Falsification of Notarized Contracts: The Criminality of Forging Signatures on Deeds of Sale

Introduction: why forged signatures on notarized deeds are treated as a serious crime

Real estate transfers in the Philippines commonly rely on notarized instruments such as a Deed of Absolute Sale or Deed of Sale. Once notarized, the document becomes a public document, and the State treats falsification of that document as an offense against public faith, not merely a private dispute between buyer and seller. This is why forging a signature on a notarized deed is prosecuted as falsification of a public document, which generally carries heavier penalties and wider consequences than ordinary fraud allegations.

Governing law: Revised Penal Code provisions on falsification of public documents

The controlling statutory provisions are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on falsification, particularly:

1) Article 171 (Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary public) as amended by R.A. No. 10951, which sets out specific falsification acts (e.g., counterfeiting signatures, making it appear that persons participated when they did not) and imposes prisión mayor and a fine (now updated to not exceed ₱1,000,000). (R.A. No. 10951)

2) Article 172 (Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents), which is commonly used when the alleged forger is a private person and the falsified document is public (e.g., a notarized deed). The Supreme Court has repeatedly applied Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 where a private individual commits acts listed in Article 171 on a public document. (Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010; Ansaldo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 159381, 2010)

Why notarization matters: a notarized deed of sale is treated as a public document

A real estate deed of sale becomes far more legally sensitive once notarized because notarization gives the document public character and makes it admissible as evidence without further proof of authenticity in many settings. Consequently, forging a signature in a notarized deed is ordinarily charged as falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171.

This approach is consistent with the Supreme Court’s explanation that falsification of a public document is punished primarily because it undermines public trust in documents that people and institutions are entitled to rely on. (Constantino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 225696, 2019)

Typical criminal charge for forged signatures on notarized deeds of sale

Where a person forges a seller’s or co-owner’s signature in a notarized deed of sale, the usual criminal case is:

Falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 (RPC), because a deed of sale notarized by a notary public is a public document, and “forging/counterfeiting a signature” is one of the falsification modes enumerated in Article 171. (Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010; Ansaldo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 159381, 2010)

Elements the prosecution must prove (and what they mean in deed-of-sale cases)

In falsification of a public document by a private individual (Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171), the Supreme Court has cited the following requisites:

(1) The offender is a private individual (or a public officer taking advantage of position)

(2) The offender committed any act of falsification under Article 171, such as counterfeiting or imitating a signature or making it appear that someone participated in the execution when they did not

(3) The falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document—in this context, typically a notarized deed of sale. (Ansaldo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 159381, 2010; Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010)

Penalties: why the exposure is heavier for notarized deeds

Falsification involving public documents carries serious penalties because it harms public reliance on notarized instruments. Under Article 171 (as amended by R.A. No. 10951), the penalty for falsification by a public officer or notary public is prisión mayor plus a fine not exceeding ₱1,000,000. (R.A. No. 10951)

In many real estate forgery cases, the accused is a private individual charged under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171; this is still treated as falsification of a public document and is prosecuted as a serious felony. (Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010)

How courts evaluate “forgery”: proof requirements and common evidentiary gaps

Forgery is never presumed. The Supreme Court has stressed that in falsification prosecutions, the fact of forgery must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, typically through comparison with genuine signatures and competent evidence explaining the basis of the comparison. (Lamsen v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227069, 2017)

The Court has also cautioned that reliance on photocopies can be problematic because they are secondary evidence; if originals are available or their absence is not properly explained, proof of forgery may fail. (Lamsen v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227069, 2017)

Presumption from possession and benefit: when the “user” is treated as the forger

In several falsification cases, the Supreme Court has applied the rule that a person found in possession of and who benefits from a falsified public document may be presumed to be the material author of the falsification, unless satisfactorily explained. This often arises when a buyer or transferee submits a notarized deed for transfer and later claims someone else forged it. (Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010; People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, et al., G.R. No. 198589, 2012)

“Use of falsified document”: when using the forged deed is a separate offense

Using a falsified public document can itself be criminal. The Supreme Court has stated that a person who uses a falsified document, knowing it to be falsified by another, may be liable for use of falsified document under Article 172 (last paragraph), subject to the required elements such as knowledge and damage or intent to cause damage. (Jayme v. Jayme, et al., G.R. No. 248827, 2020)

