Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her G.R. No.

170220 hectares was considered by LBP and valued the same at


capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO P1,512,575.05.
C. SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the
TAEDO and EMILIO A.M. Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
SUNTAY III, (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for
Petitioners, Present: determination of just compensation. On January 29, 2003, the
Panganiban, C.J. (Chairperson), PARAD fixed the preliminary just compensation at
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, P51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and
Austria-Martinez, P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares (TCT No. T-128).[7]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed on February 17,
Respondent. Promulgated: 2003, two separate petitions[8] for judicial determination of just
compensation before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose,
November 20, 2006 Occidental Mindoro, acting as a Special Agrarian Court,
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------- docketed as Agrarian Case No. R-1339 for TCT No. T-31 and
-------------- x Agrarian Case No. R-1340 for TCT No. T-128, and raffled to
Branch 46 thereof.
DECISION
Petitioners filed separate Motions to Deposit the Preliminary
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Valuation Under Section 16(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657
(1988)[9] and Ad Cautelam Answer praying among others that
LBP deposit the preliminary compensation determined by the
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the PARAD.
Rules of Court assails the October 27, 2005 Amended
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530, On March 31, 2003, the trial court issued an Order[10] granting
which vacated its May 26, 2004 Decision affirming (a) the Order petitioners motion, the dispositive portion of which reads:
of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
Branch 46, acting as Special Agrarian Court, in Agrarian Case WHEREFORE, Ms. Teresita V. Tengco, of
Nos. R-1339 and R-1340, dated March 31, 2003 directing the Land Compensation Department I (LCD
respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to deposit the I), Land Bank of the Philippines, is hereby
provisional compensation as determined by the Provincial ordered pursuant to Section 16 (e) of RA 6657
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD); (b) the May 26, 2003 in relation to Section 2, Administrative Order
Resolution denying LBPs motion for reconsideration; and (c) No. 8, Series of 1991, to deposit the
the May 27, 2003 Order requiring Teresita V. Tengco, LBPs provisional compensation as determined by
Land Compensation Department Manager, to comply with the the PARAD in cash and bonds, as follows:
March 31, 2003 Order.
The facts of the case are as follows: 1. In Agrarian Case No. R-1339, the amount
of P 51,800,286.43, minus the
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee[2] of Federico C. amount received by the Landowner;
Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. 2. In Agrarian Case No. R-1340, the amount
Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of of P 21,608,215.28, less the amount
3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title of P 1,512,575.16, the amount
(TCT) No. T-31 (T-1326)[3] of the Registry of Deeds of already deposited.
Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion of the said property with
an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform Such deposit must be made with the Land
program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972)[4] and Bank of the Philippines, Manila within five
Executive Order No. 228 (1987).[5] The land was thereafter (5) days from receipt of a copy of this order
subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The and to notify this court of her compliance
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the within such period.
value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited
in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica. Let this order be served by the Sheriff of this
Court at the expense of the movants.
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita Suntay-Taedo and Emilio
A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a parcel of SO ORDERED.[11]
agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro covered by TCT No. T-128[6] of the Register of Deeds LBPs motion for reconsideration was denied in a
of Occidental Mindoro, consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 Resolution[12] dated May 26, 2003. The following day, May 27,
with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of 2003, the trial court issued an Order[13]directing Ms. Teresita V.
165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was Tengco, LBPs Land Compensation Department Manager, to
placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 deposit the amounts.
SO ORDERED.[20]
Thus, on June 17, 2003, LBP filed with the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the In the Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Rules of Court with application for the issuance of a Temporary immediate deposit of the preliminary value of the expropriated
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed properties is improper because it was erroneously
as CA-G.R. SP No. 77530.[14] computed. Citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[21] it
held that the formula to compute the just compensation should
On June 27, 2003, the appellate court issued a 60-day temporary be: Land Value = 2.5 x Average Gross Production x
restraining order[15] and on October 6, 2003, a writ of Government Support Price. Specifically, it held that the value of
preliminary injunction.[16] the government support price for the corresponding agricultural
produce (rice and corn) should be computed at the time of the
On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a legal taking of the subject agricultural land, that is, on October
Decision[17] in favor of the petitioners, the dispositive portion of 21, 1972 when landowners were effectively deprived of
which reads: ownership over their properties by virtue of P.D. No.
27. According to the Court of Appeals, the PARAD incorrectly
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there used the amounts of P500 and P300 which are the prevailing
being no grave abuse of discretion, the instant government support price for palay and corn, respectively, at the
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is time of payment, instead of P35 and P31, the prevailing
DENIED. Accordingly, the Order government support price at the time of the taking in 1972.
dated March 31, 2003, Resolution dated May
26, 2003, and Order dated May 27, 2003 are Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
hereby AFFIRMED. The preliminary
injunction We previously issued is hereby A. THE COURT A QUO HAS DECIDED
LIFTED and DISSOLVED. THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD
WITH THE LATEST DECISION OF THE
SO ORDERED.[18] SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ordered HON. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL., G.R.
LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally determined by the NO. 127198, PROM. MAY 16, 2005; and[22]
PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a
deposit pending the fixing of the final amount of just B. THE COURT A QUO HAS, WITH
compensation. It also noted that there is no reason for LBP to GRAVE GRAVE ABUSE OF
further delay the deposit considering that the DAR already took DISCRETION, SO FAR DEPARTED FROM
possession of the properties and distributed the same to farmer- THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
beneficiaries as early as 1972. OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS,
DECIDING ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT
LBP moved for reconsideration which was granted. On October BEEN RAISED, AS TO CALL FOR AN
27, 2005, the appellate court rendered the assailed Amended EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
Decision,[19] the dispositive portion of which reads: SUPERVISION.[23]

Wherefore, in view of the prescription of a Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation
different formula in the case of Gabatin which should be based on the value of the expropriated properties at
We hold as cogent and compelling the time of payment. Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims
justification necessitating Us to effect the that the value of the realties should be computed as of October
reversal of Our judgment herein sought to be 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.
reconsidered, the instant Motion for The petition is impressed with merit.
Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Our May
26, 2004 Decision is hereby VACATED and In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[24] the
ABANDONED with the end in view of giving Court ruled thus:
way to and acting in harmony and in
congruence with the tenor of the ruling in the Land Banks contention that the
case of Gabatin. Accordingly, the assailed property was acquired for purposes of
rulings of the Special Agrarian Court is (sic) agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time
commanded to compute and fix the just of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just
compensation for the expropriated compensation should be based on the value of
agricultural lands strictly in accordance with the property as of that time and not at the time
the mode of computation prescribed (sic) Our of possession in 1993, is likewise
May 26, 2004 judgment in the case of erroneous. In Office of the President,
Gabatin. Malacaang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we
ruled that the seizure of the landholding did
not take place on the date of effectivity of PD deemed full owners as
27 but would take effect on the payment of of October 21, 1972 of the
just compensation. land they acquired by
virtue of Presidential
The Natividad case reiterated the Courts ruling Decree No. 27 (Emphasis
in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals[25] that the supplied.)
expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the
effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure it was obviously referring to lands already
would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially validly acquired under the said decree, after
determined. proof of full-fledged membership in the
farmers cooperatives and full payment of just
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. compensation. x x x
Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held that expropriation
of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the The CARP Law, for its part,
effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of conditions the transfer of possession and
just compensation. ownership of the land to the government on
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just compensation compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
therefor. The parcels of land were already subdivided and accessible bank. Until then, title also remains
distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereby immediately with the landowner. No outright change of
depriving petitioners of their use. Under the circumstances, it ownership is contemplated either.
would be highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to
compute the just compensation using the values at the time of We also note that the expropriation proceedings in the
the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the payment, instant case was initiated under P.D. No. 27 but the agrarian
considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries reform process is still incomplete considering that the just
have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof compensation to be paid to petitioners has yet to be
have not yet been transferred in their names. Petitioners were settled. Considering the passage of R.A. No. 6657 before the
deprived of their properties without payment of just completion of this process, the just compensation should be
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the determined and the process concluded under the said
property can be taken away from its owners.[27] The transfer of law. Indeed, R.A. No. 6657 is the applicable law, with P.D. No.
possession and ownership of the land to the government are 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory effect. [30]
conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains Appeals,[31] we held that:
with the landowner.[28]
RA 6657 includes PD 27 lands
Our ruling in Association of Small Landowners in the among the properties which the DAR shall
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[29] is acquire and distribute to the landless. And to
instructive, thus: facilitate the acquisition and distribution
thereof, Secs. 16, 17 and 18 of the Act should
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly be adhered to.
ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as
October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall be Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that the LBP
deemed the owner of a portion of land shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be
consisting of a family-sized farm except that agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as
no title to the land owned by him was to be may be finally determined by the court as the just compensation
actually issued to him unless and until he had for the land. In determining just compensation, the cost of the
become a full-fledged member of a duly acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its
recognized farmers cooperative. It was nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner,
understood, however, that full payment of the the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government
just compensation also had to be made first, assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits
conformably to the constitutional contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
requirement. government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes
or loans secured from any government financing institution on
When E.O. No. 228, categorically the said land shall be considered as additional factors to
stated in its Section 1 that: determine its valuation.[32]

All qualified farmer- Corollarily, we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v.


beneficiaries are now Celada[33] that the above provision was converted into a formula
by the DAR through Administrative Order No. 05, S. 1998, to G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995
wit:
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
Land Value (LV) = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + vs.
(Comparable Sales x COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF
0.3) + (Market Value EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO, AGRICULTURAL
per Tax Declaration x MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT
0.1) CORP., respondents.

Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972,


G.R. No. 118745 October 6, 1995
yet to date, they have not yet received just compensation. Thus,
it would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation
based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented
228 considering the failure to determine just compensation for a by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, petitioner,
considerable length of time. That just compensation should be vs.
determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF
227 or E.O. No. 228, is important considering that just EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO, AGRICULTURAL
compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET
property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent AL., respondents.
being real, substantial, full and ample.[34]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition


is GRANTED. The assailed Amended Decision dated October FRANCISCO, R., J.:
27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 26, It has been declared that the duty of the court to protect the
2004 of the Court of Appeals affirming (a) the March 31, 2003 weak and the underprivileged should not be carried out to such
Order of the Special Agrarian Court ordering the respondent an extent as deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and
Land Bank of the Philippines to deposit the just compensation justice happen to be on his side. 1 As eloquently stated by
provisionally determined by the PARAD; (b) the May 26, 2003 Justice Isagani Cruz:
Resolution denying respondents Motion for Reconsideration;
and (c) the May 27, 2003 Order directing Teresita V. Tengco,
. . . social justice or any justice for that
respondents Land Compensation Department Manager to
matter is for the deserving, whether he be
comply with the March 31, 2003 Order, is REINSTATED. The
a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in
Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch
his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable
46, acting as Special Agrarian Court is ORDERED to proceed
doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance
with dispatch in the trial of Agrarian Case Nos. R-1339 and R-
in favor of the poor, to whom the
1340, and to compute the final valuation of the subject properties
Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy
based on the aforementioned formula.
and compassion. But never is it justified to
prefer the poor simply because they are poor,
SO ORDERED.
or to reject the rich simply because they are
rich, for justice must always be served, for
poor and rich alike, according to the mandate
of the law. 2

In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the


aforestated principles be applied in its resolution.

Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners


Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (G.R. No. 118745) and
Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 118712) following the
adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
33465. However, upon motion filed by private respondents, the
petitions were ordered consolidated.3

Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals


promulgated on October 20, 1994, which granted private
respondents' Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and ruled
as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the and to 2) decide the
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus is cases within 30 days after
hereby GRANTED: they are submitted for
decision. 4
a) DAR Administrative
Order No. 9, Series of Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the
1990 is Resolution dated January 18, 1995, 5 denying their
declared null and void inso motion for reconsideration.
far as it provides for the
opening of trust accounts Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were
in lieu of deposits in cash acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to
or bonds; qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL, Republic Act No. 6657).
b) Respondent Landbank is
ordered Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the
to immediately deposit Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment
not merely "earmark", of compensation for their land pursuant to the
"reserve" or "deposit in provisions of RA 6657, private respondents filed with
trust" with an accessible this Court a Petition
bank designated by for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for
respondent DAR in the preliminary mandatory injunction. Private
names of the following respondents questioned the validity of DAR
petitioners the following Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 6 and
amounts in cash and in DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of
government financial 1990, 7 and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the
instruments within the pending summary administrative proceedings to
parameters of Sec. 18 (1) finally determine the just compensation of their
of RA 6657: properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and
bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked",
P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for
Yap private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw
the same.
P 135,482.12 Heirs of
Emiliano Santiago Through a Resolution of the Second Division dated February 9,
1994, this Court referred the petition to respondent Court of
P 15,914,127.77 Appeals for proper determination and disposition.
AMADCOR;
As found by respondent court , the following are undisputed:
c) The DAR-designated
bank is ordered to allow Petitioner Pedro Yap alleges that "(o)n 4
the petitioners to September 1992 the transfer certificates of
withdraw the above- title (TCTs) of petitioner Yap were totally
deposited amounts without cancelled by the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte
prejudice to the final and were transferred in the names of farmer
determination of just beneficiaries collectively, based on the
compensation by the request of the DAR together with a
proper authorities; and certification of the Landbank that the sum of
P735,337.77 and P719,869.54 have been
d) Respondent DAR is earmarked for Landowner Pedro L. Yap for
ordered to the parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos.
1) immediately conduct su 6282 and 6283, respectively, and issued in
mmary administrative lieu thereof TC-563 and TC-562,
proceedings to determine respectively, in the names of listed
the just compensation for beneficiaries (ANNEXES "C" & "D")
the lands of the petitioners without notice to petitioner Yap and without
giving the petitioners 15 complying with the requirement of Section
days from notice within 16 (e) of RA 6657 to deposit the
which to submit evidence
compensation in cash and Landbank bonds in the landowner; that a decision was rendered
an accessible bank. (Rollo, p. 6). on 24 November 1992 (ANNEX "F") fixing
the compensation for the parcel of land
The above allegations are not disputed by covered by TCT No. 34314 with an area of
any of the respondents. 209.9215 hectares at P2,768,326.34 and
ordering the Landbank to pay or establish a
trust account for said amount in the name of
Petitioner Heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege
that the heirs of Emiliano F. Santiago are the AMADCOR; and that the trust account in the
owners of a parcel of land located at Laur, amount of P2,768,326.34 fixed in the
decision was established by adding
NUEVA ECIJA with an area of 18.5615
P1,986,489.73 to the first trust account
hectares covered by TCT No. NT-60359 of
established on 19 December 1991 (ANNEX
the registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,
"G"). With respect to petitioner
registered in the name of the late Emiliano F.
Santiago; that in November and December AMADCOR's property in Tabaco, Albay, it
1990, without notice to the petitioners, the is alleged that the property of AMADCOR in
Tabaco, Albay is covered by TCT No. T-
Landbank required and the beneficiaries
2466 of the Register of Deeds of Albay with
executed Actual tillers Deed of Undertaking
an area of 1,629.4578 hectares'; that
(ANNEX "B") to pay rentals to the
emancipation patents were issued covering
LandBank for the use of their farmlots
equivalent to at least 25% of the net harvest; an area of 701.8999 hectares which were
that on 24 October 1991 the DAR Regional registered on 15 February 1988 but no action
was taken thereafter by the DAR to fix the
Director issued an order directing the
compensation for said land; that on 21 April
Landbank to pay the landowner directly or
1993, a trust account in the name of
through the establishment of a trust fund in
the amount of P135,482.12, that on 24 AMADCOR was established in the amount
February 1992, the Landbank reserved in of P12,247,217.83', three notices of
acquisition having been previously rejected
trust P135,482.12 in the name of Emiliano F.
by AMADCOR. (Rollo, pp. 8-9)
Santiago. (ANNEX "E"; Rollo,
p. 7); that the beneficiaries stopped paying
rentals to the landowners after they signed The above allegations are not disputed by the
the Actual Tiller's Deed of Undertaking respondents except that respondent
committing themselves to pay rentals to the Landbank claims that petitioner failed to
LandBank (Rollo, p. 133). participate in the DARAB proceedings (land
valuation case) despite due notice to it
(Rollo, p. 100). 8
The above allegations are not disputed by the
respondents except that respondent
Landbank claims 1) that it was respondent Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9,
DAR, not Landbank which required the Series of 1990 was issued without jurisdiction and with grave
execution of Actual Tillers Deed of abuse of discretion because it permits the opening of trust
Undertaking (ATDU, for brevity); and 2) that accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or
respondent Landbank, although armed with bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the
the ATDU, did not collect any amount as compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are
rental from the substituting beneficiaries cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA
(Rollo, p. 99). 6657. 9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR
and the Landbank merely "earmarked", "deposited in trust" or
Petitioner Agricultural Management and "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners
Development Corporation (AMADCOR, for despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of the
property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in
brevity) alleges with respect to its
bonds. 10
properties located in San Francisco, Quezon
that the properties of AMADCOR in San
Francisco, Quezon consist of a parcel of land Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative
covered by TCT No. 34314 with an area of Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making power
209.9215 hectares and another parcel pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. 11 Moreover, the DAR
covered by TCT No. 10832 with an area of maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by
163.6189 hectares; that a summary the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e)
administrative proceeding to determine of RA 6657 and the ruling in the case of Association of Small
compensation of the property covered by Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Hon. Secretary of
TCT No. 34314 was conducted by the Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989 (175 SCRA
DARAB in Quezon City without notice to 343). 12
For its part, petitioner Landbank declared that the issuance of It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only
the Certificates of Deposits was in consonance with Circular in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". Nowhere does it appear nor can it
Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it
the words "reserved/deposited" were also used. 13 were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid
modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at
On October 20, 1994, the respondent court rendered the least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it
assailed decision in favor of private respondents. 14Petitioners can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum,
filed a motion for reconsideration but respondent court denied there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant
the same. 15 an expanded construction of the term "deposit".

