Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 246 views

    Mabini Vs Atty. Kintanar

    Uploaded by

    sasa
    Roberto Mabini filed a complaint against attorney Vitto Kintanar for misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. Mabini alleged that Kintanar notarized an affidavit of loss for a land title executed by Kintanar's wife in 2002. Kintanar argued that the laws in effect in 2002 did not prohibit a notary from notarizing a document signed by one's spouse. The Court held that Kintanar did not violate any duties as there was no prohibition against notarizing a document signed by one's spouse under the laws in effect in 2002 when the notarization occurred. Therefore, the complaint against Kintanar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Mabini Vs Atty. Kintanar

    Uploaded by

    sasa
    246 views2 pages
    Roberto Mabini filed a complaint against attorney Vitto Kintanar for misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. Mabini alleged that Kintanar notarized an affidavit of loss for a land title executed by Kintanar's wife in 2002. Kintanar argued that the laws in effect in 2002 did not prohibit a notary from notarizing a document signed by one's spouse. The Court held that Kintanar did not violate any duties as there was no prohibition against notarizing a document signed by one's spouse under the laws in effect in 2002 when the notarization occurred. Therefore, the complaint against Kintanar was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Mabini vs Atty. Kintanar Case Digest

    Original Title

    Mabini vs Atty. Kintanar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roberto Mabini filed a complaint against attorney Vitto Kintanar for misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. Mabini alleged that Kintanar notarized an affidavit of loss for a land title executed by Kintanar's wife in 2002. Kintanar argued that the laws in effect in 2002 did not prohibit a notary from notarizing a document signed by one's spouse. The Court held that Kintanar did not violate any duties as there was no prohibition against notarizing a document signed by one's spouse under the laws in effect in 2002 when the notarization occurred. Therefore, the complaint against Kintanar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Mabini Vs Atty. Kintanar

    Uploaded by

    sasa
    Roberto Mabini filed a complaint against attorney Vitto Kintanar for misconduct as a lawyer and notary public. Mabini alleged that Kintanar notarized an affidavit of loss for a land title executed by Kintanar's wife in 2002. Kintanar argued that the laws in effect in 2002 did not prohibit a notary from notarizing a document signed by one's spouse. The Court held that Kintanar did not violate any duties as there was no prohibition against notarizing a document signed by one's spouse under the laws in effect in 2002 when the notarization occurred. Therefore, the complaint against Kintanar was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    A.C. No.

    9512, February 05, 2018

    ROBERTO P. MABINI, Complainant, v. ATTY. VITTO A.


    KINTANAR, Respondent.

    Del Castillo, J.:

    Nature of the Case:

    Facts: In his Position Paper, complainant stated that sometime in November


    2003, Regina Alamares approached him and his wife, Mercedes M. Mabini, to
    sell her a parcel of land. It was covered by a title. Regina made known to
    complainant and Mercedes that said title was lost but its duplicate certificate
    may be secured from the Register of Deeds. Complainant and Mercedes
    nonetheless bought the property. Later, complainant filed a petition for
    issuance of second owners duplicate copy which was granted. The RD of
    Albay issued TCT covering the property in the names of complainant and
    Mercedes over the property.

    Complainant further averred that, in March 2012, however, respondent's


    wife, Evangeline, filed a complaint against him, among other persons, for
    reconveyance, annulment of title, damages with prayer for preliminary
    injunction or restraining order. Attached to said complaint was an Affidavit of
    Lost Owner's Duplicate Copy of Title executed by Evangeline and notarized
    by respondent on April 25, 2002, and registered in his notarial book.

    According to complainant, respondent knew that he was not authorized to


    notarize a document of his wife, or any of his relative within the fourth civil
    degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity; thus, for having done so,
    respondent committed misconduct as a lawyer/Notary Public.

    For his part, respondent countered that the subject Affidavit purportedly
    executed by his wife appeared to have been notarized on April 25, 2002; as
    such, it was governed by Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which did not
    prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by one's
    spouse. He likewise stated that, granting for argument's sake that he indeed
    notarized said Affidavit, he did not violate the law as the document involved
    was a mere affidavit, not a bilateral document or contract.
    Issue: Whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife's
    affidavit of loss in 2002.

    Held: A lawyer cannot be held liable for a violation of his duties as Notary
    Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act does not
    provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench. There is indeed
    no basis to hold respondent liable for misconduct for notarizing his wife's
    Affidavit in 2002.

    The 1917 Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial Law. In
    turn, the provisions anent notarial practice embodied in the Revised
    Administrative Code were superseded by the passage of the 2004 Rules on
    Notarial Practice. This only means that any prohibition enumerated in the
    2004 Rules on Notarial Practice does not cover the acts made by a Notary
    Public earlier, including those executed in 2002.

    All told, the Court holds that respondent did not violate any of his duties as
    Notary Public when he notarized the affidavit of his wife on April 25, 2002.

    WHEREFORE, the Complaint against Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar


    is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    You might also like