However, if the user and the forger are the same person, the rule explained by the Court is that there is no separate crime for “use”—the liability is for falsification. (Jayme v. Jayme, et al., G.R. No. 248827, 2020)

Notary public exposure: criminal falsification versus administrative liability

Where the accused is the notary public, the prosecution must prove that the notary falsified the document in a manner punishable under Article 171—such as making it appear that persons participated when they did not. The Court has clarified that mere notarial lapses, without proof of simulated or falsified signatures, may fail to establish criminal falsification though it may still justify administrative sanctions. (Constantino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 225696, 2019)

Prejudicial question: when a civil case can stop or bar a falsification prosecution

Real estate forgery disputes often have parallel civil cases (e.g., nullity of deed, reconveyance, quieting of title). The Supreme Court has ruled that a civil judgment that conclusively determines a factual issue like genuineness of signatures may constitute a prejudicial question that bars continued prosecution of criminal cases founded on the same alleged falsification, to avoid conflicting rulings and unnecessary litigation. (People of the Philippines v. Camenforte, et al., G.R. No. 220916, 2021)

Common real estate scenarios where falsification charges arise

Forged-signature cases involving notarized deeds of sale frequently arise in the following situations:

1) Sale by one co-owner forging another co-owner’s signature to make it appear that all owners consented.

2) Sale by a relative forging an elderly owner’s signature to transfer land and later mortgage or resell it.

3) “Backdated” or simulated deeds used to defeat heirs, creditors, or competing buyers, sometimes with questionable notarization.

4) Transfers involving deceased persons, where the deed makes it appear the deceased signed, executed, or acknowledged the document. (People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Fourth Division, et al., G.R. No. 198589, 2012)

Quick reference table: what to look for in assessing criminal exposure

Issue	What usually matters	Illustrative authority
Is the deed notarized?	If notarized, it is generally treated as a public document, supporting Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171.	Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010
Can forgery be proven convincingly?	Forgery must be shown by clear and convincing evidence; photocopies can be insufficient if originals should be produced.	Lamsen v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227069, 2017
Who possessed/benefited from the deed?	Possession and benefit may support a presumption of authorship unless credibly explained.	Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010
Is “use of falsified document” a separate charge?	Possible if the user is different from the forger and had knowledge; not separate if the user is also the forger.	Jayme v. Jayme, et al., G.R. No. 248827, 2020
Is there a civil case conclusively resolving signature genuineness?	A final civil determination can operate as a prejudicial question barring continued criminal prosecution based on the same alleged falsification.	People of the Philippines v. Camenforte, et al., G.R. No. 220916, 2021

Action points for buyers, sellers, heirs, and notaries

For buyers and lenders: insist on personal appearance and reliable identity checks for signatories; retain clear copies of IDs and signing records; treat irregular notarization as a serious warning sign because a notarized deed is heavily relied upon in transfers and can become the basis of criminal and civil litigation.

For owners and heirs: if you suspect a forged deed, act quickly to secure certified copies of the deed and related registry documents, and consider both civil remedies (to challenge title/transfer) and criminal complaints for falsification, depending on evidence and objectives.

For notaries public: ensure strict compliance with personal appearance and proper notarial procedures; criminal exposure requires proof of falsification acts, but even where criminal elements are not met, administrative consequences may still follow for notarial violations. (Constantino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 225696, 2019)

Conclusion: forged signatures on notarized deeds are treated as falsification of a public document

Forging a signature on a notarized deed of sale is commonly prosecuted as falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, reflecting the State’s interest in protecting public trust in notarized instruments. Liability often turns on proof quality—especially proof of forgery and participation—and courts closely examine possession, benefit, and credible explanations, while also recognizing that certain civil rulings may bar continued criminal prosecution through the doctrine of prejudicial question. (Villamar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178652, 2010; Lamsen v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227069, 2017; People of the Philippines v. Camenforte, et al., G.R. No. 220916, 2021)

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.