Abellana v. People

Case Title and Citation

Felixberto A. Abellana, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Spouses Saapia B. Alonto and Diaga Alonto, respondents.
G.R. No. 174654, August 17, 2011
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo

---

Facts

• In 1985, petitioner extended a loan to spouses Diaga and Saapia Alonto, secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over Lot Nos. 6471 and 6472 in Cebu City.
• In 1987, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying those lots to him; the Deed was signed by the spouses in Manila but notarized in Cebu City allegedly without the spouses appearing before the notary.
• Petitioner then caused the transfer of titles to his name and subsequently sold the lots to third persons.
• On August 12, 1999, an Information was filed charging petitioner with Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document, alleging that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified by imitating the signatures of the spouses and that the transaction facilitated the transfer of title to petitioner.
• At arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded.
• RTC Decision (May 21, 2003): The court found petitioner did not intend to defraud the spouses; the Deed of Absolute Sale was signed by the spouses, though notarization occurred without their appearance. The RTC convicted petitioner of Falsification of a Public Document by a private individual (Art. 172 in relation to Art. 171(2)) rather than Estafa through Falsification. It ordered reconveyance of the properties, return of ₱130,000, and various damages and costs.
• CA Decision (February 22, 2006): The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC verdict insofar as it convicted petitioner of a crime different from or not included in the Information (i.e., convicted for falsification rather than estafa through falsification). The CA affirmed civil liability against petitioner.
• Petitioner filed a petition for review, contending he could not be civilly liable following acquittal.

---

Issues

1. May the petitioner be civilly liable notwithstanding his acquittal of the criminal charge?

---

Ruling

1. No — civil liability cannot be sustained based on the criminal acts when, as here, there is no basis for damages; the civil liability imposed by the CA was deleted for lack of factual and legal basis.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Civil liability arises from one’s own act or omission that damages another, independently of criminal culpability; however, there must be proven damage and a basis in fact and law.
• The CA’s civil liability against Abellana was based on reconveyance and damages tied to the same transaction, but the Supreme Court found no proof of damage: the trial court had found the signatures genuine and the notarization defect did not automatically invalidate the deed.
• The notarization defect does not ipso facto void the contract or erase the transfer; without clear and convincing evidence of falsity or damage, reconveyance and damages cannot be imposed.
• Citing Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., civil liability exists when the act causes damage; but when the evidence shows no damage, the civil liability lacks basis.
• Once the civil liability is grounded on facts not proven, it cannot be sustained even if the criminal conviction is set aside or acquitted; civil liability does not automatically arise from a criminal acquittal absent proof of damage.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Civil liability arises from one’s act or omission that causes damage, regardless of criminal liability.
• Extinction of a penal action does not automatically extinguish civil liability; civil liability requires a showing of damage caused by the act.
• An acquittal on a criminal charge does not automatically justify civil liability; the civil action must be proven on its own merits, particularly showing damage.
• Notarization defects do not automatically invalidate a deed or void a transfer; absence of appearance before the notary does not, by itself, prove falsity or damage.

---

Disposition

• The petition is GRANTED. The February 22, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it set aside the conviction for the crime of falsification of a public document. The portion affirming civil liabilities (restoration of ownership, payment of ₱1,103,000, and related damages and fees) is deleted for lack of factual and legal basis. The civil liability is not upheld; petitioner is not liable for reconveyance or damages.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• None stated; the decision reflects the joined opinion of the Court with no separate concurring or dissenting opinions.

---

Significance / Notes

• Clarifies that civil liability in criminal cases requires independent proof of damage; acquittal on the criminal charge does not automatically foreclose civil liability, but civil liability cannot be imposed absent evidence of damage.
• Affirms that procedural flaws in notarization do not automatically nullify a deed or create a damages remedy without demonstrated harm.
• Emphasizes the need for factual and legal basis to impose civil sanctions arising from criminal acts, and that courts should not impose civil penalties without clear support in the record.