Jose P. Mariano vs. Rtc Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

EN BANC

 

A.C. No. 3247 February 10, 1992

JOSE P. MARIANO and FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA, complainants, RTC JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR. and ATTY. ROGELIO R. UDARBE, respondents.

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-226 February 10, 1992

JOSE P. MARIANO and FRANCISCO M. BAUTISTA, complainants, RTC JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR. of 5th Judicial Region, Iriga City, respondent.

Imar M.C. Alam for complainants.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

These administrative complaints against Judge Jose S.

The complainant, Jose P. Mariano, is an adopted son of the spouses Don Macario Mariano and Doña Irene Mariano, who owned extensive real properties in Iriga City,

1. there is no original of the deed of sale;

2. only a carbon copy containing erasures, was produced;

3. the ink used by the parties in signing it are of different colors;

4. different typewriters were used in typing the first and second pages of the document; and

5. the deed falsely states that Irene P. Mariano's adopted children, Jose and Erlinda Mariano, have no undivided shares in the parcels of land sold.

Commenting on the complaint, Judge Peñas alleged that the filling of the charge against him is premature because the deed of sale in question is also the subject of pending actions for annulment and rescission (Civil Cases Nos. 88-1506 and 88-1507, Rollo of Adm.

Commenting on the charge against him, Attorney Rogelio R. Udarbe denied having participated in the "execution or notarization of the document" in question.Rollo of AC-3247.)consulta by the Registrar of Deeds of Naga City, authorized its registration. Since the certificates of title were issued in the name of the seller, Irene Mariano, Rollo of Administrative Case No. 3247).

ByRollo of

The Court granted Justice Imperial's request and transferred these cases to the Court of Appeals Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez for investigation, report and recommendation.

On September 5, 1991, Associate Justice Ramirez submitted his report.

The records of this case are bereft of proof that the deed of absolute sale (Exh.

With regard to respondent Attorney Udarbe, the records do not show that he participated inconsulta was raised by the Registrar of Deeds to the Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration inquiring as to the registrability of Exhibit A. The documentconsulta was resolved in Rollo of A.C. No. 3247).

The other allegation that the deed of absolute sale was antedated by Judge Peñas so that the property could not be seized to satisfy the judgment

Respondent Judge Peñas not only certified on the last

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is presumedciting Naval vs. Enriquez, 3 Phil. 699; Asido vs. Guzman, 37 Phil. 652). To overthrow a notarial certification, the oral evidence must be clear and convincing, and should be sustained bysupra).

Incidentally,

WHEREFORE, the complaints for

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.