G.R. NO. 146721 - MAURA PASCUAL, VS. CONRADO FAJARDO, SUBSTITUTED BY ANTONIO, CONRADO, JR., ALICIA, CORAZON, AND LEONIDA, ALL SURNAMED FAJARDO AND DANIEL T. GREGORIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant: 1) Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Josefina Jacinto and Conrado Fajardo on August 2, 1978 at Cabanatuan City null and void; 2) Declaring the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale executed between Conrado Fajardo and defendant on August 3, 1978 and August 6, 1978, respectively, null and void; 3) Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-288789 in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan and reconveyance to herein plaintiffs the property consisting of 3,000 square meters including the residential house and seven (7) door apartment; 4) Directing defendant to account for and return all the proceeds of the monthly rentals she has collected from the tenants to herein plaintiffs, substituted heirs of Fajardo; 5) Directing defendant to pay the plaintiffs, substituted heirs of Conrado Fajardo, namely: Antonio, Conrado, Jr., Alicia, Corazon and Leonida, all surnamed Fajardo: a) the amount of P200,000.00 as actual damages; b) the amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages; c) the amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; d) the amount of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and e) the costs of suit. SO ORDERED . The trial court held that the questioned documents are void, thus: First, with respect to the alleged deed of absolute sale dated August 3, 1978, entered into between Josefina Jacinto and Conrado Fajardo, no less than the listed witness therein, Daniel Gregorio, has denounced his signature appearing in the document as a forgery to the extent that, aside from this case, he even joined the late Conrado Fajardo in charging defendant with falsification of public document before the Fiscal's Office. Defendant practically put up nothing to refute the witness' claim. Atty. Punzalan himself did not meet the issue head on at the witness stand, choosing instead to take the general position that the document is authentic and that the signatories all affixed their signatures in his presence. This Court finds no reason, however, to doubt the veracity of the witness. His association and relationship with the late Fajardo and Josefina Jacinto as well have been clearly established. It is plain that he came to court not take a partisan posturing but to straighten out the record, testifying in the process that the sale transaction between Fajardo and Jacinto over the same property in which he stood as witness took place in 1982. Second, Atty. Punzalan's notarial authority is dubious. Admittedly, at the time he allegedly notarized subject documents, he was employed with the government, specifically with the PNB (TSN, July 14, 1974, p. 23). As such, it is hardly believable that he was in a position to act upon the documents as a notary public. Lawyers in the government service, as a rule, are prohibited in engaging in the practice of notary public unless a specific written authority from the department head mandates otherwise, which appears not to be so in th