Hence, the instant petitions. The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not
absolute. Action of an administrative agency may be disturbed
On March 20, 1995, private respondents filed a motion to or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of
dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 118745 alleging that the law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or
appeal has no merit and is merely intended to delay the finality
the spirit of a legislative enactment. 18 In this regard, it must be
of the appealed decision. 16 The Court, however, denied the
stressed that the function of promulgating rules and regulations
motion and instead required the respondents to file their
may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying
comments. 17
the provisions of the law into effect. The power of
administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing the
Petitioners submit that respondent court erred in (1) declaring law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is that
as null and void DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of administrative regulations cannot extend
1990, insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in the law and amend a legislative enactment, 19 for settled is the
lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds, and (2) in holding that rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with
private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to the the provisions of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy
immediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in between the basic law and an implementing rule or regulation,
trust pending the final resolution of the cases it has filed for it is the former that prevails. 20
just compensation.
In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of
Anent the first assignment of error, petitioners maintain that its power to enact rules and regulations when it issued
the word "deposit" as used in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in allowing
referred merely to the act of depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as
the opening of a trust account as a form of deposit. Thus, in compensation for his property because, as heretofore
opting for the opening of a trust account as the acceptable form discussed, Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the
of deposit through Administrative Circular No. 9, petitioner deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". In the
DAR did not commit any grave abuse of discretion since it same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29,
merely exercised its power to promulgate rules and regulations 29-A and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot
in implementing the declared policies of RA 6657. outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent court
therefore did not commit any error in striking down
The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
provides as follows:
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not private
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private respondents are entitled to withdraw the amounts deposited in
Lands trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases
involving the final valuation of their properties, petitioners
xxx xxx xxx assert the negative.

(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the The contention is premised on the alleged distinction between
corresponding payment or, in case of the deposit of compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657
rejection or no response from the landowner, and payment of final compensation as provided under Section
upon the deposit with an accessible bank 18 21 of the same law. According to petitioners, the right of the
designated by the DAR of the compensation landowner to withdraw the amount deposited in his behalf
in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with pertains only to the final valuation as agreed upon by the
this Act, the DAR shall take immediate landowner, the DAR and the LBP or that adjudged by the
possession of the land and shall request the court. It has no reference to amount deposited in the trust
proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer account pursuant to Section 16(e) in case of rejection by the
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the landowner because the latter amount is only provisional and
Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis intended merely to secure possession of the property pending
supplied) final valuation. To further bolster the contention petitioners
cite the following pronouncements in the case of "Association The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of
of Small Landowners in the Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and
Reform". 22 determination of just compensation under Section 18 is
unacceptable. To withhold the right of the landowners to
The last major challenge to CARP is that the appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as
landowner is divested of his property even compensation for their properties simply because they rejected
before actual payment to him in full of just the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding that they have
compensation, in contravention of a well- already been deprived of the possession and use of such
accepted principle of eminent domain. properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. The
irresistible expropriation of private respondents' properties was
painful enough for them. But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all
xxx xxx xxx
the more by withholding that which rightfully belongs to
private respondents in exchange for the taking, under an
The CARP Law, for its part conditions the authority (the "Association" case) that is, however, misplaced.
transfer of possession and ownership of the This is misery twice bestowed on private respondents, which
land to the government on receipt by the the Court must rectify.
landowner of the corresponding payment or
the deposit by the DAR of the compensation
Hence, we find it unnecessary to distinguish between
in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. Until then, title also remains with the provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final
landowner. No outright change of ownership compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising the
landowners' right to appropriate the same. The immediate
is contemplated either.
effect in both situations is the same, the landowner is deprived
of the use and possession of his property for which he should
xxx xxx xxx be fairly and immediately compensated. Fittingly, we reiterate
the cardinal rule that:
Hence the argument that the assailed
measures violate due process by arbitrarily . . . within the context of the State's inherent
transferring title before the land is fully paid power of eminent domain, just compensation
for must also be rejected. means not only the correct determination of
the amount to be paid to the owner of the
Notably, however, the aforecited case was used by respondent land but also the payment of the land within
court in discarding petitioners' assertion as it found that: a reasonable time from its taking. Without
prompt payment, compensation cannot be
. . . despite the "revolutionary" character of considered "just" for the property owner is
the expropriation envisioned under RA 6657 made to suffer the consequence of being
which led the Supreme Court, in the case of immediately deprived of his land while being
Association of Small Landowners in the Phil. made to wait for a decade or more before
Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 actually receiving the amount necessary to
SCRA 343), to conclude that "payments of cope with his loss. 24 (Emphasis supplied)
the just compensation is not always required
to be made fully in money" even as the The promulgation of the "Association" decision endeavored to
Supreme Court admits in the same case "that remove all legal obstacles in the implementation of the
the traditional medium for the payment of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and clear the way
just compensation is money and no other" for the true freedom of the farmer. 25 But despite this, cases
the Supreme Court in said case did not involving its implementation continue to multiply and clog the
abandon the "recognized rule . . . that title to courts' dockets. Nevertheless, we are still optimistic that the
the property expropriated shall pass from the goal of totally emancipating the farmers from their bondage
owner to the expropriator only upon full will be attained in due time. It must be stressed, however, that
payment of the just in the pursuit of this objective, vigilance over the rights of the
compensation." 23(Emphasis supplied) landowners is equally important because social justice cannot
be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who
We agree with the observations of respondent court. The ruling under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to
in the "Association" case merely recognized the extraordinary protection. 26
nature of the expropriation to be undertaken under RA 6657
thereby allowing a deviation from the traditional mode of WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition
payment of compensation and recognized payment other than is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed decision
in cash. It did not, however, dispense with the settled rule that is AFFIRMED in toto.
there must be full payment of just compensation before the title
to the expropriated property is transferred. SO ORDERED.
GR No. 152154 In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25
million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. Marcos couples salaries, other lawful income as well as income
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL from legitimately acquired property. The treasury
FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines, now
(REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by virtue of the freeze order issued
IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] by the PCGG.
MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R.
MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS- On October 18, 1993, respondents Imelda R. Marcos,
ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ Maria Imelda M. Manotoc, Irene M. Araneta and Ferdinand
MARCOS, respondents. R. Marcos, Jr. filed their answer.
Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement
DECISION and the Supplemental Agreements[6] dated December 28, 1993
CORONA, J.: were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG
Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the
assets of the Marcos family. Subsequently, respondent Marcos
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
children filed a motion dated December 7, 1995 for the approval
of Court seeking to (1) set aside the Resolution dated January
of said agreements and for the enforcement thereof.
31, 2002 issued by the Special First Division of the
Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141 entitled Republic of the The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements sought
Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et. al., and (2) reinstate its to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and distribute all
earlier decision dated September 19, 2000 which forfeited in assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the
favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) the conditions contained therein. The aforementioned General
amount held in escrow in the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Agreement specified in one of its premises or whereas clauses
in the aggregate amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of January the fact that petitioner obtained a judgment from the Swiss
31, 2002. Federal Tribunal on December 21, 1990, that the Three Hundred
Fifty-six Million U.S. dollars (US$356 million) belongs in
principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE conditionalities are met x x x. The said decision of the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Zurich District
Attorney Peter Consandey, granting petitioners request for legal
On December 17, 1991, petitioner Republic, through the assistance.[7] Consandey declared the various deposits in the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), name of the enumerated foundations to be of illegal provenance
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed and ordered that they be frozen to await the final verdict in favor
a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as of the parties entitled to restitution.
Civil Case No. 0141 entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Hearings were conducted by the Sandiganbayan on the
Ferdinand E. Marcos, represented by his Estate/Heirs and motion to approve the General/Supplemental Agreements.
Imelda R. Marcos, pursuant to RA 1379[1] in relation to Respondent Ferdinand, Jr. was presented as witness for the
Executive Order Nos. 1,[2] 2,[3] 14[4] and 14-A.[5] purpose of establishing the partial implementation of said
In said case, petitioner sought the declaration of the agreements.
aggregate amount of US$356 million (now estimated to be more On October 18, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for summary
than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. Respondent Mrs.
in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funds were previously held Marcos filed her opposition thereto which was later adopted by
by the following five account groups, using various foreign respondents Mrs. Manotoc, Mrs. Araneta and Ferdinand, Jr.
foundations in certain Swiss banks:
In its resolution dated November 20, 1997, the
(1) Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts; Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion for summary
judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings on the ground that
the motion to approve the compromise agreement (took)
(2) Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-Valamo-
precedence over the motion for summary judgment.
Spinus- Avertina Foundation accounts;
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a manifestation on May 26,
(3) Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy Foundation accounts; 1998 claiming she was not a party to the motion for approval of
the Compromise Agreement and that she owned 90% of the
(4) Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation accounts and funds with the remaining 10% belonging to the Marcos estate.
Meanwhile, on August 10, 1995, petitioner filed with the
(5) Maler Foundation accounts. District Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland, an additional request
for the immediate transfer of the deposits to an escrow account
in the PNB. The request was granted. On appeal by the
Marcoses, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in a decision dated The Swiss deposits which were transmitted to and now held in
December 10, 1997, upheld the ruling of the District Attorney escrow at the PNB are deemed unlawfully acquired as ill-
of Zurich granting the request for the transfer of the funds. In gotten wealth.
1998, the funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow.
Subsequently, respondent Marcos children moved that the funds DISPOSITION
be placed in custodia legis because the deposit in escrow in the
PNB was allegedly in danger of dissipation by petitioner. The
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
Sandiganbayan, in its resolution dated September 8, 1998, Republic of the Philippines and against the respondents,
granted the motion. declaring the Swiss deposits which were transferred to and
After the pre-trial and the issuance of the pre-trial order now deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank in the
and supplemental pre-trial order dated October 28, 1999 and total aggregate value equivalent to US$627,608,544.95 as of
January 21, 2000, respectively, the case was set for trial. After August 31, 2000 together with the increments thereof forfeited
several resettings, petitioner, on March 10, 2000, filed another in favor of the State.[10]
motion for summary judgment pertaining to the forfeiture of the
US$356 million, based on the following grounds: Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a motion for
reconsideration dated September 26, 2000. Likewise, Mrs.
I Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr. filed their own motion for
reconsideration dated October 5, 2000. Mrs. Araneta filed a
THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WHICH WARRANT THE manifestation dated October 4, 2000 adopting the motion for
FORFEITURE OF THE FUNDS SUBJECT OF THE reconsideration of Mrs. Marcos, Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand,
PETITION UNDER R.A. NO. 1379 ARE ADMITTED BY Jr.
RESPONDENTS IN THEIR PLEADINGS AND OTHER
SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE Subsequently, petitioner filed its opposition thereto.
PROCEEDING.
In a resolution[11] dated January 31, 2002, the
Sandiganbayan reversed its September 19, 2000 decision, thus
II denying petitioners motion for summary judgment:

RESPONDENTS ADMISSION MADE DURING THE PRE- CONCLUSION


TRIAL THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST OR
OWNERSHIP OVER THE FUNDS SUBJECT OF THE In sum, the evidence offered for summary judgment of the case
ACTION FOR FORFEITURE TENDERS NO GENUINE
did not prove that the money in the Swiss Banks belonged to
ISSUE OR CONTROVERSY AS TO ANY MATERIAL
the Marcos spouses because no legal proof exists in the record
FACT IN THE PRESENT ACTION, THUS WARRANTING
as to the ownership by the Marcoses of the funds in escrow
THE RENDITION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT.[8]
from the Swiss Banks.

Petitioner contended that, after the pre-trial conference,


The basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot
certain facts were established, warranting a summary judgment
be deemed to have been established and our judgment thereon,
on the funds sought to be forfeited.
perforce, must also have been without basis.
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed her opposition to the
petitioners motion for summary judgment, which opposition WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court dated September 19,
was later adopted by her co-respondents Mrs. Manotoc, Mrs. 2000 is reconsidered and set aside, and this case is now being
Araneta and Ferdinand, Jr. set for further proceedings.[12]
On March 24, 2000, a hearing on the motion for summary
judgment was conducted. Hence, the instant petition. In filing the same, petitioner
argues that the Sandiganbayan, in reversing its September 19,
In a decision[9] dated September 19, 2000, the 2000 decision, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
Sandiganbayan granted petitioners motion for summary to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that --
judgment:
I
CONCLUSION
PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO PROVE ITS CASE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUISITES OF SECTIONS 2
There is no issue of fact which calls for the presentation of AND 3 OF R.A. NO. 1379:
evidence.
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
The Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted. CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED NOT
ONLY THE PERSONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS AND IMELDA R. MARCOS AS ACQUISITION, AND THIS FURTHER
PUBLIC OFFICIALS BUT ALSO THE JUSTIFIED THE RENDITION OF A
EXTENT OF THEIR SALARIES AS SUCH SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, WHO UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, WERE PROHIBITED III
FROM ENGAGING IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS.
THE FOREIGN FOUNDATIONS NEED NOT BE
IMPLEADED.
B. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALSO ADMITTED
THE EXISTENCE OF THE SWISS
IV
DEPOSITS AND THEIR OWNERSHIP
THEREOF:
THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING
1. ADMISSIONS IN PRIVATE
HIMSELF ON THE GROUND THAT ORIGINAL COPIES
RESPONDENTS ANSWER;
OF THE AUTHENTICATED SWISS DECISIONS AND
THEIR AUTHENTICATED TRANSLATIONS HAVE NOT
2. ADMISSION IN THE GENERAL / BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHEN EARLIER
SUPPLEMENTAL THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS QUOTED EXTENSIVELY
AGREEMENTS THEY SIGNED A PORTION OF THE TRANSLATION OF ONE OF THESE
AND SOUGHT TO IMPLEMENT; SWISS DECISIONS IN HIS PONENCIA DATED JULY 29,
1999 WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO RELEASE ONE
3. ADMISSION IN A MANIFESTATION OF HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION US DOLLARS
PRIVATE RESPONDENT ($150,000,000.00) TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS.
IMELDA R. MARCOS AND IN
THE MOTION TO PLACE V
THE RES IN CUSTODIA LEGIS;
AND
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE DEEMED TO HAVE
WAIVED THEIR OBJECTION TO THE AUTHENTICITY
4. ADMISSION IN THE UNDERTAKING OF THE SWISS FEDERAL SUPREME COURT
TO PAY THE HUMAN RIGHTS DECISIONS.[13]
VICTIMS.
Petitioner, in the main, asserts that nowhere in the
C. PETITIONER HAS PROVED THE EXTENT respondents motions for reconsideration and supplemental
OF THE LEGITIMATE INCOME OF motion for reconsideration were the authenticity, accuracy and
FERDINAND E. MARCOS AND IMELDA admissibility of the Swiss decisions ever challenged. Otherwise
R. MARCOS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS. stated, it was incorrect for the Sandiganbayan to use the issue of
lack of authenticated translations of the decisions of the Swiss
D. PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA Federal Supreme Court as the basis for reversing itself because
FACIE PRESUMPTION OF respondents themselves never raised this issue in their motions
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED WEALTH. for reconsideration and supplemental motion for
reconsideration. Furthermore, this particular issue relating to the
II translation of the Swiss court decisions could not be resurrected
anymore because said decisions had been previously utilized by
the Sandiganbayan itself in resolving a decisive issue before it.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER SINCE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT RAISED ANY GENUINE Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan for questioning the
ISSUE OF FACT CONSIDERING THAT: non-production of the authenticated translations of the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court decisions as this was a marginal and
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DEFENSE THAT technical matter that did not diminish by any measure the
SWISS DEPOSITS WERE LAWFULLY conclusiveness and strength of what had been proven and
ACQUIRED DOES NOT ONLY FAIL TO admitted before the Sandiganbayan, that is, that the funds
TENDER AN ISSUE BUT IS CLEARLY A deposited by the Marcoses constituted ill-gotten wealth and thus
SHAM; AND belonged to the Filipino people.
In compliance with the order of this Court, Mrs. Marcos
B. IN SUBSEQUENTLY DISCLAIMING filed her comment to the petition on May 22, 2002. After several
OWNERSHIP OF THE SWISS DEPOSITS, motions for extension which were all granted, the comment of
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ABANDONED Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr. and the separate comment of
THEIR SHAM DEFENSE OF LEGITIMATE Mrs. Araneta were filed on May 27, 2002.
Mrs. Marcos asserts that the petition should be denied on CORRECT IN RULING THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT
the following grounds: YET ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE
FORFEITURE OF THE SWISS FUNDS.
A.
(1) Republic Act No. 1379, the applicable law, is a
PETITIONER HAS A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE penal statute. As such, its provisions,
REMEDY AT THE SANDIGANBAYAN. particularly the essential elements stated in
section 3 thereof, are mandatory in nature.
B. These should be strictly construed against
petitioner and liberally in favor of private
THE SANDIGANBAYAN DID NOT ABUSE ITS respondents.
DISCRETION IN SETTING THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.[14] (2) Petitioner has failed to establish the third and
fourth essential elements in Section 3 of R.A.
Mrs. Marcos contends that petitioner has a plain, speedy 1379 with respect to the identification,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in view of ownership, and approximate amount of the
the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated January 31, 2000 property which the Marcos couple allegedly
directing petitioner to submit the authenticated translations of acquired during their incumbency.
the Swiss decisions. Instead of availing of said remedy,
petitioner now elevates the matter to this Court. According to (a) Petitioner has failed to prove that the
Mrs. Marcos, a petition for certiorari which does not comply Marcos couple acquired or own the
with the requirements of the rules may be dismissed. Since Swiss funds.
petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, that is, to
proceed to trial and submit authenticated translations of the (b) Even assuming, for the sake of argument,
Swiss decisions, its petition before this Court must be dismissed. that the fact of acquisition has been
Corollarily, the Sandiganbayans ruling to set the case for further proven, petitioner has categorically
proceedings cannot and should not be considered a capricious admitted that it has no evidence
and whimsical exercise of judgment. showing how much of the Swiss
Likewise, Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr., in their funds was acquired during the
comment, prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds incumbency of the Marcos couple
that: from 31 December 1965 to 25
February 1986.
(A)
(3) In contravention of the essential element stated
BY THE TIME PETITIONER FILED ITS MOTION FOR in Section 3 (e) of R.A. 1379, petitioner has
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 10 MARCH 2000, IT WAS failed to establish the other proper earnings
ALREADY BARRED FROM DOING SO. and income from legitimately acquired
property of the Marcos couple over and
(1) The Motion for Summary Judgment was based above their government salaries.
on private respondents Answer and other
documents that had long been in the records (4) Since petitioner failed to prove the three
of the case. Thus, by the time the Motion was essential elements provided in paragraphs
filed on 10 March 2000, estoppel by laches (c)[15] (d),[16] and (e)[17] of Section 3, R.A.
had already set in against petitioner. 1379, the inescapable conclusion is that the
prima facie presumption of unlawful
(2) By its positive acts and express admissions prior acquisition of the Swiss funds has not yet
to filing the Motion for Summary Judgment attached. There can, therefore, be no
on 10 March 1990, petitioner had legally premature forfeiture of the funds.
bound itself to go to trial on the basis of
existing issues. Thus, it clearly waived (C)
whatever right it had to move for summary
judgment. IT WAS ONLY BY ARBITRARILY ISOLATING AND
THEN TAKING CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY
(B) PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OUT OF CONTEXT THAT
PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO TREAT THESE AS
EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A
LEGALLY BARRED FROM FILING THE MOTION FOR PRIMA FACIE AND THEREAFTER A CONCLUSIVE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE SANDIGANBAYAN IS
CASE TO JUSTIFY THE FORFEITURE OF THE SWISS Procedure assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated
FUNDS. January 21, 2002 should be threshed out.
At the outset, we would like to stress that we are treating
(1) Under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of this case as an exception to the general rule governing petitions
Court, the General and Supplemental for certiorari. Normally, decisions of the Sandiganbayan are
Agreements, as well as the other written and brought before this Court under Rule 45, not Rule
testimonial statements submitted in relation 65.[20] But where the case is undeniably ingrained with immense
thereto, are expressly barred from being public interest, public policy and deep historical repercussions,
admissible in evidence against private certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and
respondents. availability of the remedy of appeal.[21]

