THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233708. September 4, 2019.]
EDUARDO D. GARGAR, FOR HIMSELF, AS PRESIDENT OF GARDEL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR SPS. JOEL & VIRGINIA PALACPAC, petitioner, vs.NOTARY PUBLIC KARA AIMEE M. QUEVENCO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 4, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233708 (Eduardo D. Gargar, for himself, as President of Gardel Agricultural Development Corporation, as Attorney-in-Fact for Sps. Joel & Virginia Palacpac vs. Notary Public Kara Aimee M. Quevenco). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 taken under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Order 2 dated May 29, 2017 and Order 3 dated August 14, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in In the Matter of a Verified Petition for the Permanent Revocation of the Notarial Commission, Prohibition from being Commissioned as Notary Public, and Institution of Administrative Actions for Violation of the Notarial Law/2004 Rules on Notarial Practice against Notary Public Atty. Kara Aimee M. Quevenco, Plus Institution of Criminal Action for Falsification by a Notary Impleading Ma. Rosario P. Ledesma and the Loan Officers of the Rural Bank of Silay City, Inc. as Principals by Inducement for Soliciting, Coercing or in Any Way Influencing Said Notary to Commit Official Misconduct Impleading Atty. Collin Derek Isidro, et al., Ylosorio, et al., Officers of the Register of Deeds of Cadiz City as Principals by Indispensable Cooperation by Allowing the Registration of Two Spurious Instruments in the Registry of Property Despite their Patent Unregisterability.
Factual Antecedents
Eduardo Gargar (petitioner) avers that he is the attorney-in-fact of Spouses Joel and Virginia Palacpac (spouses Palacpac), who are the registered owners of a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-11451 (subject property). 4 When the subject property was placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, TCT No. T-11451 was cancelled and a new one was issued under TCT No. 25129. 5
It appears that in 1992 the subject property was sold to Gardel Agricultural Development Corporation, 6 a domestic company where the petitioner is the president, while Leonida Longno is the vice-president and corporate secretary. 7
According to the petitioner, he was shocked when he discovered that the subject property's title has two spurious entries, including a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Warner and Leonida Longno, executed by Joel Palacpac, and a Real Estate Mortgage (REM), executed by Warner and Leonida Longno, in favor of the Rural Bank of Silay City, Inc. 8
Both the said SPA and REM, dated July 16, 2012, were notarized by Notary Public Kara Aimee M. Quevenco (respondent). 9 However, spouses Palacpac denied having participated in the execution of the said SPA and REM, and alleged that their signatures were merely forged. 10
This prompted the petitioner to file a petition for the permanent revocation of the notarial commission, prohibition from being commissioned as notary public and institution of administrative actions for violation of the notarial law or 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice against the respondent before the RTC, plus institution of criminal action for falsification by a notary impleading Ma. Rosario P. Ledesma and the loan officers of the Rural Bank of Silay City, Inc. as principals by inducement for soliciting, coercing or in any way influencing said notary to commit official misconduct impleading Atty. Collin Derek Isidro, et al., Ylosorio, et al., officers of the register of Deeds of Cadiz City as principals by indispensable cooperation by allowing the registration of two spurious instruments in the registry of property despite their patent unregisterability. 11
During pre-trial, however, the parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent violated the notarial law. 12
Ruling of the RTC
On May 29, 2017, the RTC issued an Order 13 dismissing the complaint and finding the respondent not guilty of violating the notarial law or 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, to wit:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Complaint against Respondent Notary Public, Atty. Kara Aimee Quevenco is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.14 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC found that the respondent exercised due diligence in ascertaining the identities of the parties who appeared before her and executed the SPA and REM she notarized. 15 Moreover, the court ruled that the issues on the authenticity of the signatures affixed in the documents should be subject of a different court case or action. 16
Afterwards, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was also denied. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant case.
Issue
Whether the RTC erred in finding that the respondent did not violate the notarial law or 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling of this Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
The respondent notarized the SPA and REM dated July 16, 2012 in accordance with the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. As ruled by the RTC and based on the evidence on record, at the time the assailed documents were notarized, the respondent sufficiently complied with her duties as a notary public.
This Court affirms the RTC's findings that all the requirements to ascertain the identity of the parties were duly exercised by the respondent. Aside from the fact that the parties presented their certificate of residency, they were even accompanied by the representatives of the Rural Bank of Silay City, Inc. in the execution of pro forma documents from the said bank.
It bears stressing that the petitioner failed to present any proof that the respondent notarized the assailed documents without the personal appearance of the parties who claimed to be spouses Palacpac. On the contrary, the bank representatives of the Rural Bank of Silay City, Inc. who accompanied the parties and signed as witnesses in the documents, testified that the parties who executed the documents actually and personally appeared before the respondent as required under the notarial law.
In addition, while spouses Palacpac claim that their signatures were forged, the petitioner cannot blame the respondent for failing to recognize the alleged forgery considering that there was no reason for her to raise any suspicion, and the documents bearing the alleged original signatures of spouses Palacpac were not available for comparison at the time when the assailed documents were notarized. In other words, even assuming that the documents were spurious, the respondent did not knowingly notarized the forged documents.
Moreover, in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as in the instant case, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. 17 This Court is not a trier of facts. 18 For this reason and as a matter of sound practice and procedure, this Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts. 19
In view of the foregoing factual and legal basis, this Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC. Consequently, the RTC committed no reversible error in finding that the respondent did not violate the notarial law, and no administrative sanction against her is warranted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. The Order dated May 29, 2017 and Order dated August 14, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."(Hernando, J., no part, as he concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals Decision; Carandang, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 22, 2019.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-40.
2. Penned by Acting Executive Judge Ana Celeste P. Bernad; id. at 41-44.
3.Id. at 61.
4.Id. at 42.
5.Id. at 14-15.
6.Id. at 80-82.
7.Id. at 325.
8.Id. at 15-16.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 42.
11.Id. at 41.
12.Id. at 42.
13. Penned by Acting Executive Judge Ana Celeste P. Bernad, id. at 41-44.
14.Id. at 44.
15.Id. at 43.
16.Id. at 44.
17. SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
18.Gatan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017, 842 SCRA 602.
19.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza,et al., 810 Phil. 172 (2017).