, Petitioner, - versus - MARGARITA AVILA LORETO

and FLORENCIA AVILAPARREO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 193161, August 22, 2011
 
FACTS: Engracia Manungas was the wife Florentino Manunga who died intestate. The
former and their adopted child Avila survived him. Later, Avila died and was survived by
his wife, Sarah. In 1980, Engracia filed a motion for partition of estate and she became
the administratix. Sarah made a waiver of rights renouncing her rights over the property
in favor of Engracia. The estate was distributed to Engracia and Ramon Manungas, the
surviving heirs.

In 1995, RTC of Panabo City appointed Parreo as the judicial guardian of the properties
and person in behalf of her incompetent aunt Engracia. Through her, an illegal detainer
case with damages was instituted with the MTC against petitioner Diosdado Manungas
and his spouse Milgaros Pacifico. MTC ruled in Parreo’s favor ordering spouses to
vacate the property. Spouses appealed with the RTC but the same was denied, likewise
their appeal with this Court.

In 1998, Diosdado filed a petition for the issuance of administration over the estate of
Engracia Manungas in his favour before the RTC of Tagum City alleging that he is the
illegitimate child of Florentino Manungas, hence, an heir of Engracia but Parreo
objected since he is not a Manungas. Later, RTC appointed Parreo as administrator of
the estate but the same was reversed upon motion of Diosdado as he was then
appointed as the Special Administrator. On Parreo and Loreto’s appeal, the CA found
that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion and reinstated the former as special
administrator. Diosdado moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion when it annulled
the appointment of petitioner as judicial administrator and reinstating Parreo as special
administrator.

RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisprudence teaches us that the
appointment of a special administrator lies within the discretion of the court.

While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a special administrator of
the estate, such discretion must be exercised with reason, guided by the directives of
equity, justice and legal principles. It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the
role of a special administrator is to preserve the estate until a regular administrator is
appointed.

Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would, therefore, be prudent
and reasonable to appoint someone interested in preserving the estate for its eventual
distribution to the heirs. While the court may use its discretion and depart from such
reasoning, still, there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the
estate and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. To do so would be tantamount to
grave abuse of discretion.

In fact, Diosdado is a debtor of the estate and would have no interest in preserving its
value. There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator. The trial court
acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as special administrator of
the Estate of Manungas.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.