(2) Had petitioner bothered to weigh the alleged One of the foremost concerns of the Aquino Government
admissions together with the other statements in February 1986 was the recovery of the unexplained or ill-
on record, there would be a demonstrable gotten wealth reputedly amassed by former President and Mrs.
showing that no such judicial admissions Ferdinand E. Marcos, their relatives, friends and business
were made by private respondents. associates. Thus, the very first Executive Order (EO) issued by
then President Corazon Aquino upon her assumption to office
(D) after the ouster of the Marcoses was EO No. 1, issued on
February 28, 1986. It created the Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG) and charged it with the task of
SINCE PETITIONER HAS NOT (YET) PROVEN ALL THE assisting the President in the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
FACIE CASE FOR FORFEITURE, AND PRIVATE immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates,
RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY JUDICIAL whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the
ADMISSION THAT WOULD HAVE FREED IT FROM ITS takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities
BURDEN OF PROOF, THE SANDIGANBAYAN DID NOT owned or controlled by them during his administration, directly
COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. office and/or using their powers, authority, influence,
CERTIORARI, THEREFORE, DOES NOT LIE, connections or relationship." The urgency of this undertaking
ESPECIALLY AS THIS COURT IS NOT A TRIER OF was tersely described by this Court in Republic vs. Lobregat[22]:
FACTS.[18]
surely x x x an enterprise "of great pith and moment"; it was
For her part, Mrs. Araneta, in her comment to the petition, attended by "great expectations"; it was initiated not only out
claims that obviously petitioner is unable to comply with a very of considerations of simple justice but also out of sheer
plain requirement of respondent Sandiganbayan. The instant necessity - the national coffers were empty, or nearly so.
petition is allegedly an attempt to elevate to this Court matters,
issues and incidents which should be properly threshed out at
the Sandiganbayan. To respondent Mrs. Araneta, all other In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG,
matters, save that pertaining to the authentication of the this Court has seen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities
translated Swiss Court decisions, are irrelevant and impertinent that merely serve to delay or impede judicious resolution. This
as far as this Court is concerned. Respondent Mrs. Araneta Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits at the
manifests that she is as eager as respondent Sandiganbayan or Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the Filipino people
any interested person to have the Swiss Court decisions and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection of
officially translated in our known language. She says the form, should now be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost
authenticated official English version of the Swiss Court two decades have passed since the government initiated its
decisions should be presented. This should stop all speculations search for and reversion of such ill-gotten wealth. The definitive
on what indeed is contained therein. Thus, respondent Mrs. resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. If
Araneta prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit and there is proof of illegal acquisition, accumulation,
for raising matters which, in elaborated fashion, are impertinent misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, let it be brought out
and improper before this Court. now. Let the ownership of these funds and other assets be finally
determined and resolved with dispatch, free from all the
delaying technicalities and annoying procedural sidetracks.[23]

PROPRIETY OF PETITIONERS We thus take cognizance of this case and settle with
ACTION FOR CERTIORARI finality all the issues therein.

But before this Court discusses the more relevant issues, ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT
the question regarding the propriety of petitioner Republic's
action for certiorari under Rule 65[19] of the 1997 Rules of Civil
The crucial issues which this Court must resolve are: (1) early years of martial law from 1978 to 1984 and as Metro
whether or not respondents raised any genuine issue of fact Manila Governor in concurrent capacity as Minister of Human
which would either justify or negate summary judgment; and (2) Settlements. x x x
whether or not petitioner Republic was able to prove its case for
forfeiture in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379. xxx xxx xxx
(1) THE PROPRIETY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11. At the outset, however, it must be pointed out that based on
We hold that respondent Marcoses failed to raise any the Official Report of the Minister of Budget, the total salaries
genuine issue of fact in their pleadings. Thus, on motion of of former President Marcos as President form 1966 to 1976
petitioner Republic, summary judgment should take place as a was P60,000 a year and from 1977 to 1985, P100,000 a year;
matter of right. while that of the former First Lady, Imelda R. Marcos, as
Minister of Human Settlements from June 1976 to February
In the early case of Auman vs. Estenzo[24], summary
22-25, 1986 was P75,000 a year xxx.
judgment was described as a judgment which a court may render
before trial but after both parties have pleaded.It is ordered by
the court upon application by one party, supported by affidavits, ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS
depositions or other documents, with notice upon the adverse LEGITIMATE INCOME
party who may in turn file an opposition supported also by
affidavits, depositions or other documents. This is after the court xxx
summarily hears both parties with their respective proofs and
finds that there is no genuine issue between them. Summary 12. Based on available documents, the ITRs of the Marcoses
judgment is sanctioned in this jurisdiction by Section 1, Rule 35 for the years 1965-1975 were filed under Tax Identification
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: No. 1365-055-1. For the years 1976 until 1984, the returns
were filed under Tax Identification No. M 6221-J 1117-A-9.
SECTION 1. Summary judgment for claimant.- A party
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim 13. The data contained in the ITRs and Balance Sheet filed by
or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the the Marcoses are summarized and attached to the reports in the
pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with following schedules:
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof. [25] Schedule A:

Summary judgment is proper when there is clearly no Schedule of Income (Annex T hereof);
genuine issue as to any material fact in the action.[26] The theory
of summary judgment is that, although an answer may on its face
appear to tender issues requiring trial, if it is demonstrated by Schedule B:
affidavits, depositions or admissions that those issues are not
genuine but sham or fictitious, the Court is justified in Schedule of Income Tax Paid (Annex T-1 hereof);
dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for
petitioner Republic. Schedule C:
The Solicitor General made a very thorough presentation
of its case for forfeiture: Schedule of Net Disposable Income (Annex T-2
hereof);
xxx
Schedule D:
4. Respondent Ferdinand E. Marcos (now deceased and
represented by his Estate/Heirs) was a public officer for several Schedule of Networth Analysis (Annex T-3
decades continuously and without interruption as hereof).
Congressman, Senator, Senate President and President of the
Republic of the Philippines from December 31, 1965 up to his 14. As summarized in Schedule A (Annex T hereof), the
ouster by direct action of the people of EDSA on February 22- Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or US$2,414,484.91 in total
25, 1986. income over a period of 20 years from 1965 to 1984. The
sources of income are as follows:
5. Respondent Imelda Romualdez Marcos (Imelda, for short)
the former First Lady who ruled with FM during the 14-year Official Salaries - P 2,627,581.00 - 16.01%
martial law regime, occupied the position of Minister of Legal Practice - 11,109,836.00 - 67.71%
Human Settlements from June 1976 up to the peaceful Farm Income - 149,700.00 - .91%
revolution in February 22-25, 1986. She likewise served once Others - 2,521,325.00 - 15.37%
as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa during the Total P16,408,442.00 - 100.00%
15. FMs official salary pertains to his compensation as Senate P567,097.00 represents interest charges, medicare fees, taxes
President in 1965 in the amount of P15,935.00 and licenses. The total deductions in the amount
and P1,420,000.00 as President of the Philippines during the of P1,994,845.00 represents 12% of the total gross income.
period 1966 until 1984. On the other hand, Imelda reported
salaries and allowances only for the years 1979 to 1984 in the 21. In Schedule C, the net cumulative disposable income
amount of P1,191,646.00. The records indicate that the amounts to P6,756,301.00 or US$980,709.77. This is the
reported income came from her salary from the Ministry of amount that represents that portion of the Marcoses income
Human Settlements and allowances from Food Terminal, Inc., that is free for consumption, savings and investments. The
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, National Food amount is arrived at by adding back to the net income after tax
Authority Council, Light Rail Transit Authority and Home the personal and additional exemptions for the years 1965-
Development Mutual Fund. 1984, as well as the tax-exempt salary of the President for the
years 1966 until 1972.
16. Of the P11,109,836.00 in reported income from legal
practice, the amount of P10,649,836.00 or 96% represents 22. Finally, the networth analysis in Schedule D, represents the
receivables from prior years during the period 1967 up to 1984. total accumulated networth of spouses, Ferdinand and
Imelda. Respondents Balance Sheet attached to their 1965 ITR,
17. In the guise of reporting income using the cash method covering the year immediately preceding their ascendancy to
under Section 38 of the National Internal Revenue Code, FM the presidency, indicates an ending networth of P120,000.00
made it appear that he had an extremely profitable legal which FM declared as Library and Miscellaneous assets. In
practice before he became a President (FM being barred by law computing for the networth, the income approach was
from practicing his law profession during his entire presidency) utilized. Under this approach, the beginning capital is increased
and that, incredibly, he was still receiving payments almost 20 or decreased, as the case may be, depending upon the income
years after. The only problem is that in his Balance Sheet earned or loss incurred. Computations establish the total
attached to his 1965 ITR immediately preceeding his networth of spouses Ferdinand and Imelda, for the years 1965
ascendancy to the presidency he did not show any Receivables until 1984 in the total amount of US$957,487.75, assuming the
from client at all, much less the P10,65-M that he decided to income from legal practice is real and valid x x x.
later recognize as income. There are no documents showing
any withholding tax certificates. Likewise, there is nothing on G. THE SECRET MARCOS DEPOSITS
record that will show any known Marcos client as he has no IN SWISS BANKS
known law office. As previously stated, his networth was a
mere P120,000.00 in December, 1965. The joint income tax
23. The following presentation very clearly and
returns of FM and Imelda cannot, therefore, conceal the
overwhelmingly show in detail how both respondents
skeletons of their kleptocracy.
clandestinely stashed away the countrys wealth to Switzerland
and hid the same under layers upon layers of foundations and
18. FM reported a total of P2,521,325.00 as Other Income for other corporate entities to prevent its detection. Through their
the years 1972 up to 1976 which he referred to in his return as dummies/nominees, fronts or agents who formed those
Miscellaneous Items and Various Corporations. There is no foundations or corporate entities, they opened and maintained
indication of any payor of the dividends or earnings. numerous bank accounts. But due to the difficulty if not the
impossibility of detecting and documenting all those secret
19. Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda did not declare any income accounts as well as the enormity of the deposits therein hidden,
from any deposits and placements which are subject to a 5% the following presentation is confined to five identified
withholding tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue attested that accounts groups, with balances amounting to about $356-
after a diligent search of pertinent records on file with the M with a reservation for the filing of a supplemental or
Records Division, they did not find any records involving the separate forfeiture complaint should the need arise.
tax transactions of spouses Ferdinand and Imelda in Revenue
Region No. 1, Baguio City, Revenue Region No.4A, Manila, H. THE AZIO-VERSO-VIBUR
Revenue Region No. 4B1, Quezon City and Revenue No. 8,
Tacloban, Leyte. Likewise, the Office of the Revenue
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
Collector of Batac. Further, BIR attested that no records were
found on any filing of capital gains tax return involving
spouses FM and Imelda covering the years 1960 to 1965. 24. On June 11, 1971, Ferdinand Marcos issued a written order
to Dr. Theo Bertheau, legal counsel of Schweizeresche
Kreditanstalt or SKA, also known as Swiss Credit Bank, for
20. In Schedule B, the taxable reported income over the
him to establish the AZIO Foundation. On the same date,
twenty-year period was P14,463,595.00 which represents 88%
Marcos executed a power of attorney in favor of Roberto S.
of the gross income. The Marcoses paid income taxes Benedicto empowering him to transact business in behalf of
totaling P8,233,296.00 or US$1,220,667.59. The business the said foundation. Pursuant to the said Marcos mandate,
expenses in the amount of P861,748.00 represent expenses
AZIO Foundation was formed on June 21, 1971 in
incurred for subscription, postage, stationeries and
Vaduz. Walter Fessler and Ernst Scheller, also of SKA Legal
contributions while the other deductions in the amount of
Service, and Dr. Helmuth Merling from Schaan were 30. As of December 31, 1989, the balance of the bank accounts
designated as members of the Board of Trustees of the said of VIBUR FOUNDATION with SKA, Zurich, under the
foundation. Ferdinand Marcos was named first beneficiary and General Account No. 469857 totaled $3,597,544.00
the Marcos Foundation, Inc. was second beneficiary. On
November 12, 1971, FM again issued another written order I. XANDY-WINTROP: CHARIS-SCOLARI-
naming Austrahil PTY Ltd. In Sydney, Australia, as the VALAMO-SPINUS-AVERTINA
foundations first and sole beneficiary. This was recorded on FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
December 14, 1971.
31. This is the most intricate and complicated account
25. In an undated instrument, Marcos changed the first and sole group. As the Flow Chart hereof shows, two (2) groups under
beneficiary to CHARIS FOUNDATION. This change was the foundation organized by Marcos dummies/nominees for
recorded on December 4, 1972. FMs benefit, eventually joined together and became one (1)
account group under the AVERTINA FOUNDATION for the
26. On August 29, 1978, the AZIO FOUNDATION was benefit of both FM and Imelda. This is the biggest group from
renamed to VERSO FOUNDATION. The Board of Trustees where the $50-M investment fund of the Marcoses was drawn
remained the same. On March 11, 1981, Marcos issued a when they bought the Central Banks dollar-denominated
written directive to liquidated VERSO FOUNDATION and to treasury notes with high-yielding interests.
transfer all its assets to account of FIDES TRUST COMPANY
at Bank Hofman in Zurich under the account Reference OSER. 32. On March 20, 1968, after his second year in the presidency,
The Board of Trustees decided to dissolve the foundation on Marcos opened bank accounts with SKA using an alias
June 25, 1981. or pseudonym WILLIAM SAUNDERS, apparently to hide his
true identity. The next day, March 21, 1968, his First Lady,
27. In an apparent maneuver to bury further the secret deposits Mrs. Imelda Marcos also opened her own bank accounts with
beneath the thick layers of corporate entities, FM effected the the same bank using an American-sounding alias, JANE
establishment of VIBUR FOUNDATION on May 13, 1981 in RYAN. Found among the voluminous documents in
Vaduz. Atty. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a wholly- Malacaang shortly after they fled to Hawaii in haste that fateful
owned subsidiary of Fides Trust, were designated as members night of February 25, 1986, were accomplished forms for
of the Board of Trustees. The account was officially opened Declaration/Specimen Signatures submitted by the Marcos
with SKA on September 10, 1981. The beneficial owner was couple. Under the caption signature(s) Ferdinand and Imelda
not made known to the bank since Fides Trust Company acted signed their real names as well as their respective aliases
as fiduciary. However, comparison of the listing of the underneath. These accounts were actively operated and
securities in the safe deposit register of the VERSO maintained by the Marcoses for about two (2) years until their
FOUNDATION as of February 27, 1981 with that of VIBUR closure sometime in February, 1970 and the balances
FOUNDATION as of December 31, 1981 readily reveals that transferred to XANDY FOUNDATION.
exactly the same securities were listed.
33. The XANDY FOUNDATION was established on March 3,
28. Under the foregoing circumstances, it is certain that the 1970 in Vaduz. C.W. Fessler, C. Souviron and E. Scheller were
VIBUR FOUNDATION is the beneficial successor of VERSO named as members of the Board of Trustees.
FOUNDATION.
34. FM and Imelda issued the written mandate to establish the
29. On March 18, 1986, the Marcos-designated Board of foundation to Markus Geel of SKA on March 3, 1970. In the
Trustees decided to liquidate VIBUR FOUNDATION. A handwritten Regulations signed by the Marcos couple as well
notice of such liquidation was sent to the Office of the Public as in the type-written Regulations signed by Markus Geel both
Register on March 21, 1986. However, the bank accounts and dated February 13, 1970, the Marcos spouses were named the
respective balances of the said VIBUR FOUNDATION first beneficiaries, the surviving spouse as the second
remained with SKA. Apparently, the liquidation was an beneficiary and the Marcos children Imee, Ferdinand, Jr.
attempt by the Marcoses to transfer the foundations funds to (Bongbong) and Irene as equal third beneficiaries.
another account or bank but this was prevented by the timely
freeze order issued by the Swiss authorities. One of the latest 35. The XANDY FOUNDATION was renamed WINTROP
documents obtained by the PCGG from the Swiss authorities is FOUNDATION on August 29, 1978. The Board of Trustees
a declaration signed by Dr. Ivo Beck (the trustee) stating remained the same at the outset. However, on March 27, 1980,
that the beneficial owner of VIBUR FOUNDATION is Souviron was replaced by Dr. Peter Ritter. On March 10. 1981,
Ferdinand E. Marcos. Another document signed by G. Raber of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos issued a written order to the
SKA shows that VIBUR FOUNDATION is owned by the Board of Wintrop to liquidate the foundation and transfer all its
Marcos Familie assets to Bank Hofmann in Zurich in favor of FIDES TRUST
COMPANY. Later, WINTROP FOUNDATION was
dissolved.
36. The AVERTINA FOUNDATION was established on May securities in the safe deposit register of Valamo Foundation as
13, 1981 in Vaduz with Atty. Ivo Beck and Limag of December 31, 1980 are practically the same with those
Management, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FIDES TRUST listed in the safe deposit register of Spinus Foundation as of
CO., as members of the Board of Trustees. Two (2) account December 31, 1981. Under the circumstances, it is certain that
categories, namely: CAR and NES, were opened on September the Spinus Foundation is the beneficial successor of the
10, 1981. The beneficial owner of AVERTINA was not made Valamo Foundation.
known to the bank since the FIDES TRUST CO. acted as
fiduciary. However, the securities listed in the safe deposit 41. On September 6, 1982, there was a written instruction from
register of WINTROP FOUNDATION Category R as of Spinus Foundation to SKA to close its Swiss Franc account
December 31, 1980 were the same as those listed in the register and transfer the balance to Avertina Foundation. In
of AVERTINA FOUNDATION Category CAR as of July/August, 1982, several transfers from the foundations
December 31, 1981. Likewise, the securities listed in the safe German marks and US dollar accounts were made to Avertina
deposit register of WINTROP FOUNDATION Category S as Category CAR totaling DM 29.5-M and $58-M,
of December 31, 1980 were the same as those listed in the respectively. Moreover, a comparison of the list of securities of
register of Avertina Category NES as of December 31, the Spinus Foundation as of February 3, 1982 with the safe
1981.Under the circumstances, it is certain that the beneficial deposit slips of the Avertina Foundation Category CAR as of
successor of WINTROP FOUNDATION is AVERTINA August 19, 1982 shows that all the securities of Spinus were
FOUNDATION. The balance of Category CAR as of transferred to Avertina.
December 31, 1989 amounted to US$231,366,894.00 while
that of Category NES as of 12-31-83 was J. TRINIDAD-RAYBY-PALMY
US$8,647,190.00. Latest documents received from Swiss FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
authorities included a declaration signed by IVO Beck stating
that the beneficial owners of AVERTINA FOUNDATION are
FM and Imelda. Another document signed by G. Raber of SKA 42. The Trinidad Foundation was organized on August 26,
indicates that Avertina Foundation is owned by the Marcos 1970 in Vaduz with C.W. Fessler and E. Scheller of SKA and
Families. Dr. Otto Tondury as the foundations directors. Imelda issued a
written mandate to establish the foundation to Markus Geel on
August 26, 1970. The regulations as well as the agreement,
37. The other groups of foundations that eventually joined
both dated August 28, 1970 were likewise signed by
AVERTINA were also established by FM through his
Imelda.Imelda was named the first beneficiary and her children
dummies, which started with the CHARIS FOUNDATION. Imelda (Imee), Ferdinand, Jr. (Bongbong) and, Irene were
named as equal second beneficiaries.
38. The CHARIS FOUNDATION was established in VADUZ
on December 27, 1971. Walter Fessler and Ernst Scheller
43. Rayby Foundation was established on June 22, 1973 in
of SKA and Dr. Peter Ritter were named as directors. Dr. Theo
Vaduz with Fessler, Scheller and Ritter as members of the
Bertheau, SKA legal counsel, acted as founding director in board of directors. Imelda issued a written mandate to Dr. Theo
behalf of FM by virtue of the mandate and agreement dated Bertheau to establish the foundation with a note that the
November 12, 1971. FM himself was named the first
foundations capitalization as well as the cost of establishing it
beneficiary and Xandy Foundation as second beneficiary in
be debited against the account of Trinidad Foundation. Imelda
accordance with the handwritten instructions of FM on
was named the first and only beneficiary of Rayby
November 12, 1971 and the Regulations. FM gave a power of
foundation. According to written information from SKA dated
attorney to Roberto S. Benedicto on February 15, 1972 to act November 28, 1988, Imelda apparently had the intention in
in his behalf with regard to Charis Foundation. 1973 to transfer part of the assets of Trinidad Foundation to
another foundation, thus the establishment of Rayby
39. On December 13, 1974, Charis Foundation was renamed Foundation. However, transfer of assets never took place. On
Scolari Foundation but the directors remained the same. On March 10, 1981, Imelda issued a written order to transfer all
March 11, 1981 FM ordered in writing that the Valamo the assets of Rayby Foundation to Trinidad Foundation and to
Foundation be liquidated and all its assets be transferred to subsequently liquidate Rayby. On the same date, she issued a
Bank Hofmann, AG in favor of Fides Trust Company under written order to the board of Trinidad to dissolve the
the account Reference OMAL. The Board of Directors decided foundation and transfer all its assets to Bank Hofmann in favor
on the immediate dissolution of Valamo Foundation on June of Fides Trust Co. Under the account Reference Dido, Rayby
25, 1981. was dissolved on April 6, 1981 and Trinidad was liquidated on
August 3, 1981.
40 The SPINUS FOUNDATION was established on May 13,
1981 in Vaduz with Atty. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a 44. The PALMY FOUNDATION was established on May 13,
wholly-owned subsidiary of Fides Trust Co., as members of 1981 in Vaduz with Dr. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a
the Foundations Board of Directors. The account was officially wholly-owned subsidiary of Fides Trust Co, as members of the
opened with SKA on September 10, 1981. The beneficial Foundations Board of Directors. The account was officially
owner of the foundation was not made known to the bank since opened with the SKA on September 10, 1981. The beneficial
Fides Trust Co. acted as fiduciary. However, the list of owner was not made known to the bank since Fides Trust Co.
acted as fiduciary. However, when one compares the listing of The Marcos couple, also mentioned in the said document that
securities in the safe deposit register of Trinidad Foundation as they bought the Maler Establishment from SBC, Geneva. On
of December 31,1980 with that of the Palmy Foundation as of the same date, FM and Imelda issued a letter addressed to
December 31, 1980, one can clearly see that practically the Maler Establishment, stating that all instructions to be
same securities were listed. Under the circumstances, it is transmitted with regard to Maler will be signed with the word
certain that the Palmy Foundation is the beneficial successor of JOHN LEWIS. This word will have the same value as the
the Trinidad Foundation. couples own personal signature. The letter was signed by FM
and Imelda in their signatures and as John Lewis.
45. As of December 31, 1989, the ending balance of the bank
accounts of Palmy Foundation under General Account No. 50. Maler Establishment opened and maintained bank accounts
391528 is $17,214,432.00. with SBC, Geneva. The opening bank documents were signed
by Dr. Barbey and Mr. Sunnier as authorized signatories.
46. Latest documents received from Swiss Authorities included
a declaration signed by Dr. Ivo Beck stating that the beneficial 51. On November 17, 1981, it became necessary to transform
owner of Palmy Foundation is Imelda. Another document Maler Establishment into a foundation. Likewise, the attorneys
signed by Raber shows that the said Palmy Foundation is were changed to Michael Amaudruz, et. al. However,
owned by Marcos Familie. administration of the assets was left to SBC. The articles of
incorporation of Maler Foundation registered on November 17,
K. ROSALYS-AGUAMINA 1981 appear to be the same articles applied to Maler
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS Establishment. On February 28, 1984, Maler Foundation
cancelled the power of attorney for the management of its
assets in favor of SBC and transferred such power to Sustrust
47. Rosalys Foundation was established in 1971 with FM as
Investment Co., S.A.
the beneficiary. Its Articles of Incorporation was executed on
September 24, 1971 and its By-Laws on October 3, 1971. This
foundation maintained several accounts with Swiss Bank 52. As of June 6, 1991, the ending balance of Maler
Corporation (SBC) under the general account 51960 where Foundations Account Nos. 254,508 BT and 98,929 NY amount
most of the bribe monies from Japanese suppliers were hidden. SF 9,083,567 and SG 16,195,258, respectively, for a total of
SF 25,278,825.00. GM only until December 31, 1980. This
48. On December 19, 1985, Rosalys Foundation was liquidated account was opened by Maler when it was still an
establishment which was subsequently transformed into a
and all its assets were transferred to Aguamina Corporations
foundation.
(Panama) Account No. 53300 with SBC. The ownership by
Aguamina Corporation of Account No. 53300 is evidenced by
an opening account documents from the bank. J. Christinaz and 53. All the five (5) group accounts in the over-all flow chart
R.L. Rossier, First Vice-President and Senior Vice President, have a total balance of about Three Hundred Fifty Six Million
respectively, of SBC, Geneva issued a declaration dated Dollars ($356,000,000.00) as shown by Annex R-5 hereto
September 3, 1991 stating that the by-laws dated October 3, attached as integral part hereof.
1971 governing Rosalys Foundation was the same by-law
applied to Aguamina Corporation Account No. 53300. They x x x x x x.[27]
further confirmed that no change of beneficial owner was
involved while transferring the assets of Rosalys to Aguamina. Respondents Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda M.
Hence, FM remains the beneficiary of Aguamina Corporation Manotoc, Irene M. Araneta and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., in their
Account No. 53300. answer, stated the following:

