Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40361:adm-case-no-3910-august-14,-2000-jose-s-ducat,-jr-v-arsenio-c-villalon,-jr-,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:04:01+00:00

Document:
JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. and CRISPULO DUCUSIN, Respondents.
In the letter-complaint, 3 complainant alleged that on October 29, 1991, respondent Villalon, as counsel for the family of complainant, spoke to the father of complainant and asked that he be given the title over a property owned by complainant located in Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal and covered by TCT No. M-3023, Emancipation Patent No. 410414, because he allegedly had to verify the proper measurements of the subject property. Sometime in November, 1991, however, complainant and his family were surprised when several people entered the subject property and, when confronted by the companions of complainant, the latter were told that they were workers of Canares and were there to construct a piggery. Complainant complained to the barangay authorities in Pinugay and narrated the incident but respondent Canares did not appear before it and continued with the construction of the piggery in the presence of armed men who were watching over the construction. Complainant then went to respondent Villalon to complain about the people of respondent Canares but nothing was done.
Complainant then filed a case for ejectment against respondent Canares. In his Reply however, the latter answered that the subject property was already sold by complainant to respondent Canares in the amount of P450,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991 and notarized by respondent Atty. Crispulo Ducusin. Complainant, however, averred that he never sold the property, signed any document nor received any money therefor, and he also denied having appeared before respondent Ducusin who was the notary public for the Deed of Absolute Sale. Complainant discovered that respondent Villalon claimed that complainant’s father allegedly gave the subject property to him (respondent Villalon) as evidenced by a document of sale purportedly signed by complainant.
On January 21, 1993, Jose Ducat, Jr. wrote 5 to this Court and averred that he neither signed the Deed of Sale covering the subject property nor did he appear before the notary public Crispulo Ducusin, who notarized the same. He averred that respondents Villalon and Ducusin should be disbarred from the practice of law and respondent Villalon be imprisoned for forging his signature and selling the subject property without his consent.
In his Rejoinder6 , respondent Villalon denied the allegations of complainant and maintained that he is a member of good standing of the Integrated Bar and that he has always preserved the high standards of the legal profession. Respondent Villalon expressed his willingness to have the Deed of Sale examined by the National Bureau of Investigation and reiterated that the subject property was orally given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. and it was only in October, 1991 that the conveyance was reduced in writing. He added that the complainant knew that his father, Jose Ducat, Sr., was the person who signed the said document for and in his behalf and that this was done with his consent and knowledge.
This Court referred 7 the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.
On May 17, 1997, the IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of its Investigating Commissioner who found respondent Atty. Villalon guilty, and recommended his suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years and likewise directed respondent Atty. Villalon to deliver to the complainant his TCT No. M-3023 within ten (10) days from receipt of notice, otherwise, this will result in his disbarment.
Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner. The sincerity and demeanor they displayed while testifying before the Commission inspire belief as to the truth of what they are saying. More importantly, respondent failed to impute any ill-motive on the part of the complainant and his witness which can impel them to institute the instant complaint and testify falsely against him. To be sure, the testimony of the complainant and his witness deserves the Commission’s full faith and credence.
Respondent’s evidence, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. His defense (that he considered himself the owner of the subject property which was allegedly given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr.) rings hollow in the face of a welter of contravening and incontrovertible facts.
FIRST, the registered owner of the subject property is complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. Accordingly, respondent (being a lawyer) knew or ought to know that Jose Ducat, Sr. could not possibly give to him the said property unless the former is duly authorized by the complainant through a Special Power of Attorney. No such authorization has been given. Moreover, Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having given the subject property to the Respondent. This denial is not too difficult to believe considering the fact that he (Jose Ducat, Sr.) is not the owner of said property.
THIRD, the Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land (Exh. "1" for the respondent and Exh. "A-2" for the complainant) allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor of respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. covering the subject parcel of land which respondent prepared allegedly upon instruction of Jose Ducat, Sr. is of dubious character. As earlier adverted to, Jose Ducat, Sr. is not the owner of said property. Moreover, said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land is a falsified document as admitted by the respondent himself when he said that the signature over the typewritten name Maria Cabrido (wife of Jose Ducat, Sr.) was affixed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that the act of Jose Ducat, Sr. in affixing his wife’s signature is tantamount to a forgery. Accordingly, he should have treated the said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land has (sic) a mere scrap of worthless paper instead of relying on the same to substantiate his claim that the subject property was given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. Again, of note is the fact that Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having executed said document which denial is not too difficult to believe in the light of the circumstances already mentioned.
After a careful consideration of the record of the instant case, it appears that the findings of facts and observations of the Investigating Commissioner, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which were all adopted by its Board of Governors, are well-taken, the same being supported by the evidence adduced.
It has been established that the subject parcel of land, with an area of five (5) hectares located in Barrio Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered in the name of complainant herein, Jose Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless that the property was orally given to him by complainant’s father, Jose Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that the subject property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however, that conveyance or transfer of any titled real property must be in writing, signed by the registered owner or at least by his attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper special power of attorney and duly notarized. Respondent Villalon. as a lawyer, is presumed to know, or ought to know, this process. Worse, when the transfer was first reduced in writing in October, 1991 per Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land, 11 purportedly in favor of "Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr.," respondent Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the said document of sale without any Special Power of Attorney from the registered owner thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word "Conforme." As regards the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same property, this time purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent Villalon admitted that there was in fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was placed in that document only to make it appear that the conveyance was for a consideration.
All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.’s strong and credible denial that he allegedly sold the subject property to respondent Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he allegedly appeared before respondent notary public Ducusin, convince us that respondent Villalon’s acts herein complained of which constitute gross misconduct were duly proven.
Unlike the circumstances prevailing in the said case of Aportadera, the record does not show that respondent Villalon had any direct participation in the notarization by respondent notary public Crispulo Ducusin of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated December 5, 1991, 15 which was supposedly signed by complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. who, however, strongly denied having signed the same. The earlier Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land dated "this ___ day of October 1991," allegedly signed by Jose S. Ducat, Sr., as vendor, covering the same property, in favor of respondent "Arsenio S. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr." was not notarized. The record also shows that Jose Ducat, Sr. and complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. are father and son and that they live in the same house at 912 Leo Street, Sampaloc, Manila. It is not also disputed that respondent Villalon has been the lawyer for a number of years of the family of Jose Ducat, Sr.
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Villalon is further directed to deliver to the registered owner, complainant Jose Ducat Jr., the latter’s TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject property within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt of this Decision, at his sole expense; and that failure on his part to do so will result in his disbarment.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Villalon’s personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
1.	September 24, 1992, filed by Jose Ducat, Jr.
2.	Resolution dated March 1, 2000.
3.	Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3.
4.	Records, Vol. I, pp. 10-19.
5.	Records, Vol. I, pp. 47-48.
6.	Records, Vol. I, pp. 64-72.
7.	Resolution dated February 1, 1993, Records, p. 46.
8.	Records, Vol. I, Report and Recommendation, pp. 7-10.
9.	Fernando C. Cruz and Amelia Cruz v. Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto, Adm. Case No. 5235, March 22, 2000 citing Maligsa v. Cabantig, 272 SCRA 408 .
10.	Leonito Gonato and Primrose Gonato v. Atty. Cesilo A. Adaza, Adm. Case No. 4083, March 27, 2000 citing Marcelo v. Javier, Sr., 214 SCRA 1 .
11.	Exhibit "A-2" Rollo Vol. I, p. 20.
12.	Nakpil v. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, 774  citing Igual v. Javier, 254 SCRA 416 .
13.	Adm. Case No. 2936, March 31, 1995, 243 SCRA 108.
14.	Ibid., pp. 114, 117-118.
15.	Exhibit "A-3", ` Vol. II, p. 21.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.