Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    Miamor Natividad
    This case involves the disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Centron for her involvement in an illegal land sale. [1] Atty. Centron notarized the deed of sale for the land despite the property being subject to an ongoing reconstitution case. [2] While she denied involvement in the sale, the Court found she violated the law by notarizing a document unrelated to her official duties as an ex-officio notary public. [3] The Court upheld the OCA's recommendation of a P2,000 fine given it was her first offense, but she was found guilty of abuse of authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    Miamor Natividad
    31 views2 pages
    This case involves the disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Centron for her involvement in an illegal land sale. [1] Atty. Centron notarized the deed of sale for the land despite the property being subject to an ongoing reconstitution case. [2] While she denied involvement in the sale, the Court found she violated the law by notarizing a document unrelated to her official duties as an ex-officio notary public. [3] The Court upheld the OCA's recommendation of a P2,000 fine given it was her first offense, but she was found guilty of abuse of authority.

    Original Description:

    case digest of cruz vs centron

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Centron for her involvement in an illegal land sale. [1] Atty. Centron notarized the deed of sale for the land despite the property being subject to an ongoing reconstitution case. [2] While she denied involvement in the sale, the Court found she violated the law by notarizing a document unrelated to her official duties as an ex-officio notary public. [3] The Court upheld the OCA's recommendation of a P2,000 fine given it was her first offense, but she was found guilty of abuse of authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    Miamor Natividad
    This case involves the disbarment complaint filed against Atty. Centron for her involvement in an illegal land sale. [1] Atty. Centron notarized the deed of sale for the land despite the property being subject to an ongoing reconstitution case. [2] While she denied involvement in the sale, the Court found she violated the law by notarizing a document unrelated to her official duties as an ex-officio notary public. [3] The Court upheld the OCA's recommendation of a P2,000 fine given it was her first offense, but she was found guilty of abuse of authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Cruz v.

    Centron 442 SCRA 53 (2004)

    FACTS:

    1. Atty. Centron assisted a certain Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating the sale of a
    parcel of land (OCT No. 2186) in the name of one Joaquina Jabat. Such assistance consisted in preparing
    and notarizing the documents of sale.
    2. The said sale is illegal because the property covered by the sale is still the subject of reconstitution and
    Extra-Judicial Settlement among the heirs. As a result of the illegal sale, Logdat and de la Cruz are charged
    with estafa through falsification of public documents. Atty. Centron took advantage of her being a lawyer
    to solicit the trust and confidence of the buyers of the subject parcel of land.
    3. Atty. Centron is involved in the disappearance of OCT No. 2186, and she refuses to surrender the title
    which is in the possession of one of her relatives.
    4. Hence this case of disbarment was filed by Logdat and De la Cruz against Atty. Centron
    5. In her Comment, Atty. Centron denied any involvement in the preparation of the documents and in the
    consummation of the sale of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. She claims that her only
    participation in the said sale is that she was the one who notarized the deed of sale on because she was
    requested by the parties to notarize the same.
    6. The Office of the Court Administrator held that Atty. Centron violated the provisions of Section 242 of the
    Revised Administrative Code as well as Section G, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court when she
    notarized a deed of conveyance, a document which is not connected with the exercise of her official
    functions and duties as Ex-Officio Notary Public. Accordingly, she be fined in the amount of P2,000.00 and
    sternly warned.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Centron should be held liable.

    RULING: Yes. In the present case, we find that complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to
    show that respondent had direct and instrumental participation in the preparation of documents and the
    subsequent sale of the subject parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186. Aside from the deed of sale covering the
    subject parcel of land which was notarized by respondent, no competent evidence was shown that would directly
    link her to the said sale.

    While it may be logical to assume that Atty. Centron was the one who prepared the deed of sale since she was the
    one who notarized it, we cannot give evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of any evidence to
    support it. Moreover, complainants allegation that Atty. Centron influenced the buyers is contradicted by the
    sworn affidavit of Adelfa Manes, one of the buyers of the land. Manes attested to the fact that respondent did not
    convince nor influence them in buying the subject property. Likewise, we find no competent evidence to prove
    that Atty. Centron is responsible for the alleged loss of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186.

    Nonetheless, we find that respondent is guilty of violating Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733)
    and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M and N Chapter VIII of the Manual
    for Clerks of Court.
    Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex officio, and may thus notarize documents or
    administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. In the present case,
    it is not within Atty. Centron competence, as it is not part of her official function and duty, to notarize the subject
    deed of sale. Respondent is guilty of abuse of authority.
    In the present case, it appearing that this is respondents first offense of this nature and that she has only notarized
    one document, we find the OCAs recommended penalty of a fine of P2,000.00 commensurate to the offense
    committed.

    You might also like