As of August 30, 1991, the ending balance of Account No. xxx xxx xxx
53300 amounted to $80,566,483.00.
4. Respondents ADMIT paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition.
L. MALER FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
5. Respondents specifically deny paragraph 5 of the Petition in
49. Maler was first created as an establishment. A statement of so far as it states that summons and other court processes may
its rules and regulations was found among Malacaang be served on Respondent Imelda R. Marcos at the stated
documents. It stated, among others, that 50% of the Companys address the truth of the matter being that Respondent Imelda R.
assets will be for sole and full right disposal of FM and Imelda Marcos may be served with summons and other processes at
during their lifetime, which the remaining 50% will be divided No. 10-B Bel Air Condominium 5022 P. Burgos Street,
in equal parts among their children. Another Malacaang Makati, Metro Manila, and ADMIT the rest.
document dated October 19,1968 and signed by Ferdinand and
Imelda pertains to the appointment of Dr. Andre Barbey and
xxx xxx xxx
Jean Louis Sunier as attorneys of the company and as
administrator and manager of all assets held by the company.
10. Respondents ADMIT paragraph 11 of the Petition. 20. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 21 of the
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
11. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 12 of the form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents
Petition for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged
the truth of the allegation since Respondents were not privy to ITRs.
the transactions and that they cannot remember exactly the
truth as to the matters alleged. 21. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 22 of the
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
12. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 13 of the form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents ITRs.
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged
ITRs and Balance Sheet. 22. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 23 insofar as it
alleges that Respondents clandestinely stashed the countrys
13. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 14 of the wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to of foundation and corporate entities for being false, the truth
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents being that Respondents aforesaid properties were lawfully
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged acquired.
ITRs.
23. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27,
14. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 15 of the 28, 29 and 30 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents allegation since Respondents were not privy to the transactions
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged regarding the alleged Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts,
ITRs. except that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she specifically
remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired.
15. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 16 of the
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to 24. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34,
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of the Petition for lack of
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
ITRs. truth of the allegations since Respondents are not privy to the
transactions and as to such transaction they were privy to they
16. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 17 of the cannot remember with exactitude the same having occurred a
Petition insofar as it attributes willful duplicity on the part of long time ago, except that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos
she specifically remembers that the funds involved were
the late President Marcos, for being false, the same being pure
lawfully acquired.
conclusions based on pure assumption and not allegations of
fact; and specifically DENY the rest for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 25. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 45,
allegation since Respondents cannot remember with exactitude and 46, of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
the contents of the alleged ITRs or the attachments thereto. sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since
Respondents were not privy to the transactions and as to such
transaction they were privy to they cannot remember with
17. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 18 of the
exactitude the same having occurred a long time ago, except
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she specifically
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired.
ITRs.
26. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 49, 50, 51 and
52, of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
18. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 19 of the
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since
Respondents were not privy to the transactions and as to such
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents
transaction they were privy to they cannot remember with
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged
exactitude the same having occurred a long time ago, except
ITRs and that they are not privy to the activities of the BIR.
that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she specifically
remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired.
19. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 20 of the
Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
Upon careful perusal of the foregoing, the Court finds that
form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents
respondent Mrs. Marcos and the Marcos children indubitably
cannot remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged
failed to tender genuine issues in their answer to the petition for
ITRs.
forfeiture. A genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls for the answers like they have no sufficient knowledge or they could
presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is not recall because it happened a long time ago, and, as to Mrs.
fictitious and contrived, set up in bad faith or patently lacking in Marcos, the funds were lawfully acquired, without stating the
substance so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. basis of such assertions.
Respondents defenses of lack of knowledge for lack of privity
or (inability to) recall because it happened a long time ago or, Section 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
on the part of Mrs. Marcos, that the funds were lawfully acquired provides:
are fully insufficient to tender genuine issues. Respondent
Marcoses defenses were a sham and evidently calibrated to A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the
compound and confuse the issues. truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable,
shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies
The following pleadings filed by respondent Marcoses are to support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a
replete with indications of a spurious defense: part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true
and material and shall deny the remainder. Where a defendant
(a) Respondents' Answer dated October 18, 1993; is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he
(b) Pre-trial Brief dated October 4, 1999 of Mrs. shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.[28]
Marcos, Supplemental Pre-trial Brief dated
October 19, 1999 of Ferdinand, Jr. and Mrs. The purpose of requiring respondents to make a specific
Imee Marcos-Manotoc adopting the pre-trial denial is to make them disclose facts which will disprove the
brief of Mrs. Marcos, and Manifestation allegations of petitioner at the trial, together with the matters
dated October 19, 1999 of Irene Marcos- they rely upon in support of such denial. Our jurisdiction adheres
Araneta adopting the pre-trial briefs of her to this rule to avoid and prevent unnecessary expenses and waste
co- respondents; of time by compelling both parties to lay their cards on the table,
thus reducing the controversy to its true terms. As explained
(c) Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment in Alonso vs. Villamor,[29]
dated March 21, 2000, filed by Mrs. Marcos
which the other respondents (Marcos A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more
children) adopted; deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and
position, entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in
(d) Demurrer to Evidence dated May 2, 2000 filed which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the
by Mrs. Marcos and adopted by the Marcos court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly
children; trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and
technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the
(e) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapiers
2000 filed by Mrs. Marcos; Motion for thrust.
Reconsideration dated October 5, 2000
jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, On the part of Mrs. Marcos, she claimed that the funds
Jr., and Supplemental Motion for were lawfully acquired. However, she failed to particularly state
Reconsideration dated October 9, 2000 the ultimate facts surrounding the lawful manner or mode of
likewise jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and acquisition of the subject funds. Simply put, she merely stated
Ferdinand, Jr.; in her answer with the other respondents that the funds were
lawfully acquired without detailing how exactly these funds
were supposedly acquired legally by them. Even in this case
(f) Memorandum dated December 12, 2000 of Mrs.
before us, her assertion that the funds were lawfully acquired
Marcos and Memorandum dated December
17, 2000 of the Marcos children; remains bare and unaccompanied by any factual support which
can prove, by the presentation of evidence at a hearing, that
indeed the funds were acquired legitimately by the Marcos
(g) Manifestation dated May 26, 1998; and family.

