G.R. No.

189434 RP, through PCGG filed three Motions for Summary Judgment:
March 12, 2014
Marcos, Jr. v. RP (1) The 1996 Motion

Petitioner: Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. Motion: Forfeiture of $356M

Respondent: RP, represented by PCGG Result: Sandiganbayan denied motion.
Ground: Marcoses’ earlier move for approval of the Compromise
G.R. No. 189505 Agreements. This move took precedence over that for
summary judgment.
Petitioner: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos
Respondent: RP Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed a manifestation claiming she was not
a party to the Motion for Approval of the Compromise Agreements,
Ponente: C.J. Sereno and that she owned 90% of the funds while the remaining 105
belonged to the Marcos estate.

Provisions: (2) The 2000 Motion

(1) Art. VII, Sec. 6 – Salary Motion:

The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President
and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased
during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until
after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase
was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other
emolument from the Government or any other source.
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
(1) SANDIGANBAYAN’S DECISION
Civil Case No. 0141 (CC 0141)
December 17, 1991
(3) The 2004 Motion
Petitioner: RP, through PCGG
Nature: Petition for Forfeiture, pursuant to RA 1379 (Forfeiture Law)
Petition’s Content:
(a) Declare $365M (now $658) Swiss bank accounts and two treasury notes
$25M and $5M respectively as ill-gotten wealth
(b) Forfeiture of the assets of dummy corporations and entities established by
the Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos as well as real and personal properties
manifestly out of proportion to the spouses’ lawful income
 THIS INCLUDES ARELMA, INC.
Before pre-trial, the Marcos Children and PCGG signed Compromise
Agreements for a global settlement of the Marcos assets.
(1) The essential facts that warrant the forfeiture of the funds subject of the
Petition under RA 1379 are admitted by respondents in their pleadings
(2) The Marcoses’ pre-trial admission that they did not have any ownership
over the funds subject for forfeiture tendered no genuine controversy as
to any material fact.
Result: 2000 Resolution: Sandiganbayan initially granted the motion.
(1) Declared the Swiss deposits were ill-gotten wealth, thus,
forfeited in favor of the State.
2002 Resolution: Sandiganbayan reversed and denied motion.
Ground: It committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering said
resolution.
RP filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The SC set aside the 2002 resolution and reinstated the 2000 ruling
In 2003, the SC denied Marcoses MR with finality,
Motion: Partial Summary Judgment
(1) To declare “the funds, properties, shares in and interests of ARELMA,
as ill-gotten assets and forfeited in favor of RP pursuant to RA 1379 in
the same manner that the SC forfeited the funds and assets of similar
‘Marcos Foundations’.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
(1) Respondents are deemed to have admitted the allegations
(2) There is no dispute that the combine lawful income of the Marcoses is
grossly disproportionate to the deposits of their foundations and dummy
corporations.
Result: Sandiganbayan granted RP’s motion (2009)
Ground: These are separate properties yet to be ruled upon.
ISSUES: (c) The approximate amount of property he has acquired during his incumbency
in his past and present offices and employments.
(1) WON CC 0141 is criminal in nature such that summary judgment is not allowed; (d) A description of said property, or such thereof as has been identified by the
(2) WON RP complied with RA 1375; Solicitor General.
(3) WON CC 0141 has been terminated such that a motion for partial summary (e) The total amount of his government salary and other proper earnings and
judgment may no longer be allowed; incomes from legitimately acquired property, and
(4) WON there are genuine, triable issues which would preclude the application of (f) Such other information as may enable the court to determine whether or not
the rule on summary judgment. the respondent has unlawfully acquired property during his incumbency.

