Monterey v. Arayata
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata (Arayata) prepared a deed of sale dated August 27, 1931, in his favor, for a land previously owned by his father, Arcadio Arayata. The deed falsely stated that Arcadio Arayata, who had died on November 5, 1916, executed the document. Arayata then presented this fictitious deed to notary public Tereso Ma. Montoya (Montoya) for legalization, falsely assuring Montoya that the person appearing was indeed Arcadio Arayata. Subsequently, Arayata succeeded in having the Register of Deeds cancel the original title and issue a new one in his name. Additionally, on June 5, 1933, Arayata, who was legally married to Aurora L. Saguil, filed an application to marry Engracia F. Ortega, falsely declaring under oath that he was single. Procedural History: The investigation was conducted by the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The investigating judge recommended disciplinary action against Arayata but exoneration for Montoya, finding that Montoya acted in good faith, relying on Arayata's assurances. The investigating judge also recommended no action on the second charge against Arayata (bigamy) due to pending proceedings in another court. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the findings and recommendations concerning the disciplinary actions against Attorneys Arayata and Montoya.
Issue(s)
Whether Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata committed malpractice and unprofessional conduct by preparing and notarizing a deed of sale using the name of his deceased father and by falsely declaring himself single in an application for marriage. Whether notary public Tereso Ma. Montoya is liable for malpractice for legalizing the fictitious deed of sale.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata guilty of malpractice and unprofessional conduct. He was suspended from the practice of his profession for one (1) month and reprimanded. Attorney Tereso Ma. Montoya was exonerated and held innocent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Arayata's Liability): The Court found Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata guilty of malpractice and unprofessional conduct. The established facts showed that Arayata prepared a deed of sale dated August 27, 1931, in his favor, purporting to be executed by his father, Arcadio Arayata, who had died on November 5, 1916. Arayata presented this fictitious document to notary public Tereso Ma. Montoya, falsely assuring him that the person appearing was the deceased grantor. Arayata then used this document to obtain a new transfer certificate of title in his name. Furthermore, Arayata committed another act of unprofessional conduct by filing an application to marry Engracia F. Ortega on June 5, 1933, under oath, stating he was single, despite being legally married to Aurora L. Saguil. The Court rejected Arayata's inconsistent defenses, finding his claim that his uncle Januario Arayata signed the deed under his father's name improbable and unestablished. These acts constituted malpractice under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court mitigated the disciplinary action by considering that Arayata was apparently the rightful heir and that the complainant had no direct interest, but still imposed a one-month suspension and reprimand. On Issue 2 (Montoya's Liability): The Court exonerated notary public Tereso Ma. Montoya. The evidence established that Montoya acted in good faith when he ratified the deed of sale. He relied on Arayata's assurance that the person appearing before him was indeed the grantor, Arcadio Arayata. Montoya had no knowledge that the person was deceased or that the document was fictitious. The investigating judge's appreciation of the facts, which found Montoya to have acted in good faith, was concurred with by the Supreme Court. Therefore, Montoya was held innocent of the charges.
Main Doctrine
Attorneys and notaries public are held to a high standard of professional conduct. The preparation and notarization of a deed of sale using the name of a deceased person, and the subsequent registration of title based on such a document, constitute malpractice. Furthermore, filing an application for marriage while legally married, falsely declaring oneself as single, is a violation of law and constitutes unprofessional conduct.