(h) General/Supplemental Agreement dated Respondents denials in their answer at the Sandiganbayan
December 23, 1993. were based on their alleged lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of the
petition.
An examination of the foregoing pleadings is in order.
It is true that one of the modes of specific denial under the
Respondents Answer dated October 18, 1993.
rules is a denial through a statement that the defendant is without
In their answer, respondents failed to specifically deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
each and every allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture truth of the material averment in the complaint. The question,
in the manner required by the rules. All they gave were stock however, is whether the kind of denial in respondents answer
qualifies as the specific denial called for by the rules. We do not paragraph 22 of the answer was focused on the averment in
think so. In Morales vs. Court of Appeals,[30] this Court ruled paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture that Respondents
that if an allegation directly and specifically charges a party with clandestinely stashed the countrys wealth in Switzerland and hid
having done, performed or committed a particular act which the the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate
latter did not in fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and entities. Paragraph 22 of the respondents answer was thus a
express denial must be made. denial pregnant with admissions of the following substantial
facts:
Here, despite the serious and specific allegations against
them, the Marcoses responded by simply saying that they had
no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the (1) the Swiss bank deposits existed and
truth of such allegations. Such a general, self-serving claim of
ignorance of the facts alleged in the petition for forfeiture was (2) that the estimated sum thereof was US$356
insufficient to raise an issue. Respondent Marcoses should have million as of December, 1990.
positively stated how it was that they were supposedly ignorant
of the facts alleged.[31] Therefore, the allegations in the petition for forfeiture on
the existence of the Swiss bank deposits in the sum of about
To elucidate, the allegation of petitioner Republic in US$356 million, not having been specifically denied by
paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture stated: respondents in their answer, were deemed admitted by them
pursuant to Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Revised Rules on
23. The following presentation very clearly and Civil Procedure:
overwhelmingly show in detail how both respondents
clandestinely stashed away the countrys wealth to Switzerland Material averment in the complaint, xxx shall be deemed
and hid the same under layers upon layers of foundations and admitted when not specifically denied. xxx.[36]
other corporate entities to prevent its detection. Through their
dummies/nominees, fronts or agents who formed those
foundations or corporate entities, they opened and maintained By the same token, the following unsupported denials of
numerous bank accounts. But due to the difficulty if not the respondents in their answer were pregnant with admissions of
impossibility of detecting and documenting all those secret the substantial facts alleged in the Republics petition for
accounts as well as the enormity of the deposits therein hidden, forfeiture:
the following presentation is confined to five identified
accounts groups, with balances amounting to about $356- 23. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27,
M with a reservation for the filing of a supplemental or 28, 29 and 30 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or
separate forfeiture complaint should the need arise.[32] information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegation since respondents were not privy to the transactions
Respondents lame denial of the aforesaid allegation was: regarding the alleged Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts,
except that, as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she
specifically remembers that the funds involved were lawfully
22. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 23 insofar as it acquired.
alleges that Respondents clandestinely stashed the countrys
wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers
of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth 24. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34,
being that Respondents aforesaid properties were lawfully 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 of the Petition for lack of knowledge
acquired.[33] or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations since respondents were not privy to the transactions
and as to such transactions they were privy to, they cannot
Evidently, this particular denial had the earmark of what is remember with exactitude the same having occurred a long
called in the law on pleadings as a negative pregnant, that is, a time ago, except as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she
denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the specifically remembers that the funds involved were lawfully
pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in acquired.
effect an admission of the averments it was directed at.[34] Stated
otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression
which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of 25. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 42, 43, 45, and
some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant 46 of the petition for lack of knowledge or information
with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. sufficient to from a belief as to the truth of the allegations since
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language respondents were not privy to the transactions and as to such
and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are transaction they were privy to, they cannot remember with
literally denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances exactitude, the same having occurred a long time ago, except
alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted.[35] that as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she specifically
remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired.
In the instant case, the material allegations in paragraph 23
of the said petition were not specifically denied by respondents 26. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 49, 50, 51 and
in paragraph 22 of their answer. The denial contained in 52 of the petition for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since How could respondents therefore claim lack of sufficient
respondents were not privy to the transactions and as to such knowledge or information regarding the existence of the Swiss
transaction they were privy to they cannot remember with bank deposits and the creation of five groups of accounts when
exactitude the same having occurred a long time ago, except Mrs. Marcos and her late husband personally masterminded and
that as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she specifically participated in the formation and control of said
remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired. foundations? This is a fact respondent Marcoses were never able
to explain.
The matters referred to in paragraphs 23 to 26 of the Not only that. Respondents' answer also technically
respondents answer pertained to the creation of five groups of admitted the genuineness and due execution of the Income Tax
accounts as well as their respective ending balances and attached Returns (ITRs) and the balance sheets of the late Ferdinand E.
documents alleged in paragraphs 24 to 52 of the Republics Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos attached to the petition for
petition for forfeiture. Respondent Imelda R. Marcos never forfeiture, as well as the veracity of the contents thereof.
specifically denied the existence of the Swiss funds. Her claim
that the funds involved were lawfully acquired was an The answer again premised its denials of said ITRs and
acknowledgment on her part of the existence of said deposits. balance sheets on the ground of lack of knowledge or
This only reinforced her earlier admission of the allegation in information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture regarding the contents thereof. Petitioner correctly points out that respondents'
existence of the US$356 million Swiss bank deposits. denial was not really grounded on lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief but was based on lack of
The allegations in paragraphs 47[37] and 48[38] of the recollection. By reviewing their own records, respondent
petition for forfeiture referring to the creation and amount of the Marcoses could have easily determined the genuineness and due
deposits of the Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation as well as the execution of the ITRs and the balance sheets. They also had the
averment in paragraph 52-a[39] of the said petition with respect means and opportunity of verifying the same from the records
to the sum of the Swiss bank deposits estimated to be US$356 of the BIR and the Office of the President. They did not.
million were again not specifically denied by respondents in
their answer. The respondents did not at all respond to the issues When matters regarding which respondents claim to
raised in these paragraphs and the existence, nature and amount have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are
of the Swiss funds were therefore deemed admitted by them. As plainly and necessarily within their knowledge, their alleged
held in Galofa vs. Nee Bon Sing,[40] if a defendants denial is a ignorance or lack of information will not be considered a
negative pregnant, it is equivalent to an admission. specific denial.[44] An unexplained denial of information within
the control of the pleader, or is readily accessible to him, is
Moreover, respondents denial of the allegations in the evasive and is insufficient to constitute an effective denial.[45]
petition for forfeiture for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since The form of denial adopted by respondents must be availed
respondents were not privy to the transactions was just a of with sincerity and in good faith, and certainly not for the
pretense. Mrs. Marcos privity to the transactions was in fact purpose of confusing the adverse party as to what allegations of
evident from her signatures on some of the vital the petition are really being challenged; nor should it be made
documents[41] attached to the petition for forfeiture which for the purpose of delay.[46] In the instant case, the Marcoses did
Mrs. Marcos failed to specifically deny as required by the not only present unsubstantiated assertions but in truth
rules.[42] attempted to mislead and deceive this Court by presenting an
obviously contrived defense.
It is worthy to note that the pertinent documents attached
to the petition for forfeiture were even signed personally by Simply put, a profession of ignorance about a fact which is
respondent Mrs. Marcos and her late husband, Ferdinand E. patently and necessarily within the pleaders knowledge or
Marcos, indicating that said documents were within their means of knowing is as ineffective as no denial at
knowledge. As correctly pointed out by Sandiganbayan Justice all.[47] Respondents ineffective denial thus failed to properly
Francisco Villaruz, Jr. in his dissenting opinion: tender an issue and the averments contained in the petition for
forfeiture were deemed judicially admitted by them.
The pattern of: 1) creating foundations, 2) use of pseudonyms
As held in J.P. Juan & Sons, Inc. vs. Lianga Industries,
and dummies, 3) approving regulations of the Foundations for
Inc.:
the distribution of capital and income of the Foundations to the
First and Second beneficiary (who are no other than FM and
his family), 4) opening of bank accounts for the Foundations, Its specific denial of the material allegation of the petition
5) changing the names of the Foundations, 6) transferring without setting forth the substance of the matters relied upon to
funds and assets of the Foundations to other Foundations or support its general denial, when such matters were plainly
Fides Trust, 7) liquidation of the Foundations as substantiated within its knowledge and it could not logically pretend
by the Annexes U to U-168, Petition [for forfeiture] strongly ignorance as to the same, therefore, failed to properly tender on
indicate that FM and/or Imelda were the real owners of the issue.[48]
assets deposited in the Swiss banks, using the Foundations as
dummies.[43] Thus, the general denial of the Marcos children of the
allegations in the petition for forfeiture for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the xxx
allegations since they were not privy to the transactions cannot
rightfully be accepted as a defense because they are the legal DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
heirs and successors-in-interest of Ferdinand E. Marcos and are
therefore bound by the acts of their father vis-a-vis the Swiss
5.1 Respondent Imelda reserves the right to present and
funds.
introduce in evidence documents as may be necessary in the
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF DATED OCTOBER 18, course of the trial.
1993
Mrs. Marcos did not enumerate and describe the
The pre-trial brief of Mrs. Marcos was adopted by the three documents constituting her evidence. Neither the names of
Marcos children. In said brief, Mrs. Marcos stressed that the witnesses nor the nature of their testimony was stated. What
funds involved were lawfully acquired. But, as in their answer, alone appeared certain was the testimony of Mrs. Marcos only
they failed to state and substantiate how these funds were who in fact had previously claimed ignorance and lack of
acquired lawfully. They failed to present and attach even knowledge. And even then, the substance of her testimony, as
a single document that would showand prove the truth of their required by the rules, was not made known either. Such cunning
allegations. Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil tactics of respondents are totally unacceptable to this Court. We
Procedure provides: hold that, since no genuine issue was raised, the case became
ripe for summary judgment.
The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse
party, x x x their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
among others: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DATED MARCH 21, 2000
xxx The opposition filed by Mrs. Marcos to the motion for
summary judgment dated March 21, 2000 of petitioner Republic
(d) the documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the was merely adopted by the Marcos children as their own
purpose thereof; opposition to the said motion. However, it was again not
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or admissions as
xxx required by Section 3, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure:
(f) the number and names of the witnesses, and the substance
of their respective testimonies.[49] x x x The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits,
depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before
hearing. After hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered
It is unquestionably within the courts power to require the
parties to submit their pre-trial briefs and to state the number of forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions,
witnesses intended to be called to the stand, and a brief summary and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
of the evidence each of them is expected to give as well as to
that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
disclose the number of documents to be submitted with a
law.[51]
description of the nature of each. The tenor and character of the
testimony of the witnesses and of the documents to be deduced
at the trial thus made known, in addition to the particular issues The absence of opposing affidavits, depositions and
of fact and law, it becomes apparent if genuine issues are being admissions to contradict the sworn declarations in the Republics
put forward necessitating the holding of a trial. Likewise, the motion only demonstrated that the averments of such opposition
parties are obliged not only to make a formal identification and were not genuine and therefore unworthy of belief.
specification of the issues and their proofs, and to put these Demurrer to Evidence dated May 2, 2000;[52]
matters in writing and submit them to the court within the Motions for Reconsideration;[53] and
specified period for the prompt disposition of the action.[50]
Memoranda
The pre-trial brief of Mrs. Marcos, as subsequently of Mrs. Marcos and the Marcos children[54]
adopted by respondent Marcos children, merely stated: All these pleadings again contained no allegations of facts
showing their lawful acquisition of the funds. Once more,
xxx respondents merely made general denials without alleging facts
which would have been admissible in evidence at the hearing,
WITNESSES thereby failing to raise genuine issues of fact.
Mrs. Marcos insists in her memorandum dated October 21,
4.1 Respondent Imelda will present herself as a witness and 2002 that, during the pre-trial, her counsel stated that his client
reserves the right to present additional witnesses as may be was just a beneficiary of the funds, contrary to petitioner
necessary in the course of the trial. Republics allegation that Mrs. Marcos disclaimed ownership of
or interest in the funds.
This is yet another indication that respondents presented a resolution. There is no doubt in our mind that they were leading
fictitious defense because, during the pre-trial, Mrs. Marcos and petitioner Republic, and now this Court, to perplexity, if not
the Marcos children denied ownership of or interest in the Swiss trying to drag this forfeiture case to eternity.
funds:
Manifestation dated May 26, 1998 filed by MRS.
Marcos; General/Supplemental Compromise
PJ Garchitorena: Agreement dated December 28, 1993

Make of record that as far as Imelda Marcos is concerned These pleadings of respondent Marcoses presented nothing
through the statement of Atty. Armando M. Marcelo that the but feigned defenses. In their earlier pleadings, respondents
US$360 million more or less subject matter of the instant alleged either that they had no knowledge of the existence of the
lawsuit as allegedly obtained from the various Swiss Swiss deposits or that they could no longer remember anything
Foundations do not belong to the estate of Marcos or to Imelda as it happened a long time ago. As to Mrs. Marcos, she
Marcos herself. Thats your statement of facts? remembered that it was lawfully acquired.
In her Manifestation dated May 26, 1998, Mrs. Marcos
Atty. MARCELO: stated that:

Yes, Your Honor. COMES NOW undersigned counsel for respondent Imelda R.
Marcos, and before this Honorable Court, most respectfully
PJ Garchitorena: manifests:

Thats it. Okay. Counsel for Manotoc and Manotoc, Jr. What is That respondent Imelda R, Marcos owns 90% of the subject
your point here? Does the estate of Marcos own anything of matter of the above-entitled case, being the sole beneficiary of
the $360 million subject of this case. the dollar deposits in the name of the various foundations
alleged in the case;
Atty. TECSON:
That in fact only 10% of the subject matter in the above-
We joined the Manifestation of Counsel. entitled case belongs to the estate of the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos.
PJ Garchitorena:
In the Compromise/Supplemental Agreements, respondent
You do not own anything? Marcoses sought to implement the agreed distribution of the
Marcos assets, including the Swiss deposits.This was, to us, an
unequivocal admission of ownership by the Marcoses of the
Atty. TECSON: said deposits.

Yes, Your Honor. But, as already pointed out, during the pre-trial conference,
respondent Marcoses denied knowledge as well as ownership of
the Swiss funds.
PJ Garchitorena:
Anyway we look at it, respondent Marcoses have put forth
Counsel for Irene Araneta? no real defense. The facts pleaded by respondents, while
ostensibly raising important questions or issues of fact, in reality
Atty. SISON: comprised mere verbiage that was evidently wanting in
substance and constituted no genuine issues for trial.
I join the position taken by my other compaeros here, Your We therefore rule that, under the circumstances, summary
Honor. judgment is proper.
In fact, it is the law itself which determines when summary
xxx
judgment is called for. Under the rules, summary judgment is
appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact requiring
Atty. SISON: the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their
face the pleadings appear to raise issue, if the affidavits,
Irene Araneta as heir do (sic) not own any of the amount, Your depositions and admissions show that such issues are not
Honor.[55] genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must
ensue as a matter of law.[56]
We are convinced that the strategy of respondent Marcoses
In sum, mere denials, if unaccompanied by any fact which
was to confuse petitioner Republic as to what facts they would
will be admissible in evidence at a hearing, are not sufficient to
prove or what issues they intended to pose for the court's
raise genuine issues of fact and will not defeat a motion for
summary judgment.[57] A summary judgment is one granted In the hope of convincing this Court to rule otherwise,
upon motion of a party for an expeditious settlement of the case, respondents Maria Imelda Marcos-Manotoc and Ferdinand R.
it appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and Marcos Jr. contend that "by its positive acts and express
affidavits that there are no important questions or issues of fact admissions prior to filing the motion for summary judgment on
posed and, therefore, the movant is entitled to a judgment as a March 10, 2000, petitioner Republic had bound itself to go to
matter of law. A motion for summary judgment is premised on trial on the basis of existing issues. Thus, it had legally waived
the assumption that the issues presented need not be tried either whatever right it had to move for summary judgment." [60]
because these are patently devoid of substance or that there is no
genuine issue as to any pertinent fact. It is a method sanctioned We do not think so. The alleged positive acts and express
by the Rules of Court for the prompt disposition of a civil action admissions of the petitioner did not preclude it from filing a
where there exists no serious controversy.[58] Summary motion for summary judgment.
judgment is a procedural device for the prompt disposition of Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
actions in which the pleadings raise only a legal issue, not a
genuine issue as to any material fact. The theory of summary
Rule 35
judgment is that, although an answer may on its face appear to
tender issues requiring trial, if it is established by affidavits,
depositions or admissions that those issues are not genuine but Summary Judgment
fictitious, the Court is justified in dispensing with the trial and
rendering summary judgment for petitioner.[59] Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. - A party seeking
to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
In the various annexes to the petition for forfeiture, obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
petitioner Republic attached sworn statements of witnesses who in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting
had personal knowledge of the Marcoses' participation in the affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment
illegal acquisition of funds deposited in the Swiss accounts in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
under the names of five groups or foundations. These sworn
statements substantiated the ill-gotten nature of the Swiss bank
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. - A party
deposits. In their answer and other subsequent pleadings,
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted
however, the Marcoses merely made general denials of the
or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with
allegations against them without stating facts admissible in
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
evidence at the hearing, thereby failing to raise any genuine
judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. (Emphasis
issues of fact.
ours)[61]
Under these circumstances, a trial would have served no
purpose at all and would have been totally unnecessary, thus Under the rule, the plaintiff can move for summary
justifying a summary judgment on the petition for forfeiture. judgment at any time after the pleading in answer thereto (i.e.,
There were no opposing affidavits to contradict the sworn in answer to the claim, counterclaim or cross-claim) has been
declarations of the witnesses of petitioner Republic, leading to served." No fixed reglementary period is provided by the Rules.
the inescapable conclusion that the matters raised in the How else does one construe the phrase "any time after the
Marcoses answer were false. answer has been served?
Time and again, this Court has encountered cases like this This issue is actually one of first impression. No local
which are either only half-heartedly defended or, if the jurisprudence or authoritative work has touched upon this
semblance of a defense is interposed at all, it is only to delay matter. This being so, an examination of foreign laws and
disposition and gain time. It is certainly not in the interest of jurisprudence, particularly those of the United States where
justice to allow respondent Marcoses to avail of the appellate many of our laws and rules were copied, is in order.
remedies accorded by the Rules of Court to litigants in good
faith, to the prejudice of the Republic and ultimately of the Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
Filipino people. From the beginning, a candid demonstration of that a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or
respondents good faith should have been made to the court cross-claim may move for summary judgment at any time after
below. Without the deceptive reasoning and argumentation, this the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the
protracted litigation could have ended a long time ago. action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the
adverse party, and that a party against whom a claim,
Since 1991, when the petition for forfeiture was first filed, counterclaim or cross-claim is asserted may move for summary
up to the present, all respondents have offered are foxy judgment at any time.
responses like lack of sufficient knowledge or lack of privity or
they cannot recall because it happened a long time ago or, as to However, some rules, particularly Rule 113 of the Rules of
Mrs. Marcos, the funds were lawfully acquired. But, whenever Civil Practice of New York, specifically provide that a motion
it suits them, they also claim ownership of 90% of the funds and for summary judgment may not be made until issues have been
allege that only 10% belongs to the Marcos estate. It has been joined, that is, only after an answer has been served.[62] Under
an incredible charade from beginning to end. said rule, after issues have been joined, the motion for summary
judgment may be made at any stage of the litigation.[63] No fixed
prescriptive period is provided.
Like Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice of New York, judgment on a ground similar to that raised by the Marcoses, that
our rules also provide that a motion for summary judgment may is, "that plaintiff had waived her right to summary judgment" by
not be made until issues have been joined, meaning, the plaintiff her act of proceeding to trial. If, as correctly ruled by the New
has to wait for the answer before he can move for summary York court, plaintiff was allowed to move for summary
judgment.[64] And like the New York rules, ours do not provide judgment even after trial and submission of the case for
for a fixed reglementary period within which to move for resolution, more so should we permit it in the present case where
summary judgment. petitioner moved for summary judgment before trial.
This being so, the New York Supreme Court's Therefore, the phrase "anytime after the pleading in answer
interpretation of Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice can be thereto has been served" in Section 1, Rule 35 of our Rules of
applied by analogy to the interpretation of Section 1, Rule 35, of Civil Procedure means "at any stage of the litigation." Whenever
our 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. it becomes evident at any stage of the litigation that no triable
issue exists, or that the defenses raised by the defendant(s) are
Under the New York rule, after the issues have been sham or frivolous, plaintiff may move for summary judgment.
joined, the motion for summary judgment may be made at any A contrary interpretation would go against the very objective of
stage of the litigation. And what exactly does the phrase "at any the Rule on Summary Judgment which is to "weed out sham
stage of the litigation" mean? In Ecker vs. Muzysh,[65] the New claims or defenses thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time
York Supreme Court ruled: involved in a trial."[68]

"PER CURIAM. In cases with political undertones like the one at bar,
adverse parties will often do almost anything to delay the
Plaintiff introduced her evidence and the defendants rested on proceedings in the hope that a future administration sympathetic
the case made by the plaintiff. The case was submitted. Owing to them might be able to influence the outcome of the case in
their favor. This is rank injustice we cannot tolerate.
to the serious illness of the trial justice, a decision was not
rendered within sixty days after the final adjournment of the The law looks with disfavor on long, protracted and
term at which the case was tried. With the approval of the trial expensive litigation and encourages the speedy and prompt
justice, the plaintiff moved for a new trial under Section 442 of disposition of cases. That is why the law and the rules provide
the Civil Practice Act. The plaintiff also moved for summary for a number of devices to ensure the speedy disposition of
judgment under Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The cases. Summary judgment is one of them.
motion was opposed mainly on the ground that, by
proceeding to trial, the plaintiff had waived her right to Faithful therefore to the spirit of the law on summary
summary judgment and that the answer and the opposing judgment which seeks to avoid unnecessary expense and loss of
affidavits raised triable issues. The amount due and unpaid time in a trial, we hereby rule that petitioner Republic could
under the contract is not in dispute. The Special Term granted validly move for summary judgment any time after the
both motions and the defendants have appealed. respondents answer was filed or, for that matter, at any
subsequent stage of the litigation. The fact that petitioner agreed
The Special Term properly held that the answer and the to proceed to trial did not in any way prevent it from moving for
opposing affidavits raised no triable issue. Rule 113 of the summary judgment, as indeed no genuine issue of fact was ever
Rules of Civil Practice and the Civil Practice Act prescribe no validly raised by respondent Marcoses.
limitation as to the time when a motion for summary This interpretation conforms with the guiding principle
judgment must be made. The object of Rule 113 is to enshrined in Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
empower the court to summarily determine whether or not a Procedure that the "[r]ules should be liberally construed in order
bona fide issue exists between the parties, and there is no to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
limitation on the power of the court to make such a inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." [69]
determination at any stage of the litigation." (emphasis ours)
Respondents further allege that the motion for summary
On the basis of the aforequoted disquisition, "any stage of the judgment was based on respondents' answer and other
litigation" means that "even if the plaintiff has proceeded to trial, documents that had long been in the records of the case. Thus,
this does not preclude him from thereafter moving for summary by the time the motion was filed on March 10, 2000, estoppel by
judgment."[66] laches had already set in against petitioner.

