AC 72; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 72; May 30, 1953
Placido Manalo, petitioner, vs. Pedro N. Gan, respondent.
FACTS
In 1948, respondent Pedro N. Gan was the manager and legal adviser of the real estate department of R. P. Halili Realty. Benita Lahoz, through her counsel, engaged respondent to sell her participation in a residential lot in Quezon City, which was the conjugal property of her deceased husband, Manuel Lahoz. Respondent inquired about other heirs and any estate proceedings. Benita Lahoz sent him her petition for letters of administration, which stated that Jose Lahoz (her deceased husband’s father) was a surviving heir, and requested respondent to file it and act as her attorney. Respondent later offered a loan and requested documents, including a power of attorney. Benita Lahoz executed a special power appointing respondent as her attorney-in-fact and counsel. Respondent sent her P1,000 as earnest money. Respondent then prepared an affidavit of adjudication for Benita Lahoz to sign, adjudicating the entire property to herself as sole heir, and had her sign it before a notary. When petitioner Placido Manalo responded to an advertisement and offered to buy the lot, respondent showed him the title, power of attorney, and the affidavit, assuring him Benita Lahoz was the sole heir. A deed of sale was executed. Using the affidavit, respondent obtained a new title in Benita Lahoz’s name and then a transfer to Manalo. Later, Manalo was sued by Jose Lahoz claiming ownership of one-half of the lot, leading to this disbarment case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Pedro N. Gan is guilty of deceit as a ground for disbarment under the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of deceit. The Court found that respondent had knowledge of the existence of another co-owner, Jose Lahoz, as evidenced by the petition for letters of administration and his own letter. His act of preparing an affidavit of adjudication for Benita Lahoz, knowing she was not the sole heir, was inconsistent with good faith. His actions, including extending a loan and misrepresenting the ownership to the buyer, were motivated by a desire to complete the sale and collect fees. The Court rejected his defense that he acted merely as a real estate broker, noting he used his legal knowledge and skill as an attorney in the transaction, charged attorney’s fees, and was expressly asked to act as counsel. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three years.