Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice
Las Pinas City
Metro Manila

NORALYN S. ACOSTA,. NPS NO. __________________

JASMINE S. ACOSTA,,
SABEL S. ACOSTA, CAMILLE S.
ACOSTA, KAREN S. ACOSTA
And CARLITO S. SERAFICO

Complainants,

- Versus - For: Falsification

of Public Document
and
Use of Falsified
Documents (Art. 172
ALINEA C. SERAFICO and of the Revised Penal
FELICIDAD C. VALENTON Code)
Respondents.
x---------------------------/

AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT

The Complainants, NORALYN, KAREN, CAMILLE,

JASMINE, and SABEL, all surnamed ACOSTA, and CARLITO S.
SERAFICO, all of legal age, Filipino, and with address at No. 70
Mabini st. Tuazon Village, Pamplona Uno, Las Pinas City ,NCR, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose
and say:

1. That the Respondent ALINEA C. SERAFICO of legal age,

Filipino, and with address at No. 70 A, Mabini st. Tuazon
Village, Brgy. Pamplona Uno, Las Pinas City, NCR ,where
she may be served with summons and other processes of
this Honorable Office;

2. That Respondent FELICIDAD C. VALENTON, married, of

legal age, Filipino, and with address c/o No. 70 A Mabini st.
Tuazon Village, Las Pinas City, NCR, where she may be
 Page 2 of 6

served with summons and other processes of this

Honorable Office;

3. That on July 2008, the respondent FELICIDAD, made

representations that it would be proper to subdivide a
property belonging to the deceased DOMINGO SERAFICO
which consists of the entire mother lot of No. 70 Mabini st.
Tuazon Village, Pamplona Uno, Las Pinas NCR. She
claimed that they need to subdivide the property so that
ALINEA SERAFICO, daughter of FELICIDAD, may have
her own property thru her father, NICASIO SERAFICO.;

4. That the Respondent ALINEA SERAFICO is the recognized

ILLEGITIMATE CHILD of NICASIO S. SERAFICO, now
deceased. She was born from a live-in / common-law
relationship between NICASIO and the respondent
FELICIDAD, who, at that time, is a married woman. Yet, in
the birth certificate of the respondent, FELICIDAD caused
to be entered in there that she and the deceased NICASIO
SERAFICO are married, in order for the respondent
ALINEA to use the surname SERAFICO, when no marriage
ever took place between them. The birth certificate of the
Respondent ALINEA SERAFICO is herein attached as
ANNEX “A” and the deceased NICASIO SERAFICO’s
Death Certificate and Certificate of NO MARRIAGE is
attached as ANNEX “A-1” and “A-2”.

5. That it was FELICIDAD who caused the Deed of Partition

dated July 2008 to be made and made representations to
obtain the signatures of the COMPLAINANT CARLITO S.
SERAFICO and NORMITA S. ACOSTA, the remaining heirs
of the deceased Landowner DOMINGO SERAFICO.
NORMITA, now deaceased, is also the mother of the
complainants, NORALYN, JASMINE, CAMILLE, KAREN,
and SABEL, all surnamed ACOSTA. The complainant
CARLITO and NORMITA affixed their signatures to the
said deed of partition but the signature of respondent
ALINEA was not affixed due to her being an OFW at the
time in the state of KUWAIT. Nevertheless, FELICIDAD
caused the said Deed to be NOTARIZED despite lacking the
signature of ALINEA. The original notarized copy of the
said deed of partition is herein attached as ANNEX “B”,
while the Birth Certificates of the children of NORMITA S.
ACOSTA is herein attached as ANNEX “B-1 to B-5. And the

//er
 Page 3 of 6

Death Certificate of NORMITA S. ACOSTA is herein

attached as ANNEX “B-6”.;

6. When the said deed of partition was notarized, it also

lacked the signatures of the OTHER HEIRS of the deceased
DOMINGO SERAFICO, namely ALMA BELLA,
REMEDIOS, ARTHRUR, and MARISSA, all surnamed
SERAFICO. The copies of the birth certificates of the other
heirs are herein attached as ANNEX “C to C-4”.

7. That it was only later when Respondent ALINEA went back

to the Philippines that she Affixed her signature on the said
deed of partition, AFTER IT HAS ALREADY BEEN
NOTARIZED by a notary public. Furthermore, the
respondent FELICIDAD, caused to be made a
SUBDIVISION PLAN involving the said lot 70-A and
represented in that subdivision plan that SHE WAS THE
LANDOWNER, when in fact she has no vested rights of
ownership over the said land. The ORIGINAL TITLE of the
said lot ( TCT No. 72225) is herein attached as ANNEX “D”
and the said Subdivision Plan is attached as ANNEX “E”;

8. That on January 2023, the respondent ALINEA filed an

action for partition with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las
Pinas City to COMPEL the COMPLAINANT CARLITO
SERAFICO to surrender the original title to her. She
attached as evidence all the forged documents
aforementioned. The copy of the complaint of the
respondent ALINEA is herein attached as ANNEX “F”;

9. That in committing the acts of the RESPONDENTS ALINEA

and FELICIDAD, the Respondents have falsified a series of
documents to cause damage to the complainants, and
ultimately to circumvent the law to duly enrich themselves
at the expense and suffering of others, which make them
liable for the crime of Falsification by private individual and
use of falsified documents which is defined and penalized
under Article 172 of the RPC quoted hereunder:

“The penalty of prision correccional in its medium

and maximum periods and a fine of not more than
P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

//er
 Page 4 of 6

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;
and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a

third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document
commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in

evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage
of another or who, with the intent to cause such
damage, shall use any of the false documents
embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of
the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be
punished by the penalty next lower in degree.”

10. That in the case of Carlos L. Tanenggee vs. People of The

Philippines1, the Supreme Court established the elements
that comprise the crime of Falsification by private
individual and use of falsified documents under Art. 172, to
wit:

“(1) [T]hat the offender is a private individual or a

public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;

(2) [T]hat he committed any of the acts of falsification

enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and,

(3) [T]hat the falsification was committed in a public,

official or commercial document.”

11. The acts referred under Article 171 of the RPC are likewise
quotedhereunder:

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;

1
G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013.

//er
 Page 5 of 6

3. Attributing to persons who have participated

in an act or proceeding statements other than those in
fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration

of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a

genuine document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document

purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such a
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to

the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
book.” (Emphasis ours.)

12. That the information contained in the Birth Certificate of the

respondent ALINEA, that FELICIDAD and NICASIO are
married is an untruthful statement covered by the provision
of Art. 171.;

13. That the Respondents acted in their private capacity during

the whole transaction;

14. That in the Respondents’ desire to defraud the complainants

and other people who will rely on existence and validity of
said Deed of Partition, they have made it appear that
ALINEA affixed her signature at the time of Notarization
when in fact, NO SIGNATURE OF ALINEA was ever
present during the said notarization.;

15. That the complainants are executing this Affidavit-

Complaint to file a case for violations of Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code and with Damages caused upon them
by Respondents.

NORALYN S. ACOSTA JASMINE S. ACOSTA

Affiant Affiant

//er
 Page 6 of 6

CAMILLE S. ACOSTA KAREN S. ACOSTA

Affiant Affiant

SABEL S. ACOSTA CARLITO S. SERAFICO

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____________

at Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, Philippines, with IDs

1. NORALYN S. ACOSTA

2. JASMINE S. ACOSTA

3. KAREN S. ACOSTA

4. CAMILLE S. ACOSTA

5. SABEL S. ACOSTA

6. CARLITO S. SERAFICO
, who are known to me on the basis of their competent document
of identity to be the same persons who executed the foregoing
Affidavit-Complaint and whom I personally examined and am
satisfied that they had read and understood this Affidavit-
Complaint the contents of which she has personal knowledge.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the

affiants and am satisfied that they have read and understood this
affidavit the contents of which they have personal knowledge.

//er