THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 10946. January 13, 2016.]
MARIA BELEN A. DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARLENE J. CARBON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 10946 (Maria Belen A. de Guzman v. Atty. Arlene J. Carbon). — For resolution is a complaint for unduly notarizing an invalid Deed of Absolute Sale against respondent Atty. Arlene J. Carbon filed by Maria Belen A. de Guzman with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Hector B. Almeyda, Commission on Bar Discipline, IBP, submitted his Report and Recommendation dated April 23, 2014.
Said Report and Recommendation follows:
I. The Complaint/The Charge
Respondent stands charged of unduly notarizing an invalid deed of sale of that 467 sq. m. parcel of land located in Taytay, Rizal. Complainant claims that the said property is conjugal and owned by Jose J. Reyes and complainant Maria Belen de Guzman, as their conjugal property, despite the fact that their marriage had been judicially declared void ab initio by decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo dated September 26, 1997.
II. The Answer/The Defense
At the forefront of the defense is the claim that the lot subject-matter of the sale was the exclusive property of Jose Reyes. The signature of complainant was unnecessary.
III. Issue
Was there a case of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when respondent prepared and/or notarized the questioned deed of sale without the participation of complainant who claims to be a co-owner of the lot?
IV. Findings
Complainant and Jose Reyes used to be husband and wife, having been married on January 16, 1982. Without any previous marriage settlement agreed upon, their property relations were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains.
By decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo dated September 26, 1997, the above marriage was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.
While the marriage lasted, the couple had their conjugal abode constructed on a lot covered by TCT No. 507498. This lot is situated in San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal. The lot covered by TCT No. 507498 used to be co-owned and registered among Jose Reyes and his siblings. In time, the Reyes siblings executed an agreement of partition of rights that resulted in the property being finally adjudicated in favor of Jose Reyes alone.
On September 18, 2012, respondent notarized the deed of absolute sale of 264 sq.m. of the property, in favor of the spouses Ignacio.
In essence, what is in issue here, flouring out of the respondent's alleged error in notarizing a deed of sale that should have included complainant as a party being interested in her conjugal share of the lot, may subject respondent to sanctions because of her error in this regard.
We find the respondent's explanation valid enough. Although the issue of the validity of the sale may find solution in some other forum and not necessarily in this administrative complaint, still the fact remains that:
Jose Reyes became co-owner of the property when he was yet a minor. That property thus became Jose Reyes' exclusive property later. The right to the property was vested in Jose Reyes when the co-owners waived their shares in favor of Jose. aTHCSE
With the foregoing principles embedded in the situation, there need not be made further discussion of the merit of complainant's argument seeking rights where none actually exists, whether in law or in fact. The rest of respondent's argument in this regard need not be discussed anymore since they confirm, rather than deny, the respondent's position in the premises.
The Commission finds the following arguments of respondent apropos. Thus:
2.a Complainant and Jose J. Reyes contracted marriage on January 16, 1982, when the Civil Code was still enforced. They had no marriage settlements. Their property relations were governed by the conjugal partnership of gains.
2.b With all due respect, the subject matter of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Annex "A" of Complaint), which is Lot 24-A was the exclusive property of Jose J. Reyes, the former spouse of complainant and the maternal first cousin of herein respondent. A perusal of TCT No. 507498 (Annex "B" of Complaint) shows that registration thereof was transferred to Jose J. Reyes on May 21, 1981, when he was still a minor.
2.c Under Article 148 of the Civil Code, the then 1/6 share of Jose J. Reyes in TCT No. 507498 is his exclusive property.
2.d On January 9, 1996, Jose J. Reyes' siblings (Francisco J. Reyes, Jr., Jocelyn R. Fernandez, and Edwin Reyes), sister-in-law (Adelina T. Reyes), and niece (Irene T. Reyes) executed an Agreement of Partition with Waiver of Rights (Annex "F" of Complaint) waiving their respective share, interest and participation in the lot, in favor of Jose J. Reyes and his co-owner Alicia R. Ocampo.
2.e When his co-owners waived their respective share, interest, and participation in favor of Jose J. Reyes and Alicia R. Ocampo, the shares waived in favor of Jose J. Reyes became his exclusive property, and did not form part of the conjugal partnership of gains of complainant and Jose J. Reyes. This is clear under Article 148 (2) of the Civil Code.
2.f Even under the Family Code, the shares waived in favor of Jose J. Reyes, thus becoming his exclusive property. Yet, they did not form part of the conjugal partnership of gains of complainant and Jose J. Reyes. This is clear under Article 109 of the Family Code.
2.g It is true that the phrase "married to Maria Belen de Guzman" is indicated in the Agreement of Partition with Waiver of Rights (Annex "F" of Complaint) and in the Partition and Segregation of Parcel of Land (Annex "E" of the Complaint). However, it is merely descriptive of the status of Jose J. Reyes at the time of the donation. It should not be construed to mean that complainant is also an owner thereof. The description of the status of Jose J. Reyes is in compliance with Section 45 of P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Degree.
2.h The lot being the exclusive property of Jose J. Reyes, the disposition thereof can be made without the consent of complainant. This is clear under Article 111 of the Family Code.
2.i It must be also remembered that at the time of the disposition of the lot, complainant was no longer the legal wife of Jose J. Reyes. Their marriage was declared null and void ab initio as per Decision dated September 26, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, annotated in the Marriage Contract (Annex "1"). Hence, contrary to the allegations of complainant, her name was not "erased."
xxx xxx xxx
3. The lot subject matter of the Deed of Absolute Sale became the absolute property of Jose J. Reyes and his present/second wife.
3.a Jose J. Reyes contracted marriage to Lizette Reyes on September 10, 2009. They had no marriage settlements. Considering Jose J. Reyes and his present/second wife had no marriage settlement, their property relations is governed by the absolute community of property under Article 88 of the Family Code.
3.b The lot automatically became the absolute property of Jose J. Reyes and his present/second wife under Article 91 of the Family Code.
The significant absence of complainant's position paper could lead to no other rational conclusion than that complainant might have realized the paucity of her argument in the premises. cAaDHT
V. Recommendation
In the circumstances, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of basis in fact and in law. 1
In Resolution No. XXI-2014-827, the Board of Governors of the IBP, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the case against respondent is dismissed.
Finding the recommendation of the IBP to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and considering that the complaint lacks basis, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case against Atty. Arlene J. Carbon and consider the same as CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 214-217.