Buhangin Notary Public - Atty. Mesias

Keep going! 💪

🤗

Sometimes, the strongest thing you can do is admit you need a hand to hold. Seeking justice starts with a single step, and we are honored to walk that journey with you. Let this be the sign you were looking for to keep going. ✨

💜

Once in a while a case decided by the Supreme Court tells a story and leaves us wiser. ⚖️💜

e-Notarization is coming soon! 📣

Read the full text of A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC, or the eNotarization Rules, at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/24-10-14-sc-rules-on-electronic-notarization/

𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲?
Here's a quick guide to help you understand how the land title is officially transferred to the new owner after a sale.
Ensure a safe transaction by conducting due diligence. Request for a Certified True Copy of the land title from the nearest Registry of Deeds or online via the LRA eSerbisyo Portal: https://eserbisyo.lra.gov.ph/

The (SC) has reiterated that a co-owner must give written notice to the other co-owners before selling their share of a property. However, if the other co-owners already knew about the sale and failed to exercise their right to buy the share within 30 days, the written notice is no longer required.

In a Decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC’s First Division denied the petition filed by siblings Antonio Azurin, Jr. (Antonio) and Rafael Azurin (Rafael) to buy back a parcel of land registered in the name of Carlito Chua (Chua).

Antonio and Rafael were in possession of a parcel of land which they co-owned with their aunt Adelaida. Adelaida later sold to Chua her portion, which was officially registered in Chua’s name after it was surveyed and divided.

Years later, Antonio and Rafael attempted to buy back the land from Chua by filing a complaint for legal redemption before the trial court. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the complaint, on the ground that the case was filed years after the sale and well beyond the 30-day period allowed by the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦.

Antonio and Rafael appealed to the SC, but the SC denied their appeal.

The SC said that under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a co-owner intending to sell their share to a third party must notify the other co-owners in writing about the sale. The other co-owners then have 30 days from receipt of the written notice to redeem or buy back the portion sold. If they fail to do so within the period, they lose the right to redeem the sold portion.

The SC, however, added that the requirement of written notice can be waived if (1) unusual circumstances have made the co-owners aware of the sale, and (2) the co-owners did not take action or were negligent in their right to redeem the property, a situation referred to in law as laches.

In this case, the SC found that Antonio and Rafael were aware of the sale. They were in actual possession of the land and, therefore, were informed about the survey conducted on it. Additionally, they received Chua’s legal complaint to recover possession.

However, they waited more than six years before trying to redeem the property.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/68yxczhw.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/35tpwuye.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Keep going! 💪

Monday, May 5, 2025

You don’t have to rush to prove anything today. Some weeks begin loud, others quiet—but both can lead to growth. Take your time, ground yourself, and move with steady intention. There’s power in showing up, even gently.

📢

The (SC) has reiterated that while notarized documents are presumed authentic, they will be invalidated if proven to be fake.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC’s Second Division cleared Gil Chua (Chua) of liability for Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc.’s (Interbrand) unpaid PHP 150 million loan from the Bank of Commerce (Bank).

The loan was secured by promissory notes and notarized Continuing Surety Agreements (CSAs) signed by several of Interbrand’s officers. Chua was listed as one of the sureties, but unlike the other signatories, he was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the company. When Interbrand failed to pay the loans, the Bank sued the company and all the sureties.

Chua denied any involvement, saying he never signed a CSA nor appeared before a notary public. The Bank, however, insisted that the CSA, as a notarized document, is presumed valid.

Emphasizing that notarization does not cure a forged or fabricated document, the SC ruled that the notarized CAS was questionable and that Chua was not bound by it.

The SC found that Chua successfully challenged the validity of the CSA. He consistently denied signing the document or appearing before a notary. He held no position or interest in Interbrand, and the Bank had no specimen of his signature to verify the CSA.

Additionally, his CSA and another were allegedly signed on the same day in far-apart locations but had identical witnesses, which raised doubts as to their authenticity. The notary public who supposedly notarized the CSA was also never presented in court.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zz7wmbd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/5t4dxh45.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Stay kind! ☺️

Sunday, April 27, 2025
Not every story will unfold the way you hoped. But that doesn’t make the giving any less beautiful. Stay open, stay kind—you are still whole, even when things don’t go the way you planned. 🌿