Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

LEE V.

TAMBAGO

Facts:
 Complainant Manuel Lee charged Atty. Regino Tambago with violation of the Notarial
Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious will.
 The will, allegedly executed by Lee’s father, the decedent Vicente Lee Sr., supposedly
bequeathed his entire estate to his wife, Lim Hock Lee, save for a parcel of land which he
devised to Vicente Lee Jr. and Elena Lee, complainant’s half-siblings.
 The will was allegedly executed and acknowledged before Tambago on June 30, 1965.
 However, Lee alleges that his father never executed the will, pointing out the ff.
inconsistencies:
o The residence certificate of the testator noted in the acknowledgement of the will
was January 5, 1962
o The signature of the testator was not the same as his signature in a deed of
donation
 Entirely and diametrically opposed to one another in all angles
o The absence of notation of the residence certificates of the purported witnesses
Cayetano Noynay and Loreto Grajo
 Alleged that ehse were forged and merely copied from their voters
affidavits
o No copy of the will was on file in the archives division of the NCAA
 According to the certification of the chief of the archives division, their
record refers to an affidavit executed by one Bartolome Ramirez on June
30, 1965
 To these allegations, Tambago responded in his comment:
o Complainant was not a legitimate son of Vicente Lee Sr.
o The will was validly executed and was actually notarized by him per affidavit of
Gloria Nebato, common law wife of the decedent, and corroborated by the joint
affidavit of the Vicente Jr. and Elena, children of the deceased
o Lee filed the complaint to harass him because the criminal case filed by Lee
against Tambago in the Ombudsman did not prosper
o Admitted that there was no copy of the will on file in the NCAA archives, because
none was ever filed
o The complainant did not have a cause of action since he did not first file an
action for the declaration of nullity of the will and demand his share in the
inheritance
 The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.
o Found respondent guilty of violating the old Notarial Law as found in the Revised
Administrative Code
o This violation constituted an infringement of the Canon of Professional
Responsibility
o Recommended the suspension of Tambago for 3 months

Issue and Held:


 WoN the IBP was correct in suspending Tambago- YES.
1. Did not comply with the number of witnesses required.
o A notarial will, like the one in the case at bar, is required by law to be subscribed
at the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it must be attested and
subscribed by 3 or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of
one another.
o The will in question was attested by only 2 witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. In this
circumstance alone, it must be considered void.
 This is in consonance with the rule that acts executed against the
provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when
the law itself authorizes their validity.
2. Did not comply with the requisites pertaining to the acknowledgement.
o The Civil Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses.
 Acknowledgement- the act of one who has executed a deed in going
before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or
deed. It involves an extra step whereby the signatory actually declares to
the notary that the same is his or her own free act and deed.
 The acknowledgement in a notarial will has a 2 fold purpose:
 To safeguard the testator’s wishes long after his demise
 To assure that his estate is administered in the manner that he
intends it to be done
o In the case at bar, the will shows that this particular requirement was neither
strictly nor substantially complied with.
 Absence of a notation of the residence certificates of the notarial
witnesses Noynay and Grajo
 The notation of the testator’s old residence certificate in the same
acknowledgement was a clear breach of the law
 Old notarial law required that it be exhibited upon notarization of
a document or instrument
 In the issuance of a resident certificate, the law seeks to
establish the true and correct identity of the person to whom it is
issued as well as the payment of residence taxes for the current
year
o As the acknowledging officer of this will, Tambago was required to faithfully
observe the formalities of a will and those of notation.
3. Did not violate the law when he failed to present the will to the NCAA, but
violated the requirements of law pertaining to entries in the notarial register.
o Contrary to petitioner’s allegation, Tambago did not violate the law when he
failed to furnish a copy of the will to the NCAA. Art. 806 of the Civil Code: Every
will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witness.
The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another
with the office of the Clerk of Court.
o However, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary
entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register.
o In an effort to show that he complied with the old notarial law with respect to the
entries to be made, Tambago contended that he had crossed out a prior entry
and entered instead the will of the decedent. He also presented a photocopy of
his notarial register and a photocopy of a certification stating that the archives
division had no copy of the affidavit of Bartolome Ramirez.
 These are inadmissible. A photocopy is mere secondary evidence.
o Also, Tambago’s attempt to controvert the certification dated September 21,
1999 must fail because not only was it a mere photocopy of the certification
dated March 15, 2000, its contents did not squarely prove the fact of the entry of
the contested will in his notarial register.
 Defects in the observance of the solemnities prescribed by law render the entire will
invalid. This carelessness cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance and delicate
nature of a will, considering that the testator and the witnesses, as in this case, are no
longer alive to identify the instrument and to confirm its contents.
 Because of this, the defendant was found to have breached his duties as a lawyer and as
a notary public under the Canons of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
 IBP decision affirmed. In addition, Tambago perpetually disqualified from reappointment
as a notary public.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi