REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

CHARLES DOMINIC DONAIRE VENTURA,

Complainant,

-versus- XV-03-INV-19D-02835

ANACLETO RON BILLANO, JANICE PAMBED

BILLANO and ANA OLIVE FAITH BILLANO-AGAWIN
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------x
D/F - 02/26/19
D/A - 02/28/19
D/S - 05/20/19

RESOLUTION
This resolves the complaint for Falsification under paragraph (2) of Article 171, in
relation to Article 172 paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code against ANACLETO RON
BILLANO, JANICE PAMBED-BILLANO, ANA OLIVE FAITH BILLANO- AGAWIN.

Private complainant CHARLES DOMINIC DONAIRE VENTURA in his

complaint-affidavit alleged that her mother Sylvia B. Donaire is the lawful and registered
owner of real property consisting of One Hundred Fifty One (151) sq. meters, located at
Block 11, Lot.57, Rowing Street, Villa Olympia Phase IV, Brgy. San Vicente, San Pedro
City, Laguna. That respondents withhold possession of, and claiming rights over, the said
property, by virtue of alleged Contract to Sell dated 20 March 2015, per Document No.
III, Page No.23, Book No.51 Series of 2015 of the Notarial Register of Atty. Redentor O.
Acaylar.

Under the said Contract to sell, it was made to appear that private complainant
signed, executed and acknowledged before a notary public the said contract and bound
himself to sell the herein respondents the subject real property for and in consideration
of (Php2,600,000.00).

Private complainant denied having signed, executed and acknowledged the

Contract to Sell and that the signature over printed name CHARLES DOMINIC D.
VENTURA as appearing in the said document is not his signature. To support his claim,
private complainant submitted copies of his government issued Identification Cards
bearing his real and authentic signatures. Furthermore, private complainant alleged that
he doesn’t know the respondents, much less received any sum of money or post-dated
checks from them as payment for the real property.

During the 15 July 2019 preliminary investigation, only respondent Ana Olive
Faith Billano-Agawin (respondent Ana Agawin for brevity) submitted her reply-
affidavit. The other respondents failed to appear and submit their reply-affidavit.

1
 Respondent Ana Agawin alleged that she is the attorney-in-fact of her brother
respondent Anacleto Billano and his wife Janice Pambed-Billano (respondent spouses
Billano for brevity). According to respondent Ana Agawin respondent spouses Billano
are very eager to look for a house and lot in San Pedro area considering that the lease
contract of their rented house will end in April 2015.

While scouting for “house for sale” in San Pedro area on behalf of respondent
spouses Billano, respondent Ana Billano met a certain Nanay Rose and Jocelyn “Josie”
Parba, who later became her agents.

On 14 March 2015, respondent Ana Agawin was introduced to a certain Gen.

Ventura whom she met for the first time. According to her, Gen. Ventura represented
himself as the legal owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Tile (TCT)
No. T-732472, with an area of 151 square meters, known as Blk.11, Lot 57 situated
at Brgy. San Vicente, San Pedro City, Laguna. She further claim that during her meeting
with Gen. Ventura the latter disclosed to her that although the property was in the name
of Fe B. Donaire, the same was already donated by him to his son, complainant
Charles Ventura. Gen. Ventura also disclosed that the original owners copy of the title
was lost, thus, he can only provide a certified true copy. The selling price of the property
is P2,600,000.00.

Respondent Ana Agawin agreed to the terms of payment and relied on the
representation of Gen. Ventura insofar as the legal condition of the subject property.
According to respondent Ana Agawin, since Gen. Ventura is a former police general and
administrator of National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) she
no longer checked the legal status of the subject property.

Respondent Ana Agawin advised respondent spouses Billano, who at the time are
both in Saudi Arabia, to give a spot cash of Php 350,000.00 as down payment and the
balance to be secured through Pag-IBIG housing loan.

On 20 March 2015, respondent Agawin and her sales agents Nanay Rose and
Jocelyn ”Josie” Parba met with Gen. Ventura. During the said meeting, Gen. Ventura
acknowledged receipt of the cash in the amount of Php 350,000.00 and handed to her a
Contract to Sell which is already pre-signed by private complainant Charles Ventura.

Pending the processing of its loan application with Pag-IBIG Fund, respondent
Ana Agawin started paying the monthly amortization of Php 15,000.00 in cash for the
period April 2015 to May 2015. To cover the succeeding monthly payment respondent
Ana Agawin issued post dated checks. However, Gen. Ventura returned the said post
dated checks, as he preferred payment in cash. All the payments made were recorded in
a brown ledger which was signed by Gen. Ventura and his caretaker a certain Leticia
Alabanza.

Keys of the property were turned-over and respondent Ana Agawin and her family
started occupying the property (Lot 57) sometime in April 2015 up to present.

In May 2015, Gen. Ventura informed respondent Ana Agawin that the subject property
actually overlapped the adjacent lot known as Blk. 11, Lot 56 which he also owned. Gen.
Ventura suggested that respondent Spouses Billano should also purchase the property to
ensure approval of their housing loan application with Pag-IBIG Fund. Left without any
recourse, respondent spouses Billano were compelled to buy the adjacent lot (Lot 56).

Gen. Ventura demanded Php 150,000.00 as downpayment for the adjacent lot.
Respondent spouses Billano was able to produce the said amount through salary loan
with their employer and remitted Php 150,000.00 to Gen. Ventura. It was later agreed that
the total contract price for the two (2) properties (Lot 56 and Lot 57) is Php 4,360,000.00.

2
 Pending the real estate transactions, Gen. Ventura died on 11 August 2018. During
the wake of Gen. Ventura, respondent Ana Agawin discovered that the original owners
copy (Transfer Certificate of Tile (TCT) No.T-732472), Lot 57 was not actually lost as
declared by Gen. Ventura but all along was in the possession of Ms. Sylvia B. Donaire,
the “live-in” partner of Gen. Ventura. Such discovery led to other unsavory incidents
involving respondent Ana Agawin and Ms. Sylvia B. Donaire.

ANALYSIS / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

The crime of falsification of public document under Article 172 (1) of the RPC
provides:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents:

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;
xxx

The elements of the said crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a private
individual; (b) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public document.

There is no doubt that the signature of the complainant Charles Dominic D.

Ventura as appearing in the Contract to sell, dated March 20, 20151 was falsified. An
examination and comparison between the questioned signature in the Contract to Sell
and the signature of the private complainant Charles Ventura in his Non-Professional
Driver’s License and Philippine Passport2, suggest a striking difference which an
ordinary person or one with untrained eye can readily notice.

In this case, the act of imitating the signature of private complainant and causing
it to appear that he participated in the act when he did not in fact so participate.

We now proceed to determine whether respondents probably committed the

falsification.

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that
he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or uttering of
the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or
possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close
connection with the forgers3.

In line with the above ruling, and considering that it was the respondents who
tend to benefit in the use of the falsified document which in this case is the Contract to
Sell, the presumption is inevitable that they are the material author of the falsification or
they have close connection with the forgers. And despite opportunity, records disclosed
that respondents were not able to rebut such presumption by failing to show that it was
another person who falsified the signature of private complainant Charles Ventura or
that at least another person, had the reason to commit the falsification, or was or could
have been benefited.

1
Complaint-Affidavt, Annex “B”
2
Complainant-Affidavit, Annex C and D respectively.
3
U.S. v. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People v. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People v. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; People v. Astudillo, 60
Phil. 338; People v. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253

3
 Respondent Ana Agawin tried to advance the theory that they were also victim of
the falsification by denying any hands in the preparation of the subject Contract to Sell,
as they were in fact misled by the late Gen. Ventura into believing that the Contract to
Sell was actually signed by private complainant, however, the circumstances of the case
proved otherwise.

The general denial of respondent Agawin, convince us to apply the rule that in the
absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used,
a forged document, is the forger and, therefore, probably guilty of falsification4.

In fact, respondent Agawin admitted that the property was registered in the name
of another person, albeit donated to private complainant Charles Ventura. Respondent
also maintain that she could not be held guilty of falsification of public document because
the pre-singed Contract to Sell was merely handed to her by Gen. Ventura and thus she
assumed that the signature of private complainant Charles Venura is authentic.

If respondent Agawin acted in good faith as she tries to picture in this case and
was indeed misled by the late Gen. Ventura, why did she not insisted in personally
meeting the private complainant Charles Ventura or at a very least requested Gen.
Ventura to have a telephone conversation or a text message with his son just to validate
the document.

The actuation and the behavior of respondent Agawin negate her claim of
innocence. It is very unusual that she will just sign, as an attorney-in-fact, the “pre-
singed” Contract to Sell without even bothering to inquire the whereabouts of the vendor
on record whose name she doesn’t even know. Besides, other than her self-serving
allegations, no other documentary evidence was presented by her to substantiate her
pretense of innocence.

If her claim of good faith is true, respondent Agawin could have easily provided
the affidavits of Nanay Rose and Joceyln “Josie” Parba who she identified as her agents
to corroborate her allegation.

It is well-settled that the person who stood to benefit by the falsification of a public
document and was in possession of it is presumed to be the material author of the
falsification. Hence, the defense of good faith of respondent Ana Agawin is not acceptable
as it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

When respondent Ana Agawin deliberately ignores the significant fact that the
registered owner of the property is not the same person appearing in the Contract to Sell
which would have created suspicion at the onset, she is not an innocent purchaser for
value and it cannot be said that she acted in good faith under the belief that there was no
defect in the title.

The failure of respondent Ana Agawin to take the ordinary precautions which a
prudent man would under the circumstances, especially in buying a piece of land in the
name of another person, other than the registered owner, constitutes gross negligence
amounting to bad faith.

Prescinding from the foregoing, the fact that respondent Ana Agawin did not
investigate the title over the subject property despite the fact that is in the name of one
Sylvia B. Donaire and not Gen. Ventura, she cannot be considered as an innocent
purchaser for value upon the subject property. It was gross negligence on the part of
respondent Ana Agawin to merely rely on Gen. Ventura’s assurance that the subject
property was already donated to his son, considering the absence of the Deed of Donation

4
Spouses Revelo Villamar and Corazon Pennular-Villamar vs. People of the Philippines, December 8, 2010

4
to prove its existence considering further that it had the means and the opportunity to
investigate for itself the accuracy of such information.

The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of its agent done within the
scope of its authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons. 5 This is true
only if there is exist a valid Special Power of Attorney (SPA). In this case, there is no
showing that respondent spouses Billano executed an SPA in favor of respondent Ana
Agawin. The fact that the names of respondent spouses Billano appeared in the subject
Contract to Sell is of no moment absent any proof authorizing respondent Ana Agawin
to act as their agent.

Respondent Agawin merely alleged in her counter-affidavit that she was the
attorney-in-fact of her brother without providing any documents to back up such
allegation. As can be gleaned from the records, respondent spouses Billano never had
any hand in the negotiation and perfection of the subject Contract to Sell and instead it
was respondent Ana Agawin transacted directly with the Gen. Ventura.

Moreover, it cannot also be discounted that the post-dated checks for the supposed
payment of the balance were issued by certain Ian Seth Agawin, a third party and not the
respondent spouses Billano themselves. This cast doubt on the real intention and interest
of respondent spouses Billano over the subject properties. If indeed the properties (Lot
56 and Lot 57) are being purchased by the respondent spouses Billano the receipt of the
initial payment of Php 350,000.00 in cash should at least be in their name as vendee or
there should have been any document that would support that they are the real buyer.

The documents showing the salary loan amounting to Php 150,000.00 of

respondent spouses Billano from their company and the remittance receipt of the said
amount to the late Gen. Ventura were not even produced. These documents should have
been material to establish the intention as buyer of the parcel of land. Thus, absent any
document that would show that respondent spouses Billano have consented to the real
estate transaction, they should not bear any damage that the said transaction may have
caused a third person nor should a criminal liability would attach on them.

Even assuming that they may have been aware of the real estate transaction all
along, considering that in February 2016 they signed the “revised” Contract to Sell and
met with the late Gen. Ventura, mere acquiescence does not make them automatically
parties to the crime of falsification of a public document considering the absence of any
document affixing their own signatures “revised” Contract to Sell itself and their active
participation in the preparation and consummation of the Contract to sell.

WHEREFORE, …….

5
G.R. No. 159489 February 4, 2008, FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (now AYALA LIFE ASSURANCE, INC.), CLEMENTE N. PEDROSO,
TERESITA O. PEDROSO and JENNIFER N. PALACIO thru her Attorney-in-Fact PONCIANO C. MARQUEZ