GR L 5065; (April, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5065; April 20, 1953
Estefania Pisalbon, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. Honorato Tesoro, et al., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
In 1950, Estefania Pisalbon discovered in the records of a cadastral case a purported affidavit, notarized by Notary Public Felix Villaflores, in which she appeared to have renounced her rights to a land lot in favor of another party. Estefania claimed she had no knowledge of and did not execute this affidavit. She filed a criminal complaint for falsification of document against the notary public before the Justice of the Peace of Asingan. The justice of the peace dismissed her complaint without investigation, on the ground that he could not proceed with the criminal case while the allegedly falsified affidavit was pending presentation in the cadastral case. Estefania then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, seeking to set aside the dismissal and compel the justice of the peace to proceed with a preliminary investigation. The Court of First Instance denied the petition, ruling that the criminal case should be suspended until after the cadastral case was decided. Estefania appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in ordering the suspension of the criminal case for falsification pending the resolution of the civil (cadastral) case where the allegedly falsified affidavit was presented.
RULING
Yes, the Court of First Instance erred. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed decision. The civil (cadastral) case does not involve a question prejudicial to the criminal case. The determination of ownership of the land in the cadastral case does not affect the determination of whether the crime of falsification was committed by the notary public. Even assuming both cases involved the same issue, the rule is that the civil case should be suspended to await the outcome of the criminal case, not the other way around, as provided by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Justice of the Peace of Asingan and the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan) to proceed with the criminal case.