In the case at bar, petitioner moved for summary judgment We disagree. Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect
after pre-trial and before its scheduled date for presentation of for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time to do that
evidence. Respondent Marcoses argue that, by agreeing to which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been
proceed to trial during the pre-trial conference, petitioner done earlier, warranting a presumption that the person has
"waived" its right to summary judgment. abandoned his right or declined to assert it.[70] In effect,
therefore, the principle of laches is one of estoppel because "it
This argument must fail in the light of the New York prevents people who have slept on their rights from prejudicing
Supreme Court ruling which we apply by analogy to this case. the rights of third parties who have placed reliance on the
In Ecker,[67] the defendant opposed the motion for summary
inaction of the original parties and their successors-in- and the income from legitimately acquired property, said
interest".[71] property shall be presumed prima facie to have been
unlawfully acquired.
A careful examination of the records, however, reveals that
petitioner was in fact never remiss in pursuing its case against
respondent Marcoses through every remedy available to it, xxxxxx
including the motion for summary judgment.
Sec. 6. Judgment If the respondent is unable to show to the
Petitioner Republic initially filed its motion for summary satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the
judgment on October 18, 1996. The motion was denied because property in question, then the court shall declare such property
of the pending compromise agreement between the Marcoses in question, forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of
and petitioner. But during the pre-trial conference, the Marcoses such judgment the property aforesaid shall become the
denied ownership of the Swiss funds, prompting petitioner to property of the State. Provided, That no judgment shall be
file another motion for summary judgment now under rendered within six months before any general election or
consideration by this Court. It was the subsequent events that within three months before any special election. The Court
transpired after the answer was filed, therefore, which prevented may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding Executive
petitioner from filing the questioned motion. It was definitely Department for administrative or criminal action, or both.
not because of neglect or inaction that petitioner filed the
(second) motion for summary judgment years after respondents' From the above-quoted provisions of the law, the
answer to the petition for forfeiture. following facts must be established in order that forfeiture or
In invoking the doctrine of estoppel by laches, respondents seizure of the Swiss deposits may be effected:
must show not only unjustified inaction but also that some unfair
injury to them might result unless the action is barred.[72] (1) ownership by the public officer of money or
property acquired during his incumbency,
This, respondents failed to bear out. In fact, during the pre- whether it be in his name or otherwise, and
trial conference, the Marcoses disclaimed ownership of the
Swiss deposits. Not being the owners, as they claimed,
respondents did not have any vested right or interest which could (2) the extent to which the amount of that money or
be adversely affected by petitioner's alleged inaction. property exceeds, i. e., is grossly
disproportionate to, the legitimate income of
But even assuming for the sake of argument that laches had the public officer.
already set in, the doctrine of estoppel or laches does not apply
when the government sues as a sovereign or asserts That spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public
governmental rights.[73] Nor can estoppel validate an act that officials during the time material to the instant case was never
contravenes law or public policy.[74] in dispute. Paragraph 4 of respondent Marcoses' answer
categorically admitted the allegations in paragraph 4 of the
As a final point, it must be emphasized that laches is not a
petition for forfeiture as to the personal circumstances of
mere question of time but is principally a question of the
Ferdinand E. Marcos as a public official who served without
inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be
interruption as Congressman, Senator, Senate President and
enforced or asserted.[75] Equity demands that petitioner Republic
President of the Republic of the Philippines from December 1,
should not be barred from pursuing the people's case against the
1965 to February 25, 1986.[77] Likewise, respondents admitted
Marcoses.
in their answer the contents of paragraph 5 of the petition as to
(2) The Propriety of Forfeiture the personal circumstances of Imelda R. Marcos who once
served as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa from
The matter of summary judgment having been thus settled, 1978 to 1984 and as Metro Manila Governor, concurrently
the issue of whether or not petitioner Republic was able to prove Minister of Human Settlements, from June 1976 to February
its case for forfeiture in accordance with the requisites of 1986.[78]
Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379 now takes center stage.
Respondent Mrs. Marcos also admitted in paragraph 10 of
The law raises the prima facie presumption that a property her answer the allegations of paragraph 11 of the petition for
is unlawfully acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its amount forfeiture which referred to the accumulated salaries of
or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.[79] The
other lawful income of the public officer who owns it. Hence, combined accumulated salaries of the Marcos couple were
Sections 2 and 6 of RA 1379[76] provide: reflected in the Certification dated May 27, 1986 issued by then
Minister of Budget and Management Alberto Romulo.[80] The
xxxxxx Certification showed that, from 1966 to 1985, Ferdinand E.
Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had accumulated salaries in the
Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or amount of P1,570,000 and P718,750, respectively, or a total
employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount or of P2,288,750:
property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income Ferdinand E. Marcos, as President
1966-1976 at P60,000/year P660,000 Article VII, Sec. 4(2) The President and the Vice-President
shall not, during their tenure, hold any other office except
1977-1984 at P100,000/year 800,000 when otherwise provided in this Constitution, nor may they
practice any profession, participate directly or indirectly in the
management of any business, or be financially interested
1985 at P110,000/year 110,000
directly or indirectly in any contract with, or in any franchise
or special privilege granted by the Government or any other
P1,570,00 subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government owned or controlled corporation.
Imelda R. Marcos, as Minister
Article VII, Sec. 11 No Member of the National Assembly
June 1976-1985 at P75,000/year P718,000 shall appear as counsel before any court inferior to a court with
appellate jurisdiction, x x x. Neither shall he, directly or
In addition to their accumulated salaries from 1966 to 1985 indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in
are the Marcos couples combined salaries from January to any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government,
February 1986 in the amount of P30,833.33.Hence, their total or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof
accumulated salaries amounted to P2,319,583.33. Converted to including any government owned or controlled corporation
U.S. dollars on the basis of the corresponding peso-dollar during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter
exchange rates prevailing during the applicable period when before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.
said salaries were received, the total amount had an equivalent
value of $304,372.43. Article IX, Sec. 7 The Prime Minister and Members of the
Cabinet shall be subject to the provision of Section 11, Article
The dollar equivalent was arrived at by using the official
VIII hereof and may not appear as counsel before any court or
annual rates of exchange of the Philippine peso and the US
administrative body, or manage any business, or practice any
dollar from 1965 to 1985 as well as the official monthly rates of
profession, and shall also be subject to such other
exchange in January and February 1986 issued by the Center for
disqualification as may be provided by law.
Statistical Information of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
Prescinding from the aforesaid admissions, Section 4, Rule Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can
129 of the Rules of Court provides that: therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining the
existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds.
Section 4. Judicial admissions An admission, verbal or written,
Respondents argue that petitioner was not able to establish
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss funds since it
case does not require proof. The admission may be
failed to prove the essential elements under Section 3,
contradicted only by showing that it was made through
paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of RA 1379. As the Act is a penal
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[81]
statute, its provisions are mandatory and should thus be
construed strictly against the petitioner and liberally in favor of
It is settled that judicial admissions may be made: (a) in the respondent Marcoses.
pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either
by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other We hold that it was not for petitioner to establish the
stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the Marcoses other lawful income or income from legitimately
case.[82] Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the acquired property for the presumption to apply because, as
case at bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and between petitioner and respondents, the latter were in a better
respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to contradict position to know if there were such other sources of lawful
them or subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent income. And if indeed there was such other lawful income,
with such admissions.[83] respondents should have specifically stated the same in their
answer. Insofar as petitioner Republic was concerned, it was
The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known enough to specify the known lawful income of respondents.
lawful income of respondents since they did not file any
Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations provides
from which their net worth could be determined. Besides, under that, in determining prima facie evidence of ill-gotten wealth,
the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could the value of the accumulated assets, properties and other
not receive any other emolument from the Government or any material possessions of those covered by Executive Order Nos.
of its subdivisions and instrumentalities.[84] Likewise, under the 1 and 2
1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could not must be out of proportion to the known lawful income of such
receive during his tenure any other emolument from the persons. The respondent Marcos couple did not file any
Government or any other source.[85] In fact, his management of Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from which their net
businesses, like the administration of foundations to accumulate worth could be determined. Their failure to file their SAL was
funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution: in itself a violation of law and to allow them to successfully
assail the Republic for not presenting their SAL would reward 25% of the amount that may be eventually withdrawn from
them for their violation of the law. said $356 million Swiss deposits.
Further, contrary to the claim of respondents, the
admissions made by them in their various pleadings and The stipulations set forth in the General and Supplemental
documents were valid. It is of record that respondents judicially Agreements undeniably indicated the manifest intent of
admitted that the money deposited with the Swiss banks respondents to enter into a compromise with petitioner.
belonged to them. Corollarily, respondents willingness to agree to an amicable
settlement with the Republic only affirmed their ownership of
We agree with petitioner that respondent Marcoses made the Swiss deposits for the simple reason that no person would
judicial admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank acquiesce to any concession over such huge dollar deposits if he
deposits in their answer, the General/Supplemental Agreements, did not in fact own them.
Mrs. Marcos' Manifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999,
and the Undertaking dated February 10, 1999. We take note of Respondents make much capital of the pronouncement by
the fact that the Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan were this Court that the General and Supplemental Agreements were
unanimous in holding that respondents had made judicial null and void.[89] They insist that nothing in those agreements
admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds. could thus be admitted in evidence against them because they
stood on the same ground as an accepted offer which, under
In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the Section 27, Rule 130[90] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
subject funds, respondents likewise provides that in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admitted ownership thereof. Paragraph 22 of respondents' admission of any liability and is not admissible in evidence
answer stated: against the offeror.
We find no merit in this contention. The declaration of
22. Respondents specifically DENY PARAGRAPH 23 insofar nullity of said agreements was premised on the following
as it alleges that respondents clandestinely stashed the constitutional and statutory infirmities: (1) the grant of
country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers criminal immunity to the Marcos heirs was against the law; (2)
and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the PCGGs commitment to exempt from all forms of taxes the
the truth being that respondents' aforesaid properties were properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs was against the
lawfully acquired. (emphasis supplied) Constitution; and (3) the governments undertaking to cause the
dismissal of all cases filed against the Marcoses pending before
By qualifying their acquisition of the Swiss bank deposits the Sandiganbayan and other courts encroached on the powers
as lawful, respondents unwittingly admitted their ownership of the judiciary. The reasons relied upon by the Court never in
thereof. the least bit even touched on the veracity and truthfulness of
respondents admission with respect to their ownership of the
Respondent Mrs. Marcos also admitted ownership of the
Swiss funds. Besides, having made certain admissions in those
Swiss bank deposits by failing to deny under oath the
agreements, respondents cannot now deny that they voluntarily
genuineness and due execution of certain actionable documents
admitted owning the subject Swiss funds, notwithstanding the
bearing her signature attached to the petition. As discussed
fact that the agreements themselves were later declared null and
earlier, Section 11, Rule 8[86] of the 1997 Rules of Civil
void.
Procedure provides that material averments in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. The following observation of Sandiganbayan Justice
Catalino Castaeda, Jr. in the decision dated September 19, 2000
The General[87] and Supplemental[88] Agreements executed
could not have been better said:
by petitioner and respondents on December 28, 1993 further
bolstered the claim of petitioner Republic that its case for
forfeiture was proven in accordance with the requisites of x x x The declaration of nullity of the two agreements rendered
Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379. The whereas clause in the General the same without legal effects but it did not detract from the
Agreement declared that: admissions of the respondents contained therein. Otherwise
stated, the admissions made in said agreements, as quoted
above, remain binding on the respondents.[91]
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY has obtained a judgment from
the Swiss Federal Tribunal on December 21, 1990, that the
$356 million belongs in principle to the Republic of the A written statement is nonetheless competent as an
Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met, but even admission even if it is contained in a document which is not
after 7 years, the FIRST PARTY has not been able to procure a itself effective for the purpose for which it is made, either by
final judgment of conviction against the PRIVATE PARTY. reason of illegality, or incompetency of a party thereto, or by
reason of not being signed, executed or delivered. Accordingly,
contracts have been held as competent evidence of admissions,
While the Supplemental Agreement warranted, inter alia,
although they may be unenforceable.[92]
that:
The testimony of respondent Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. during
In consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree that the hearing on the motion for the approval of the Compromise
the PRIVATE PARTY shall be entitled to the equivalent of Agreement on April 29, 1998 also lentcredence to the
allegations of petitioner Republic that respondents admitted So, we are talking about liquid assets
ownership of the Swiss bank accounts. We quote the salient here? Just Cash?
portions of Ferdinand Jr.s formal declarations in open court:
F. MARCOS, JR.:
ATTY. FERNANDO:
Well, basically, any assets. Anything
Mr. Marcos, did you ever have any that was under the Marcos name in any of the
meetings with PCGG Chairman Magtanggol C. banks in Switzerland which may necessarily be
Gunigundo? not cash.[95]
F. MARCOS, JR.: xxx xxx xxx
Yes. I have had very many meetings in fact with PJ GARCHITORENA:
Chairman.
x x x What did you do in other words,
ATTY. FERNANDO: after being apprised of this contract in
connection herewith?
Would you recall when the first meeting
occurred? F. MARCOS, JR.:
PJ GARCHITORENA: I assumed that we are beginning to
implement the agreement because this was
In connection with what? forwarded through the Philippine government
ATTY. FERNANDO: lawyers through our lawyers and then,
subsequently, to me. I was a little surprised
In connection with the ongoing talks to because we hadnt really discussed the details of
compromise the various cases initiated by the transfer of the funds, what the bank
PCGG against your family? accounts, what the mechanism would be. But
nevertheless, I was happy to see that as far as
F. MARCOS, JR.:
the PCGG is concerned, that the agreement was
The nature of our meetings was solely perfected and that we were beginning to
concerned with negotiations towards achieving implement it and that was a source of
some kind of agreement between the Philippine satisfaction to me because I thought that finally
government and the Marcos family. The it will be the end.[96]
discussions that led up to the compromise
Ferdinand Jr.'s pronouncements, taken in context and in
agreement were initiated by our then counsel
their entirety, were a confirmation of respondents recognition of
Atty. Simeon Mesina x x x.[93]
their ownership of the Swiss bank deposits.Admissions of a
xxx xxx xxx party in his testimony are receivable against him. If a party, as a
witness, deliberately concedes a fact, such concession has the
ATTY. FERNANDO: force of a judicial admission.[97] It is apparent from Ferdinand
What was your reaction when Atty. Mesina Jr.s testimony that the Marcos family
informed you of this possibility? agreed to negotiate with the Philippine government in the hope
of finally putting an end to the problems besetting the Marcos
F. MARCOS, JR.: family regarding the Swiss accounts. This was doubtlessly an
acknowledgment of ownership on their part. The rule is that the
My reaction to all of these approaches is testimony on the witness stand partakes of the nature of a formal
that I am always open, we are always open, we judicial admission when a party testifies clearly and
are very much always in search of resolution to unequivocally to a fact which is peculiarly within his own
the problem of the family and any approach that knowledge.[98]
has been made us, we have entertained. And so
my reaction was the same as what I have always In her Manifestation[99] dated May 26, 1998, respondent
why not? Maybe this is the one that will finally Imelda Marcos furthermore revealed the following:
put an end to this problem.[94]
xxx xxx xxx That respondent Imelda R. Marcos owns 90% of the subject
matter of the above-entitled case, being the sole beneficiary of
ATTY. FERNANDO: the dollar deposits in the name of the various foundations
alleged in the case;
Basically, what were the true amounts of
the assets in the bank?
That in fact only 10% of the subject matter in the above-
PJ GARCHITORENA: entitled case belongs to the estate of the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos;
xxx xxx xxx custodia legis or within the Courts protective mantle, its
dissipation or misappropriation by the petitioner looms as a
Respondents ownership of the Swiss bank accounts as distinct possibility.
borne out by Mrs. Marcos' manifestation is as bright as
sunlight. And her claim that she is merely a beneficiary of the Such display of deep, personal interest can only come from
Swiss deposits is belied by her own signatures on the appended someone who believes that he has a marked and intimate right
copies of the documents substantiating her ownership of the over the considerable dollar deposits. Truly, by filing said
funds in the name of the foundations.As already mentioned, she motion, the Marcos children revealed their ownership of the said
failed to specifically deny under oath the authenticity of such deposits.
documents, especially those involving William Saunders and
Jane Ryan which actually referred to Ferdinand Marcos and Lastly, the Undertaking[103] entered into by the PCGG, the
Imelda Marcos, respectively. That failure of Imelda Marcos to PNB and the Marcos foundations on February 10, 1999,
specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and confirmed the Marcoses ownership of the Swiss bank
