LASTRANILLA VS. RAFAEL GRANDA
FACTS:
Respondent Rafael Granda is a grandson of Rafael and Aurora Granda who are already dead
(1989/2000). Granda spouses had 10 children, the youngest daughter is Silvina. When Aurora’s alive, she
has several parcel of lands in Tacloban (TCT) Nos. T-249, T-1312, T-816 and T-9874, all registered in her
name.
Said parcels of land were allegedly sold by spouses Granda as evidenced by Deed of Absolute Sale (the
document showing legal transfer of real estate property ownership.), all dated December 7,
1985, witnessed by Petitioner Lastrilla and Silvina and Atty. Camilo Camenforte.
The 3 deeds involved:
1. Two parcels of land in favour of petitioner’s siblings (UY) for 3.8M
2. Two parcels of land in favour of petitioner’s siblings (UY) for 5M
3. Three parcels of land in favour of petitioner and his wife (Lastrillas) for 200K
On February 21, 2001, more than 5 months after Aurora’s death, Respondent Rafael filed the
instant complaint for violation of Article 171 and 172 against petitioners (UY, Lastrilla, Silvina and Atty.
Cameforte) claiming that all latter’s properties were sold to different persons sometime in 1999-2000.
Respondent was able to obtain copies of 3 deed of absolute sale and notice that the signature of
his deceased Grandparents were falsified. This was confirmed by PNP Crime Laboratory, which also found
that the signature of his grandfather and Silvina reveal some similarities in stroke indicative of one writer.
The signatures of Aurora in the said deeds were not written by one and the same person. Respondent
claimed that the 3 deed of sale were antedated. While the sale took place in 1999/2000, it was made to
appear that the transactions took place on 1985 when both his grandparents were alive. Respondent
claimed that petitioners conspired with Silvina and Atty. Camenforte
PETITIONER’S CLAIM!
(a) Petitioner bought the lots covered by TCT No. T-816 in 1999;
(b) Silvina could not have signed as a witness on 1985 as she was then cloistered [confine] in the
Monastery under Fr. Castro who certified that as a member of said religious community, she could "not
go out of the monastery unless there was a very valid reason" and "she was not sent out for any errant
nor went to the province" for the whole year of 1985;
(c) Aurora was still exercising rights of ownership over the property on 1985; because she still collects
payment for the rentals from her occupants
(d) Silvina executed lease contracts dated February 4, 2000 with some of the lessees
(e) RTC said that those said deeds were not notarized and submitted in 1985
Petitioner UY averred that in 1998, Aurora repeatedly offered the sale of the land to her, and she
agreed to buy it for P18M subject to conditions. First, she pay periodically amounting to 8.8M, then she
partiall pay 2M to Silvina and Lourdes, then the other children for 8M totalling of 18.8M. Deceased Jess
Granda’s share were divided into 7 (children) including respondent Rafael, each has P142, 857.14.
Then all heirs executed separate deed of assignment ( deed of sale is used once and has no
conditions other than the purchase price of the property, while the deed of assignment can be used
anytime to transfer contractual rights from one party to another.)
Petitioner claimed that it was only Elsa and Aurora who negotiated for the sale of the land. He
was the one tasked to ensure that the b as they were parting with millions of hard earned money.
Upon Aurora's request, Lastrilla readily agreed to affix his signatures in the subject deeds as a
witness, thinking that such act would seal the validity of the sale. He contended that the fact that the
sale was only registered on February 28, 2000 is not evidence of falsification.
The Office of the City Prosecution of Tacloban dismissed the complaint against petitioner ruling
that "It is highly improbable for someone to part with such an amount as a consideration for the
purchase of a property and at the same time conspire to forge the very same documents that is the basis
of the sale. Why pay P18.8M and risk losing the said amount on a forged document?" Nor can it be
Robert and Normal (sic) Lastrilla for the same reason.
The DOJ Secretary Perez dismissed the complaint upon review holding that “no evidence has
been presented to substantiate the charge of falsification, that it is unclear how petitioner participated in
the falsification of the subject documents,” and there is no criminal intent on the part of petitioner to
falsify.
The CA modified DOJ resolution finding probable caouse against petitioner, directing
the office of prosecutor to file information against him violations under Art. 171 (1) (2) and
(5) and 172 (1)
Art 172: (1) Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document;
Art. 171: (1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate.
(5) Altering true dates.
For the following reasons:
(1) he knew that the 3 deed were falsified and despite such he still signed them as instrumental
witness (2) he was personally and directly responsible for registering the falsified deeds with the Register
of Deeds (3) the cause of the cancellation of the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of Aurora and
effected the issuance of the new transfer certificate of title.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is one of the authors of falsification
HELD:
Yes, petitioner [Lastrilla] is one of the authors of the falsification.
Finding the probable cause against him.
Petitioner's defense that it was actually Aurora who effected the transfer cannot overcome the
presumption in favor of the Register of Deeds that in issuing the certifications, official duty has been
regularly performed. Notably, other than his bare assertion, petitioner did not present any other evidence
to corroborate his claim, i.e., the testimony of the alleged representative of Aurora who made him sign
the questioned application form. In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of
and who used a forged document is the forger of said document. If a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
While he is invoke DOJ statement, notably the absence of damage doesn’t necessarily imply that there
can be no falsification as it is an element to be considered to determine whether there is criminal intent
to commit falsification.
In falsification, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth
as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Therefore, Petitioned denied, CA Decision Affirmed.