Falsification of Signatures in Extra-Judicial Settlement: Criminal and Civil Remedies in the Philippine Context

Introduction

In the Philippines, the settlement of a decedent's estate is a critical process governed by the Civil Code and related laws. When a person dies intestate (without a will) and leaves no outstanding debts, the heirs may opt for an extra-judicial settlement of estate (EJS) under Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. This mechanism allows heirs to partition the estate among themselves through a notarized deed, which is then published and registered with the Register of Deeds. The EJS is designed to be efficient and cost-effective, avoiding protracted probate proceedings. However, this simplicity can be exploited through fraudulent acts, such as the falsification of signatures on the settlement document.

Falsification of signatures in an EJS undermines the integrity of the inheritance process, potentially depriving rightful heirs of their shares and leading to unjust enrichment. This article comprehensively examines the legal implications of such falsification in the Philippine jurisdiction, focusing on criminal liabilities under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and civil remedies available to aggrieved parties. It delves into the definitions, elements, penalties, procedural aspects, and jurisprudential insights, providing a thorough analysis for legal practitioners, heirs, and stakeholders.

Understanding Extra-Judicial Settlement and Falsification

Nature of Extra-Judicial Settlement

Under Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, an EJS is permissible when the decedent left no will, no debts, and all heirs are of legal age or represented by guardians. The deed must be executed by all heirs, acknowledging their respective shares, and it becomes a public document upon notarization. It requires publication in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks and filing with the Register of Deeds for annotation on the titles. The EJS binds the heirs and third parties in good faith, but it is voidable if tainted by fraud, such as forged signatures.

Concept of Falsification of Signatures

Falsification, in the context of documents, is defined under Articles 169 to 172 of the RPC. Specifically, falsification of signatures involves imitating or counterfeiting a genuine signature without authority, or causing it to appear that a person participated in the act when they did not. In an EJS, this could occur when one heir forges the signatures of co-heirs to exclude them from the partition or to misrepresent the agreement. The document's status as a public or official document (once notarized) elevates the offense to a serious crime, as it affects public records and property rights.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that an EJS is a public document because it is intended for registration and affects third parties (e.g., Heirs of Pedro Laurora v. Sterling Technopark III, G.R. No. 148248, April 7, 2009). Thus, falsification here is not merely a private wrong but a public offense.

Criminal Remedies

Applicable Provisions under the Revised Penal Code

The primary criminal provisions are found in the RPC:

Article 171: Falsification by Public Officer, Employee, or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister. If the falsification is committed by a notary public who acknowledges forged signatures, they may be liable here. The penalty is prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) and a fine not exceeding P5,000.
Article 172: Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents. This applies to private heirs or accomplices who forge signatures. It has two paragraphs:
- Paragraph 1: Falsification of public, official, or commercial documents by a private individual, punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine not exceeding P5,000.
- Paragraph 2: Use of falsified documents, with penalties depending on whether the use is in judicial proceedings (higher penalty) or otherwise.

For an EJS, the act typically falls under Article 172(1), as it involves counterfeiting signatures (one of the modes under Article 171, incorporated by reference). The elements are:

The offender is a private individual.
They commit any act of falsification enumerated in Article 171 (e.g., counterfeiting a signature or causing it to appear that persons participated who did not).
The falsification is in a public or official document.

Jurisprudence clarifies that the intent to cause damage is not required for the crime's consummation; mere potential for damage suffices (People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 1955). In EJS cases, damage is presumed as it affects inheritance rights.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

Penalties may be adjusted based on circumstances under Articles 62-66 of the RPC. For instance:

If the falsification is committed with abuse of confidence (e.g., by a trusted family member), it aggravates the penalty.
Voluntary surrender or plea of guilty may mitigate it.

Related Crimes

Falsification may concur with other offenses:

Estafa (Article 315, RPC): If the falsified EJS is used to defraud heirs of property, estafa through falsification of documents may be charged, with penalties under Article 315(1)(b).
Perjury (Article 183, RPC): If the falsified document includes false affidavits.
Falsification of Public Documents in Relation to Land Titles: Under Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), forging signatures on documents for registration can lead to additional penalties.

Procedure for Criminal Prosecution

Criminal action begins with a complaint filed by the offended party (aggrieved heir) with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation. If probable cause is found, an information is filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), as falsification of public documents is within its jurisdiction (punishable by more than 6 years imprisonment).

Prescription period is 10 years from discovery (Article 90, RPC). Evidence includes handwriting experts from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) or Philippine National Police (PNP) to prove forgery.

Notable cases:

In Sampana v. People (G.R. No. 215712, March 21, 2018), the Court upheld conviction for falsification where signatures on an EJS were forged to exclude heirs.
Heirs of Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 188355, November 23, 2011) emphasized that forged EJS documents are null and void, supporting criminal charges.

Civil Remedies

Nullity and Annulment of the Extra-Judicial Settlement

Under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, actions to declare contracts void due to fraud do not prescribe. An EJS with falsified signatures is void ab initio (from the beginning) because consent of all heirs is essential (Article 1318, Civil Code). Aggrieved heirs can file a petition for annulment in the RTC where the property is located.

The Supreme Court in Heirs of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian (G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013) ruled that a forged EJS does not convey title and can be collaterally attacked in any proceeding.

Reconveyance and Recovery of Property

If the property has been transferred to third parties via the falsified EJS, the remedy is an action for reconveyance under Article 1456 of the Civil Code (constructive trust). This must be filed within 10 years from the issuance of the new title if based on fraud, or 4 years if based on implied trust. However, if the third party is in bad faith, the action is imprescriptible.

In Salvador v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995), the Court ordered reconveyance where forgery was proven, emphasizing protection of innocent heirs.

Damages

Aggrieved parties can claim:

Actual Damages: For lost inheritance shares, computed based on property value (Article 2199, Civil Code).
Moral Damages: For mental anguish (Article 2217).
Exemplary Damages: To deter similar acts (Article 2229).
Attorney's Fees: If stipulated or warranted (Article 2208).

These are recoverable in a separate civil action or as civil liability ex delicto in the criminal case (Article 100, RPC).

Quieting of Title

Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, an action to quiet title removes clouds on ownership caused by the falsified EJS.

Partition and Accounting

If partial forgery affects only some signatures, the court may order judicial partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, with accounting of fruits and income.

Interplay Between Criminal and Civil Remedies

Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, civil actions for fraud are independent of criminal proceedings. Thus, heirs can pursue both simultaneously. A criminal conviction is prima facie evidence in the civil case (Rule 133, Section 3, Rules of Court). However, acquittal does not bar civil recovery if based on reasonable doubt, not absence of liability.

Defenses and Burden of Proof

In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Defenses include lack of intent, genuine signatures, or ratification by heirs.

In civil cases, preponderance of evidence suffices. Forgery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, often via expert testimony.

Preventive Measures

To avoid falsification:

Ensure all heirs personally appear before the notary.
Use biometric or digital signatures where applicable.
Register the EJS promptly and verify with all parties.

Conclusion

Falsification of signatures in an extra-judicial settlement strikes at the heart of familial trust and legal order in the Philippines. Criminal remedies under the RPC provide punitive measures to deter such acts, while civil remedies ensure restitution and justice for victims. Through vigilant enforcement and awareness, the integrity of estate settlements can be preserved, safeguarding the rights of heirs. Legal counsel is essential in navigating these complex proceedings, as each case turns on specific facts and evidence.