due execution, of the instruments bearing her signature, was deposits. The subject Undertaking brought to light their
tantamount to a judicial admission of the genuineness and due readiness to pay the human rights victims out of the funds held
execution of said instruments, in accordance with Section 8, in escrow in the PNB. It stated:
Rule 8[100] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREAS, the Republic of the Philippines sympathizes with
Likewise, in her Constancia[101] dated May 6, 1999, Imelda the plight of the human rights victims-plaintiffs in the
Marcos prayed for the approval of the Compromise Agreement aforementioned litigation through the Second Party, desires to
and the subsequent release and transfer of the $150 million to assist in the satisfaction of the judgment awards of said human
the rightful owner. She further made the following rights victims-plaintiffs, by releasing, assigning and or waiving
manifestations: US$150 million of the funds held in escrow under the Escrow
Agreements dated August 14, 1995, although the Republic is
xxx xxx xxx not obligated to do so under final judgments of the Swiss
courts dated December 10 and 19, 1997, and January 8, 1998;
2. The Republics cause of action over the full amount is its
forfeiture in favor of the government if found to be ill- WHEREAS, the Third Party is likewise willing to release,
gotten. On the other hand, the Marcoses defend that it is a assign and/or waive all its rights and interests over said
legitimate asset. Therefore, both parties have an inchoate right US$150 million to the aforementioned human rights victims-
of ownership over the account. If it turns out that the account is plaintiffs.
of lawful origin, the Republic may yield to the
Marcoses. Conversely, the Marcoses must yield to the All told, the foregoing disquisition negates the claim of
Republic. (underscoring supplied) respondents that petitioner failed to prove that they acquired or
own the Swiss funds and that it was only by arbitrarily isolating
xxx xxx xxx and taking certain statements made by private respondents out
of context that petitioner was able to treat these as judicial
3. Consistent with the foregoing, and the Marcoses having admissions. The Court is fully aware of the relevance,
committed themselves to helping the less fortunate, in the materiality and implications of every pleading and document
interest of peace, reconciliation and unity, defendant MADAM submitted in this case. This Court carefully scrutinized the
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, in firm abidance thereby, proofs presented by the parties. We analyzed, assessed and
hereby affirms her agreement with the Republic for the release weighed them to ascertain if each piece of evidence rightfully
and transfer of the US Dollar 150 million for proper qualified as an admission. Owing to the far-reaching historical
disposition, without prejudice to the final outcome of the and political implications of this case, we considered and
litigation respecting the ownership of the remainder. examined, individually and totally, the evidence of the parties,
even if it might have bordered on factual adjudication which, by
authority of the rules and jurisprudence, is not usually done by
Again, the above statements were indicative of Imeldas
this Court. There is no doubt in our mind that respondent
admission of the Marcoses ownership of the Swiss deposits as
Marcoses admitted ownership of the Swiss bank deposits.
in fact the Marcoses defend that it (Swiss deposits) is a
legitimate (Marcos) asset. We have always adhered to the familiar doctrine that an
On the other hand, respondents Maria Imelda Marcos- admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the
Manotoc, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Maria Irene Marcos- party making such admission and becomes conclusive on him,
and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or
Araneta filed a motion[102] on May 4, 1998 asking the
inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection
Sandiganbayan to place the res (Swiss deposits) in custodia
is interposed by the adverse party or not.[104] This doctrine is
legis:
embodied in Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court:
7. Indeed, the prevailing situation is fraught with
danger! Unless the aforesaid Swiss deposits are placed in
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or (3) said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the as such public officer or employee and to his
same case, does not require proof. The admission may be other lawful income and the income from
contradicted only by showing that it was made through legitimately acquired property.
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.[105]
It is undisputed that spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
were former public officers. Hence, the first element is clearly
In the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, extant.
respondents judicial admission of ownership of the Swiss
deposits is definitely binding on them. The second element deals with the amount of money or
property acquired by the public officer during his
The individual and separate admissions of each respondent incumbency. The Marcos couple indubitably acquired and
bind all of them pursuant to Sections 29 and 31, Rule 130 of the owned properties during their term of office. In fact, the five
Rules of Court: groups of Swiss accounts were admittedly owned by
them. There is proof of the existence and ownership of these
SEC. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or assets and properties and it suffices to comply with the second
declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope element.
of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or
agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the The third requirement is met if it can be shown that such
partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act assets, money or property is manifestly out of proportion to the
or declaration. The same rule applies to the act or declaration public officers salary and his other lawful income. It is the proof
of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested of this third element that is crucial in determining whether
with the party.[106] a prima facie presumption has been established in this case.
Petitioner Republic presented not only a schedule
SEC. 31. Admission by privies. Where one derives title to indicating the lawful income of the Marcos spouses during their
property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the incumbency but also evidence that they had huge deposits
latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is beyond such lawful income in Swiss banks under the names of
evidence against the former.[107] five different foundations. We believe petitioner was able to
establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and
The declarations of a person are admissible against a party properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and
whenever a privity of estate exists between the declarant and the patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public
party, the term privity of estate generally denoting a succession officials. Otherwise stated, petitioner presented enough
in rights.[108] Consequently, an admission of one in privity with evidence to convince us that the Marcoses had dollar deposits
a party to the record is competent.[109] Without doubt, privity amounting to US $356 million representing the balance of the
exists among the respondents in this case. And where several co- Swiss accounts of the five foundations, an amount way, way
parties to the record are jointly interested in the subject matter beyond their aggregate legitimate income of only
of the controversy, the admission of one is competent against US$304,372.43 during their incumbency as government
all.[110] officials.
Respondents insist that the Sandiganbayan is correct in Considering, therefore, that the total amount of the Swiss
ruling that petitioner Republic has failed to establish a prima deposits was considerably out of proportion to the known lawful
facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits. income of the Marcoses, the presumption that said dollar
deposits were unlawfully acquired was duly established. It was
We disagree. The sudden turn-around of the sufficient for the petition for forfeiture to state the approximate
Sandiganbayan was really strange, to say the least, as its findings amount of money and property acquired by the respondents, and
and conclusions were not borne out by the voluminous records their total government salaries. Section 9 of the PCGG Rules
of this case. and Regulations states:
Section 2 of RA 1379 explicitly states that whenever any
public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency Prima Facie Evidence. Any accumulation of assets, properties,
an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to and other material possessions of those persons covered by
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other Executive Orders No. 1 and No. 2, whose value is out of
lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired proportion to their known lawful income is prima facie deemed
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have ill-gotten wealth.
been unlawfully acquired. x x x
Indeed, the burden of proof was on the respondents to
The elements which must concur for this prima
facie presumption to apply are: dispute this presumption and show by clear and convincing
evidence that the Swiss deposits were lawfully acquired and that
(1) the offender is a public officer or employee; they had other legitimate sources of income. A presumption
is prima facie proof of the fact presumed and, unless the fact
(2) he must have acquired a considerable amount of money
or property during his incumbency; and
thus prima facie established by legal presumption is disproved, foundations were established precisely to hide the money stolen
it must stand as proved.[111] by the Marcos spouses from petitioner Republic. It negated
whatever illusion there was, if any, that the foreign foundations
Respondent Mrs. Marcos argues that the foreign owned even a nominal part of the assets in question.
foundations should have been impleaded as they were
indispensable parties without whom no complete determination The rulings of the Swiss court that the foundations, as
of the issues could be made. She asserts that the failure of formal owners, must be given an opportunity to participate in
petitioner Republic to implead the foundations rendered the the proceedings hinged on the assumption that they owned
judgment void as the joinder of indispensable parties was a sine a nominal share of the assets.[118] But this was already refuted by
qua non exercise of judicial power. Furthermore, the non- no less than Mrs. Marcos herself. Thus, she cannot now argue
inclusion of the foreign foundations violated the conditions that the ruling of the Sandiganbayan violated the conditions set
prescribed by the Swiss government regarding the deposit of the by the Swiss court. The directive given by the Swiss court for
funds in escrow, deprived them of their day in court and denied the foundations to participate in the proceedings was for the
them their rights under the Swiss constitution and international purpose of protecting whatever nominal interest they might have
law.[112] had in the assets as formal owners. But inasmuch as their
ownership was subsequently repudiated by Imelda Marcos, they
The Court finds that petitioner Republic did not err in not could no longer be considered as indispensable parties and their
impleading the foreign foundations. Section 7, Rule 3 of the participation in the proceedings became unnecessary.
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[113] taken from Rule 19b of the
American Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for the In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,[119] this Court ruled that
compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Generally, an impleading the firms which are the res of the action was
indispensable party must be impleaded for the complete unnecessary:
determination of the suit. However, failure to join an
indispensable party does not divest the court of jurisdiction since And as to corporations organized with ill-gotten wealth, but are
the rule regarding indispensable parties is founded on equitable not themselves guilty of misappropriation, fraud or other illicit
considerations and is not jurisdictional. Thus, the court is not conduct in other words, the companies themselves are not the
divested of its power to render a decision even in the absence of object or thing involved in the action, the res thereof there is no
indispensable parties, though such judgment is not binding on need to implead them either. Indeed, their impleading is not
the non-joined party.[114] proper on the strength alone of their having been formed with
An indispensable party[115] has been defined as one: ill-gotten funds, absent any other particular wrongdoing on
their part
[who] must have a direct interest in the litigation; and if this
interest is such that it cannot be separated from that of the Such showing of having been formed with, or having received
parties to the suit, if the court cannot render justice between the ill-gotten funds, however strong or convincing, does not,
parties in his absence, if the decree will have an injurious effect without more, warrant identifying the corporations in question
upon his interest, or if the final determination of the with the person who formed or made use of them to give the
controversy in his absence will be inconsistent with equity and color or appearance of lawful, innocent acquisition to illegally
good conscience. amassed wealth at the least, not so as place on the Government
the onus of impleading the former with the latter in actions to
recover such wealth. Distinguished in terms of juridical
There are two essential tests of an indispensable party: (1) personality and legal culpability from their erring members or
can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the stockholders, said corporations are not themselves guilty of the
other party? and (2) can the case be decided on its merits without sins of the latter, of the embezzlement, asportation, etc., that
prejudicing the rights of the other party?[116] There is, however, gave rise to the Governments cause of action for recovery;
no fixed formula for determining who is an indispensable party; their creation or organization was merely the result of their
this can only be determined in the context and by the facts of the members (or stockholders) manipulations and maneuvers to
particular suit or litigation. conceal the illegal origins of the assets or monies invested
In the present case, there was an admission by respondent therein. In this light, they are simply the res in the actions for
Imelda Marcos in her May 26, 1998 Manifestation before the the recovery of illegally acquired wealth, and there is, in
Sandiganbayan that she was the sole beneficiary of 90% of the principle, no cause of action against them and no ground to
subject matter in controversy with the remaining 10% belonging implead them as defendants in said actions.
to the estate of Ferdinand Marcos.[117] Viewed against this
admission, the foreign foundations were not indispensable Just like the corporations in the aforementioned case, the
parties. Their non-participation in the proceedings did not foreign foundations here were set up to conceal the illegally
prevent the court from deciding the case on its merits and acquired funds of the Marcos spouses. Thus, they were simply
according full relief to petitioner Republic. The judgment the res in the action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and did not
ordering the return of the $356 million was neither inimical to have to be impleaded for lack of cause of action or ground to
the foundations interests nor inconsistent with equity and good implead them.
conscience. The admission of respondent Imelda Marcos only
confirmed what was already generally known: that the
Assuming arguendo, however, that the foundations were was allowable at any stage of the proceedings. She never
indispensable parties, the failure of petitioner to implead them did. Instead she assailed the judgment rendered.
was a curable error, as held in the previously cited case
of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan:[120] In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche
of documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses
failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said
Even in those cases where it might reasonably be argued that assets. Hence, the Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten
the failure of the Government to implead the sequestered wealth and forfeited in favor of the State in accordance with
corporations as defendants is indeed a procedural abberation, Section 6 of RA 1379:
as where said firms were allegedly used, and actively
cooperated with the defendants, as instruments or conduits for
conversion of public funds and property or illicit or fraudulent SEC. 6. Judgment. If the respondent is unable to show to the
obtention of favored government contracts, etc., slight satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the
reflection would nevertheless lead to the conclusion that the property in question, then the court shall declare such property
defect is not fatal, but one correctible under applicable forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment
adjective rules e.g., Section 10, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court the property aforesaid shall become property of the State x x x.
[specifying the remedy of amendment during trial to authorize
or to conform to the evidence]; Section 1, Rule 20 [governing
amendments before trial], in relation to the rule respecting THE FAILURE TO PRESENT AUTHENTICATED
omission of so-called necessary or indispensable parties, set TRANSLATIONS OF THE SWISS DECISIONS
out in Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. It is relevant in
this context to advert to the old familiar doctrines that the
omission to implead such parties is a mere technical defect Finally, petitioner Republic contends that the Honorable
which can be cured at any stage of the proceedings even after Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena
judgment; and that, particularly in the case of indispensable committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing himself on the
parties, since their presence and participation is essential to the ground that the original copies of the authenticated Swiss
very life of the action, for without them no judgment may be decisions and their authenticated translations were not submitted
rendered, amendments of the complaint in order to implead to the court a quo. Earlier PJ Garchitorena had quoted
them should be freely allowed, even on appeal, in fact even extensively from the unofficial translation of one of these Swiss
after rendition of judgment by this Court, where it appears that decisions in his ponencia dated July 29, 1999 when he denied
the complaint otherwise indicates their identity and character the motion to release US$150 Million to the human rights
as such indispensable parties.[121] victims.
While we are in reality perplexed by such an
Although there are decided cases wherein the non-joinder incomprehensible change of heart, there might nevertheless not
of indispensable parties in fact led to the dismissal of the suit or be any real need to belabor the issue. The presentation of the
the annulment of judgment, such cases do not jibe with the authenticated translations of the original copies of the Swiss
matter at hand. The better view is that non-joinder is not a decision was not de rigueur for the public respondent to make
ground to dismiss the suit or annul the judgment. The rule on findings of fact and reach its conclusions. In short, the
joinder of indispensable parties is founded on equity. And the Sandiganbayans decision was not dependent on the
spirit of the law is reflected in Section 11, Rule 3[122] of the 1997 determination of the Swiss courts. For that matter, neither is this
Rules of Civil Procedure. It prohibits the dismissal of a suit on Courts.
the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the
amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, The release of the Swiss funds held in escrow in the PNB
through motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. [123] is dependent solely on the decision of this jurisdiction that said
funds belong to the petitioner Republic. What is important is our
Likewise, jurisprudence on the Federal Rules of own assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence to rule in
Procedure, from which our Section 7, Rule 3[124] on favor of either petitioner Republic or respondent Marcoses. In
indispensable parties was copied, allows the joinder this instance, despite the absence of the authenticated
ofindispensable parties even after judgment has been entered if translations of the Swiss decisions, the evidence on hand tilts
such is needed to afford the moving party full relief. [125] Mere convincingly in favor of petitioner Republic.
delay in filing the joinder motion does not necessarily result in
the waiver of the right as long as the delay is
excusable.[126] Thus, respondent Mrs. Marcos cannot correctly WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
argue that the judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan was assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated January 31,
void due to the non-joinder of the foreign foundations. The court 2002 is SET ASIDE. The Swiss deposits which were
had jurisdiction to render judgment which, even in the absence transferred to and are now deposited in escrow at the
of indispensable parties, was binding on all the parties before it Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount of
though not on the absent party.[127] If she really felt that she US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002, plus interest, are
could not be granted full relief due to the absence of the foreign hereby forfeited in favor of petitioner Republic of the
foundations, she should have moved for their inclusion, which Philippines.
SO ORDERED. President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from
September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 and restore the
victims honor and dignity. The State hereby acknowledges its
moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide
reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths,
injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they suffered
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10368
under the Marcos regime.

