SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1597 January 6, 1986

ELY CHAN SA VELASCO, Complainant, vs. CORAZON R. PAULINO, Respondent.

AQUINO, C.J.:chanrobles virtual law library

This is a disbarment case for improper notarization of a deed of sale. The spouses Ely Chan Sa Velasco and Lorenzo T. Velasco, married in 1939, were estranged since 1964. Ely separated from Lorenzo and lived with Antonio Co, the brother-in-law of Lorenzo and the husband of his sister Florence Velasco-Co. For that reason, Florence charged with adultery her husband and her sister-in-law Ely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On January 25, 1975 lawyer Corazon R. Paulino notarized in Manila a deed of sale purportedly thumbmarked by Lorenzo and signed by his sister Florence. In that deed, Lorenzo sold for P48,000 to Florence his business under the tradename Central Engineering located at 3035-07 Jose Abad Santos Street, Manila including its equipment and machinery. The four witnesses in that deed were Apolinar Martin, Lorenzo's godson and employee; Grace Velasco, his adopted daughter; Lydia Alolon and Rolando Rebadomia (Exh. A-1).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At the time of the execution of the deed, Lorenzo had a brain tumor, caused by prostatic cancer, and had speech disturbance, a condition known as aphasia. His left thumbmark was affixed to the deed although the deed stated that it was his right thumbmark.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A supplemental deed of sale was executed by Lorenzo on February 21, 1975 to convey to his sister the bank account of Central Engineering. The deed was thumbmarked by Lorenzo and witnessed by Martin and Florence (Exh. 10-A).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Lorenzo died on February 28, 1975 or 34 days after he executed the disputed deed of sale. The cause of death was pneumonia and uremia with prostatic cancer, which had metastasized, as contributory factor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The next day, March 1, Ely filed an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estranged husband's estate. She was appointed as special administratrix. It should be noted that in their 1964 compromise agreement in the legal separation case she received P4,000 as her share of the conjugal assets and Lorenzo returned to her her personal effects and pieces of jewelry (Exh. 3).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Ely's objective was to wrest control of Central Engineering from Florence, her sister-in-law. The sheriff placed Ely in possession of that business as special administratrix.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Florence countered by filing against Ely an action to recover possession of said business. Judge Tutaan appointed Carlos Velasco, Lorenzo's brother who had managed the business, as receiver thereof. The Court of appeals, through Justices Escolin, Andres Reyes and Ramos, upheld the receivership and set aside the order of Judge Valencia dispossessing Florence of the machine shop (Exh. 9).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the meantime, or on March 17, 1976, Ely filed the instant disbarment proceeding against notary Paulino. She alleged that the deed of sale was signed in Lorenzo's residence at St. Paul Street, Quezon City and not in the residence of Florence at 3371-C Bataan Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila where Lorenzo was allegedly brought in the afternoon of January 25, 1975. Because he was unconscious, he supposedly did not understand what he was doing. Ely contends that her husband had no capacity to give consent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At Mrs. Velasco's instance, the fiscal of Quezon City on January 21, 1976, filed an information for falsification against notary Paulino, Mrs. Co, Grace Velasco and Lydia Alolon. After trial, Judge Ernani Cruz Paño in a decision dated January 5, 1981 absolved the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt (Exh. 10).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The instant disbarment case was referred in 1976 to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. In his report dated June 27, 1985 he recommended the dismissal of the complaint because of Judge Panio's exoneration of notary Paulino and the other accused in the falsification case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We find that the alleged gross misconduct of Paulino in the notarization of the deed of sale has not been conclusively proven by Martin's testimony. Judge Paño did not give any credence to it, Martin had become a pawn of the parties. He first sided with Florence, then with Mrs. Velasco.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The testimony of Doctor Raul B. V. Idea, a distinguished neurologist, that it was improbable that Lorenzo knew that he executed the deed of sale, is conjectural because he attended to Lorenzo three days after the execution of the deed. (See U.S. vs. Enriquez, 1 Phil. 241.)chanrobles virtual law library

Viewed in proper perspective, it has become obvious that the instant disbarment case is merely an incident in the protracted and embittered fight between Ely and her sister-in-law Florence just as the falsification case was a means employed by Ely to force Florence to come to terms with her. Notary Paulino was caught in the crossfire.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Therefore, the complaint for disbarment is hereby dismissed. This case is considered closed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.