G.R. No. L-22677 - Fortich-Celdran vs. Celdran

A suit for annulment of an extrajudicial partition of properties and for accounting was filed on February 3, 1954, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Civil Case No. 3397-R).
Plaintiffs initially included Jose, Francisco, Pedro Jr., and Ignacio, all surnamed Abuton-Celdran (children of the deceased Pedro Celdran by his first marriage), along with Modesta Rodriguez, the administratrix of Francisco Celdran.
Defendants were Pablo Celdran (child of the deceased by the first marriage who refused to join as plaintiff) and Manuel, Antonio, Pedro III, Jesus, Vicente, and Miguel, all surnamed Fortich-Celdran (children from the second nuptial of the deceased).

After the defendants answered on May 28, 1954, a motion to withdraw as co-plaintiff was filed on May 24, 1957, signed “Ignacio Celdran” (document marked as Exh. B – Josefa).
Subsequently, with leave of court, the plaintiffs (excluding Ignacio) filed an amended complaint impleading Ignacio Celdran as a defendant.
Ignacio Celdran responded with an answer and later an amended answer incorporating a counterclaim and cross-claim.
Before judgment, the disputed document (Exh. B – Josefa) was examined by the Police Department of Cebu City and was deemed by police officials as possibly falsified.
On the basis of the alleged newly discovered evidence of falsification, Ignacio Celdran sought a new trial, but his motion was denied.
Thereafter, all parties except Ignacio entered into an amicable settlement on May 6, 1959, thereby recognizing the extrajudicial partition.
For Ignacio, a separate judgment was rendered on July 19, 1961, declaring the partition valid as he had ratified it by signing the motion to withdraw after receiving a partial payment (P10,000 of the agreed P20,000) and being promised two residential lots.
The judgment was later amended to require Pedro III, Antonio, Jesus, Miguel, and Vicente (all Fortich-Celdran) to pay Ignacio the remaining balance and deliver the promised parcels of land.
Ignacio Celdran appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals (pending as CA-G.R. No. 30499-R).

On March 22, 1963, an information for falsification of a public document (the motion to withdraw, Exh. B – Josefa) was filed by the City Fiscal of Ozamis in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.

The accused in the criminal case included Pedro III, Antonio, Manuel, Vicente, Miguel, and Jesus (all surnamed Fortich-Celdran), Santiago Catane (the subscribing officer), and Abelardo Cecilio (the person who filed the motion).

Ignacio Celdran, as private complainant, moved on December 12, 1962, to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question.

The argument was that the authenticity of the document, which was central to the civil case, was also at issue in the criminal case.

The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental denied the motion to suspend on January 28, 1963, finding that the alleged forgery was not an issue in the civil case.
Unsatisfied with the denial, Ignacio Celdran filed a petition for certiorari with a preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 31909-R) on February 21, 1963, seeking to enjoin the prosecution of the criminal case.
On February 18, 1964, the Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari and suspended the criminal case pending the final resolution of the civil case.

Appellants (Pedro III, Jesus, Manuel, Miguel, and Vicente, all Fortich-Celdran, along with Santiago Catane and Abelardo Cecilio) argued that no prejudicial (pre-judicial) question existed.
Central to the dispute was the contention that the authenticity of the disputed document (Exh. B – Josefa) was pivotal to determining whether Ignacio Celdran had validly ratified the extrajudicial partition.
The resolution of the document’s genuineness in the civil case was seen as determinative of the criminal prosecution's outcome regarding the alleged falsification.

Whether a pre-judicial question exists in this case concerning the authenticity of the disputed document (Exh. B – Josefa) given its pivotal role in determining the validity of the extrajudicial partition in the civil action.

Is the alleged forgery of the document a matter that must first be resolved in the civil action before the criminal prosecution on falsification can proceed?
Whether the ratification of the partition by Ignacio Celdran, evidenced by his partial payment and signature, effectively raises a prejudicial issue for the criminal case.

Whether the suspension of the criminal case by the Court of Appeals pursuant to the prejudicial question was proper.

The question of whether the right of a private offended party (Ignacio Celdran) to file a motion to suspend criminal proceedings is valid when such suspension is grounded on a question presently pending in a civil case.
Whether the procedural requirements under Sec. 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court for suspension based on prejudicial question were met.

To what extent does the determination of the document's authenticity in the civil case affect the resolution of the criminal case?