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REPARATION AND


Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the
RECOGNITION OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
sufferings and damages inflicted upon persons whose
VIOLATIONS DURING THE MARCOS REGIME,
properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered
DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VIOLATIONS,
or used, or those whose professions were damaged and/or
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR
impaired, or those whose freedom of movement was restricted,
OTHER PURPOSES
and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of


Section 3. Definition of Terms. The following terms as used
the Philippines in Congress assembled:
in this Act shall mean:

CHAPTER I
(a) Detention refers to the act of taking a person into
custody against his will by persons acting in an
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS official capacity and/or agents of the State.

Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as the (b) Human rights violation refers to any act or
"Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of omission committed during the period from
2013. September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons
acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. Section 11 of Article II of State, but shall not be limited to the following:
the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
declares that the State values the dignity of every human, (1) Any search, arrest and/or detention
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Pursuant without a valid search warrant or warrant of
to this declared policy, Section 12 of Article III of the arrest issued by a civilian court of law,
Constitution prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, including any warrantless arrest or detention
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will and carried out pursuant to the declaration of
mandates the compensation and rehabilitation of victims of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand
torture or similar practices and their families. E. Marcos as well as any arrest., detention or
deprivation of liberty carried out during the
By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution adopting covered period on the basis of an "Arrest,
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the Search and Seizure Order (ASSO)", a
law of the land, the Philippines adheres to international human "Presidential Commitment Order {PCO)" or
rights laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of a "Preventive Detention Action (PDA)" and
Human Rights, including the International Covenant on Civil such other similar executive issuances as
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against defined by decrees of former President
Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in any manner that
Treatment or Punishment which imposes on each State party the arrest, detention or deprivation, of liberty
the obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the was effected;
rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person whose
rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective (2) The infliction by a person acting in an
remedy, even if the violation is committed by persons acting in official capacity and/or an agent of the State
an official capacity. In fact, the right to a remedy is itself of physical injury, torture, killing, or
guaranteed under existing human rights treaties and/or violation of other human rights, of any
customary international law, being peremptory in character (jus person exercising civil or political rights,
cogens) and as such has been recognized as non-derogable. including but not limited to the freedom of
speech, assembly or organization; and/or the
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy right to petition the government for redress
of the State to recognize the heroism and sacrifices of all of grievances, even if such violation took
Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, place during or in the course of what the
enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human authorities at the time deemed an illegal
rights violations committed during the regime of former assembly or demonstration: Provided,That
torture in any form or under any September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986: Provided,
circumstance shall be considered a human however, That victims of human rights violations that
rights violation; were committed one (1) month before September 21,
1972 and one (1) month after February 25, 1986 shall
(3) Any enforced or involuntary be entitled to reparation, under this Act if they can
disappearance caused upon a person who establish that the violation was committed:
was arrested, detained or abducted against
ones will or otherwise deprived of ones (1) By agents of the State and/or persons
liberty, as defined in Republic Act No. acting in an official capacity as defined
10350 1, otherwise known as the "Anti- hereunder;
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act
of 2012; (2) For the purpose of preserving,
maintaining, supporting or promoting the
(4) Any force or intimidation causing the said regime; or
involuntary exile of a person from the
Philippines; (3) To conceal abuses during the Marcos
regime and/or the effects of Martial Law.
(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit
causing unjust or illegal takeover of a (d) Persons Acting in an Official Capacity and/or
business, confiscation of property, detention Agents of the State.The following persons shall be
of owner/s and or their families, deprivation deemed persons acting in an official capacity and/or
of livelihood of a person by agents of the agents of the State under this Act:
State, including those caused by Ferdinand
E. Marcos, his spouse Imelda R. Marcos, (1) Any member of the former Philippine
their immediate relatives by consanguinity or
Constabulary (PC), the former Integrated
affinity, as well as those persons considered
National Police (INP), the Armed Forces of
as among their close relatives, associates,
the Philippines (AFP) and the Civilian Home
cronies and subordinates under Executive Defense Force (CHDF) from September 21,
Order No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986 by 1972 to February 25, 1986 as well as any
then President Corazon C. Aquino in the
civilian agent attached thereto; and any
exercise of her legislative powers under the
member of a paramilitary group even if one
Freedom Constitution;
is not organically part of the PC, the INP, the
AFP or the CHDF so long as it is shown that
(6) Any act or series of acts causing, the group was organized, funded, supplied
committing and/or conducting the following: with equipment, facilities and/or resources,
and/or indoctrinated, controlled and/or
(i) Kidnapping or otherwise supervised by any person acting in an official
exploiting children of persons capacity and/or agent of the State as herein
suspected of committing acts defined;
against the Marcos regime;
(2) Any member of the civil service,
(ii) Committing sexual offenses including persons who held elective or
against human rights victims who appointive public office at any time from
are detained and/or in the course of September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986;
conducting military and/or police
operations; and (3) Persons referred to in Section 2(a) of
Executive Order No. 1, creating the
(iii) Other violations and/or abuses Presidential Commission on Good
similar or analogous to the above, Government (PCGG), issued on February 28,
including those recognized by 1986 and related laws by then President
international law. Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her
legislative powers under the Freedom
(c) Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers to Constitution, including former President
a person whose human rights were violated by Ferdinand E. Marcos, spouse Imelda R.
persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of Marcos, their immediate relatives by
the State as defined herein. In order to qualify for consanguinity or affinity, as well as their
reparation under this Act, the human rights violation close relatives, associates, cronies and
must have been committed during the period from subordinates; and
(4) Any person or group/s of persons acting Philippines, shall be the principal source funds for the
with the authorization, support or implementation of this Act.
acquiescence of the State during the Marcos
regime. CHAPTER II

(e) Torture refers to any act by which severe pain or THE HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS CLAIMS BOARD
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on any person under the custody of persons Section 8. Creation and Composition of the Human Rights
acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the
Victims Claims Board. There is hereby created an
State, as defined by law, jurisprudence, international
independent and quasi-judicial body to be known as the
conventions and Republic Act No. 9745, otherwise
Human Rights Victims Claims Board, hereinafter referred to
known as the "Anti-Torture Act of 2009.
as the Board. It shall be composed of nine (9) members, who
shall possess the following qualifications:
Section 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation. Any HRVV
qualified under this Act shall receive reparation from the State,
(a) Must be of known probity, competence and
free of tax, as herein prescribed: Provided, That for a deceased
integrity;
or involuntary disappeared HRVV, the legal heirs as provided
for in the Civil Code of the Philippines, or such other person
named by the executor or administrator of the deceased or (b) Must have a deep and thorough understanding and
involuntary disappeared HRVVs estate in that order, shall be knowledge of human rights and involvement in efforts
entitled to receive such reparation: Provided, further, That no against human rights violations committed during the
special power of attorney shall be recognized in the actual regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos;
disbursement of the award, and only the victim or the
aforestated successor(s)-in-interest shall be entitled to (c) At least three (3) of them must be members of the
personally receive said reparation form the Board, unless the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
victim involved is shown to be incapacitated to the satisfaction of law for at least ten (10) years; and
of the Board: Provided, furthermore, That the reparation
received under this Act shall be without prejudice to the receipt (d) Must have a clear and adequate understanding and
of any other sum by the HRVV from any other person or entity commitment to human rights protection, promotion
in any case involving violations of human rights as defined in and advocacy.
this Act.
The Human Rights Victims Claims Board shall be attached to
Section 5. Nonmonetary Reparation. The Department of but shall not be under the Commission on Human Rights
Health (DOH), the Department of Social Welfare and (CHR).
Development (DSWD), the Department of Education
(DepED), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the The Board shall organize itself within thirty (30) days from the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority completion of appointment of all nine (9) members and shall
(TESDA), and such other government agencies shall render the thereafter organize its Secretariat.
necessary services as nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs
and/or their families, as may be determined by the Board
Section 9. Appointment to the Board. The President shall
pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The amount necessary
appoint the Chairperson and the other eight (8) members of the
for this purpose shall be sourced from the budget of the agency
Board: Provided, That human rights organizations such as, but
concerned in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA).
not limited to, the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
(TFDP), the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), the
Section 6. Amount of Reparation. The amount of reparation Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and
under this Act shall be in proportion to the gravity of the Nationalism (MABINI), the Families of Victims of Involuntary
human rights violation committed on the HRVV and in Disappearance (FIND) and the Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees
accordance with the number of points assigned to the Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA) may submit
individual under Section 19 hereof. nominations to the President.

Section 7. Source of Reparation. The amount of Ten billion Section 10. Powers and Functions of the Board. The Board
pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) plus accrued interest which form shall have the following powers and functions:
part of the funds transferred to the government of the Republic
of the Philippines by virtue of the December 10, 1997 Order of
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate
the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, adjudged by the Supreme
applications for claims under this Act;
Court of the Philippines as final and executory in Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan on July 15, 2003 (G.R. No. 152154) as Marcos
ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the Republic of the (b) Issue subpoena/s ad testificandum and
subpoena/s duces tecum;
(c) Conduct independent administrative proceedings The Chairperson of the Board shall appoint a Board Secretary
and resolve disputes over claims; who shall head the Secretariat for the duration of the existence
of the Board. There shall be a Technical Staff Head assisted by
(d) Approve with finality all eligible claims under this five (5) Legal Officers and three (3) Paralegal Officers; and an
Act; Administrative Staff Head assisted by three (3) Administrative
Support Staff.
(e) Deputize appropriate government agencies to
assist it in order to effectively perform its functions; When necessary, the Board may hire additional contractual
employees or contract a service provider to provide services of
counselors, psychologists, social workers and public education
(f) Promulgate such rules as may be necessary to carry
specialists, among others, to augment the services of the
out the purposes of this Act, including rules of
Secretariat: Provided, That the maximum contract amount per
procedure in the conduct of its proceedings, with the
Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines having year shall not exceed more than fifteen percent (15%) of the
suppletory application; total annual operating budget of the Board.

Section 14. Operating Budget of the Board. The operating


(g) Exercise administrative control and supervision
budget of the Board shall be funded from the Ten billion peso
over its Secretariat;
{P10,000,000,000.00) fund, with Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) as its initial operating budget: Provided, That
(h) The Board, at its discretion, may consult the it shall not exceed Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) a year
human rights organizations mentioned in Section 9
herein; and
Section 15. Proper Disposition of Funds. The Board shall
ensure that funds appropriated or those which may become
(i) Perform such other duties, functions and available as reparation for HRVVs are properly disbursed in
responsibilities as may be necessary to effectively accordance with the policies stated by Congress and relevant
attain the objectives of this Act. government rules, regulations and accounting procedures.

Section 11. Resolution, of Claims. The Board shall be CHAPTER III


composed of three (3) divisions which shall function
simultaneously and independently of each other in the
resolution of claims for reparation. Each division shall be CLAIMANTS, REPARATION AND RECOGNITION
composed of one (1) Chairperson, who shall be a member of
the Philippine Bar and two (2) members to be appointed by the Section 16. Claimants. Any person who is an HRVV may
Board en banc. file a claim with the Board for reparation and/or recognition in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Section 12. Emoluments. The Chairperson and members of
the Board shall have the rank, salary, emoluments and Section 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an HRVV
allowances equivalent to s Presiding Justice and Associate Under This Act. The claimants in the class suit and direct
Justice of the Court of Appeals, respectively. action plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation Against the
Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-
0390) in the US Federal District Court of Honolulu, Hawaii
Section 13. Secretariat of the Board. The Board shall be
wherein a favorable judgment has been rendered, shall be
assisted by a Secretariat which may come from the existing
personnel of the CHR, without prejudice to the hiring of extended the conclusive presumption that they are
additional personnel as determined by the Board to HRVVs: Provided, That the HRVVs recognized by the
Bantayog Ng Mga Bayani Foundation shall also be accorded
accommodate the volume of required work. The following
the same conclusive presumption: Provided, further, That
shall be the functions of the Secretariat:
nothing herein shall be construed to deprive the Board of its
original jurisdiction and its inherent power to determine the
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate extent of the human rights violations and the corresponding
applications for claims under this Act; reparation and/or recognition that may be granted.

(b) Recommend to the Board the approval of Section 18. Motu Proprio Recognition. The Board may take
applications for claims; judicial notice motu proprio of individual persons who suffered
human rights violations as defined herein and grant such
(c) Assist the Board in technical functions; and persons recognition as HRVVs and included in the Roll of
Victims as provided for in Section 26 hereof.
(d) Perform other duties that may be assigned by the
Board.
Section 19. Determination of Award. (a) The Board shall Section 21. Documentation of Human Rights Violations
follow the point system in the determination of the award. The Committed by the Marcos Regime. In the implementation of
range shall be one (1) to ten (10) points, as follows: this Act and without prejudice to any other documentary or
other evidence that may be required for the award of any
(1) Victims who died or who disappeared and are still reparation, any HRVV seeking reparation shall execute a
missing shall be given ten (10) points; detailed sworn statement narrating the circumstances of the
pertinent human rights violation/s committed.
(2) Victims who were tortured and/or raped or
sexually abused shall he given six (6) to nine (9) Section 22. Publication. Consistent with Section 23 herein,
points: the Board, after having been duly convened, shall set the
period for the commencement and termination of applications
by HRVVs and cause the publication of the
(3) Victims who were detained shall be given three (3)
to five (5) points; and same: Provided, That such period shall only become operative
fifteen (15) days after its last publication, which shall be once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in at least two (2)
(4) Victims whose rights were violated under Section national newspapers of general circulation.
3, paragraph (b), nos. (4), (5) and (6) under this Act
shall be given one (1) to two (2) points.
Section 23. Period for Filing of Claims; Waiver. An HRVV
shall file an application for reparation with the Board within
The Board shall exercise its powers with due discretion in the six (6) months from the effectivity of the implementing rules
determination of points for each victim, which shall be based and regulations (IRR) of this Act: Provided, That failure to file
on the type of violation committed against the HRVV, an application within said period is deemed a waiver of the
frequently and duration of the violation. In each category, right to file the same: Provided, further, That for HRVVs who
HRVVs who had suffered more would receive more points. In are deceased, incapacitated, or missing due to enforced
instances where a victim is classified in more than one disappearance, their legal heir/s or representatives, shall be
category, one shall be awarded the points in the higher entitled to file an application for reparation on their behalf.
category: Provided, That in cases where there are several
eligible claims filed for reparation by or on behalf of a
particular HRVV, the Board shall award only one (1) valid Any opposition to the new application/s pursuant to Section 16
claim which corresponds to the category obtaining the highest hereof shall only be entertained if such is filed within fifteen
(15) days from the date of the last publication of the official list
number of points for each eligible claimant.
of eligible claimants as may be determined by the Board. The
Board shall cause the publication of the official list of eligible
(b) The Board shall proceed to determine the award for each claimants once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in at
claimant classified under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of this Act. least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

(c) The Board shall then compute the final monetary value of Section 24 Appeal. Any aggrieved claimant or oppositor
ones award that is equivalent to the numerical value of one may file an appeal within ten (10) calendar days from the
point multiplied by the number of points that a claimant is receipt of the Resolution of the Division, to the Board en
entitled to, as previously determined by the Board. banc, whose decision shall then become final and executory.

(d) Within thirty (30) days after the Board has approved with Section 25. Penalties; Applicability of the Revised Penal Code.
finality each eligible claim pending before it and after due Any claimant who is found by the Board, after due hearing,
publication of such legitimate claim, the award of monetary to have filed a fraudulent claim, shall be referred to the
compensation shall take effect: Provided., That any pending appropriate office for prosecution. If convicted, he shall suffer
appeal filed by an aggrieved claimant or opposite before the the imprisonment of eight (8) to ten (10) years, shall be
Board en banc must resolved by it sixty (60) days before the disqualified from public office and employment and shall be
Board becomes functus officio. deprived of the right to vote and be voted for in any national or
local election, even after the service of sentence unless granted
CHAPTER IV absolute pardon.

GENERAL- PROVISIONS Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public officer,
employee of an agency or any private individual mandated to
Section 20. Transfer of Funds. Pursuant to the judgment implement this Act, who shall misuse, embezzle or
mentioned in Section 7 hereof, the amount of Ten billion pesos misappropriate the funds for the reparation of HRVVs or who
(P10,000,000,000.00) plus the accrued interest are hereby set shall commit fraud in the processing of documents and claims
aside and appropriated to fund the purposes of this Act. of HRVVs, or shall conspire with any individual to commit the
same, shall also be prosecuted,
Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public officer, history are included in the basic, secondary and tertiary
employee of an agency or any private individual mandated to education curricula.
implement this Act, who may have been found guilty of
committing any or all of the prohibited acts stated in the
preceding paragraph, or those acts punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, shall be penalized under the pertinent
provisions in the Code and relevant special penal laws.
CHAPTER V
Section 26. Roll of Victims. Persons who are HRVVs,
regardless of whether they opt to seek reparation or not, shall
be given recognition by enshrining their names in a Roll of FINAL PROVISIONS
Human Rights Victims to be prepared by the Board.
Section 28. Guidelines for the Implementing Rules
A Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established in honor and and Regulations (1RR). In implementing this Act and in
in memory of the victims of human rights violations whose formulating the corresponding rules and regulations, and to
names shall be inscribed in the Roll. A compendium of their ensure that all applications are properly screened for fraudulent
sacrifices shall be prepared and may be readily viewed and claims, the Board must provide for:
accessed in the internet. The
Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium shall have an (a) Transparency in the processing of the claims;
appropriation of at least Five hundred million pesos
(P500,000,000.00) from the accrued interest of the Ten billion (b) A procedure that allows any concerned party to
peso (P10,000,000,000.00) fund. oppose an application or claim on the ground that it is
fraudulent, fictitious or spurious and gives that party
The Roll may also be displayed in government agencies as the opportunity to question the same and to present
maybe designated by the HRVV Memorial Commission as evidence in support thereof; and
created hereunder.
(c) A procedure that is speedy and expeditious
Section 27. Human, Rights Violations Victims Memorial without sacrificing any of the parties fundamental
Commission.. There is hereby created a Commission to be rights.
known as the Human Rights Violations Victims Memorial
Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, Within fifteen (15) days from the date of its organization, the
primarily for the establishment, restoration, preservation and Board shall promulgate the necessary IRR and procedures for
conservation of the Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium the effective implementation of this Act. The IRR shall be
in honor of the HRVVs during the Marcos regime. effective fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
The powers and functions of the Commission shall be assumed
by the Board of Trustees which shall be composed of the Section 29. Work Period; Sunset Clause. The Board shall
following; Chairperson of the CHR as Chairperson; complete its work within two (2) years from the effectivity of
Chairperson of the National Historical Commission as Co- the IRR promulgated by it. After such period, it shall
Chairperson; and Chairpersons of the CHED, the National become functus officio.
Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the Secretary of
the Department of Education and the Head of the University of Section 30. Separability Clause. If, for any reason, any
the Philippines Diliman Main Library, as members. section or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or
invalid, such other sections or provisions not affected thereby
The Board of Trustees shall have the authority to hire and shall remain in full force and effect.
appoint its officials and employees, receive donations and
grants for and on its behalf, and generate revenues for the Section 31. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, executive
benefit of the Commission. orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with
any of the provisions of this Act, including Section 63(b)
The Commission shall be attached to the CHR solely for of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as
budgetary and administrative purposes. The operating budget the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 and Section
of the Commission shall be appropriated from the General 40(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Appropriations Act. Government Code of 1991, are hereby repealed, amended or
modified accordingly.1wphi1
The Commission shall also coordinate and collaborate with the
DepED and the CHED to ensure that the teaching of Martial Section 32. Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect
Law atrocities, the lives and sacrifices of HRVVs in our fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official
Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.