Marcoses’ Side:
SC RATIO:  Claim that RP failed to complied with (c), (d), (e) above because RP never took
into account the years when Ferdinand Marcos served as a war veteran with
(1) NO. CC 0141 (Forfeiture Proceedings) are civil in nature. back pay, a practicing lawyer, a trader and investor, a congressman, and
senator.
Marcoses’ Side:
 Bong-bong argues that RA 1379 is a penal law, hence: Supreme Court’s Holdings:
o The Marcoses are entitled to the rights of an accused including the right :to  The Marcoses’ claim is a haphazard rehash of what was already concluded by
present their evidence to a full blown trial as per RA 1379 Sec. 5” the Sandiganbayan and the SC in the Swiss Deposits Decision.
 Bong-bong invokes Cabal v. Kapunan  The alleged “receivables from prior years” were without basis because Marcos
never had a known law office nor any known clients, and neither did he file any
Supreme Court’s Holdings: withholding tax certificate that would prove the existence of a supposedly
 Bong-bong is wrong in quoting Cabal v. Kapunan profitable law practice before he became President.
o Cabal declared that forfeiture cases partake of a quasi-criminal nature only,
not criminal, in the sense that the right against self-incrimination is applied. NOTES (In connection to Presidential Salary)
o Cabal is an action in personam (against persons). Manuel Cabal, then Chief Based on the Official Report of the Minister of Budget, the total salaries of former
of Staff of AFP was charged with graft and corrupt practices. As opposed to Pres. Marcos as President are as follows:
this case which solely seeks the recovery of ill-gotten wealth by the State. (1) 1966-76: P60,000/year = P660,000
 Forfeiture proceedings are generally considered to be civil in nature of (2) 1977-85: P100,000/year = P800,000
proceedings in rem (against the things). (3) 1986: P110,000/year = P110,000
 The right of the Marcoses against self-incrimination has been amply protected = P1,570,000 (in total)
by the provisions of RA 1379 which prohibits the criminal prosecution of
individuals after having claimed the privilege against self-incrimination. While that of former First Lady Marcos as Minister of Human Settlements is:
 Proceedings under RA 1379 do not terminate in the imposition of a penalty but (1) 1976-1986: P75,000/year = P718,000 (in total)
merely in the forfeiture of properties illegally acquired in favor of the State.
Neither of the two filed SALN as required by law, from which their net worth could
IN SHORT: be determined.
Forfeiture proceedings may either be civil or criminal in nature, and may be in
rem or in personam. In addition, both had combined salaries:
(1) Jan-Feb 1986: P30,833.33
The main difference is that forfeiture proceedings that are criminal nature involve
the conviction of the wrongdoer for the offense charged. However, if forfeiture Hence, their total accumulated salaries amounted to P2,319,583.33 or
proceeding solely involves the recovery of ill-gotten wealth in favor of the State, it $304,372.43
is considered civil in nature.
However, the Marcoses reported:
(2) YES. RP complied with Sec. 3 (c), (d), and (e) of RA 1375.
Income Source Amount Percentage
For a petition to flourish under the forfeiture law, it must contain the following: Official Salaries 2,627,581.00 16.01%
Legal Practice 11,109,836.00 67.71%
(a) The name and address of the respondent. Farm Income 149,700.00 0.91%
(b) The public officer or employment he holds and such other public offices or Others 2,521,325.00 15.37%
employment which he has previously held. Total 16,408,442.00 100.00%
 The amount reported as their combined salaries more or less coincided with the
Official Report by the Minister of Budget. Yet what appeared to be anomalous
was the P11,109,836 representing “Legal Practice” which accounted for 67%.
Out of this amount, P10,649,836, or 96% thereof, represented “receivables from
prior years”.
In addition, they also reported a total income of P2,521,325 as “Miscellaneous
Items” and “Various Corporations” under “Other Income” from 1972-76.
The Balance Sheet attached to the couple’s ITR for 1965 indicates an ending net
worth of P120,000, which covered the year immediately preceding their
ascendancy to the presidency.
The combined salaries make up only 31.79% of the spouses’ total net worth
from 1965 to 1984. This means petitioners are unable to account for or
explain more than 2/3 of the total net worth of the Marcos spouses from
1965 to 1984.
(3) NO. CC 0141 has not yet terminated
Marcoses’ Side:
 Contend that since the SC’s Decision mentioned only the deposits under the 5
Swiss Foundations, then RP can no longer seek partial summary judgment for
forfeiture over the Arelma Account.
 Since the SC Decision has long become final and has been executed, they
insist that the Sandiganbayan lost its jurisdiction over the case.
Supreme Court’s Holdings:
 The Marcoses are under the mistaken impression that the Swiss Deposits
Decision serves as the entire judgment in CC 0141.
 The SC Decision does not preclude RP from seeking partial summary
judgment over a different subject matter covered by the same petition for
forfeiture.
 CC 0141 pertains to the recovery of all assets enumerated therein. In this
enumeration, the Arelma assets are included.
 The Swiss Deposits Decision dealt only with the summary judgment as to the
five Swiss accounts, because the 200 Motion specifically identified the five
Swiss accounts only and not the Arelma account.
 Thus, the other properties, which were included in CC 0141 but not in the 2000
motion, can still be subject of a subsequent motion for summary judgment.
 In any case, the Sandiganbayan rightly characterized their ruling on the 2004
Motion as a separate judgment, which is allowed by the Rules of Court under
Section 5 of Rule 36:
“Separate judgments - …The judgment shall terminate the action with
respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the
remaining claims…”
(4) NO. Petitioners’ sham denials justify the application of summary judgment.
Supreme Court’s Holdings:
 It has been established that the lawful income of the Marcoses is only
$304,372.43. However, Arelma’s assets as of 1983 were worth $3,369,975.00.
The entirety of the lawful income of the Marcoses represents only 9% of the
entire assets of Arelma, which petitioners remain unable to explain.
 The Marcoses provided “sham” denials throughout each proceeding to the
effect that they did not engage in any illegal activities, and that all their
properties were lawfully acquired.
 The denial of the Marcoses regarding Arelma constitutes a “negative
pregnant”:
“…Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of
the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held
that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.”
 With this, petitioners are deemed to have admitted the factual antecedents and
the establishment of Arelma.
 The Swiss Deposits Decision found that the genuineness of the said ITRs and
balance sheets of the Marcos spouses have already been admitted by
petitioners themselves.
 We find that petitioners have again attempted to delay the goal of asset
recovery by their evasiveness and the expedient profession of ignorance.
 Even if in the Answer itself appears to be a tender of issues requiring trial, yet
when the relevant affidavits, depositions, or admissions demonstrate that those
issues are not genuine but sham or fictitious, the Court is justified in dispensing
with the trial and rendering summary judgment for plaintiff.
 Summary judgment, or accelerated judgment as it is sometimes known, may
also call for a hearing so that both the movant and the adverse party may
justify their positions. However, the hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice)
is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or not, not to
receive evidence of the issues set up in the pleadings.
 Under the rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issues of fact that call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial.
 Guided by the principles above indicated, we hold that under the
circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, summary judgment is proper.
SC DECISION:
 Petition DENIED.
 Sandiganbayan 2009 Decision AFFIRMED.
 All Arelma assets with an estimated aggregate amount of $3,369,975 as of 1984,
plus all interests and all other income that accrued thereon are hereby
FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Digest by RMLPablo
October 15, 2016