Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Republic

1/29/2021 G.R. No.
213027
Today is Friday, January 29, 2021
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
FIRST DIVISION
January 18, 2017
G.R. No. 213027
ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners,

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,1 Respondent.
RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ.:
Before us are Petitions for Review on Certiorari2assailing the Partial Summary Judgment3 dated 13 January 2014 and
the Resolution4 dated 11 June 2014 rendered by the Sandiganbayan, Special Division,5 in Civil Case No. 0141. In the
assailed Judgment and Resolution, the pieces of jewelry, known as the Malacañang Collection, were labeled as ill-
gotten and were consequently forfeited in favor of the Republic.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
Civil Case No. 0141 is a forfeiture case entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, (represented by
his Estate/Heirs) and Imelda R. Marcos. It emanated from the Petition6 dated 17 December 1991 (1991 Petition) filed
by the Republic through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 13797 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1,8 2,9 1410 and
14-A. 11 The 1991 Petition sought the recovery of the assets and properties pertaining to the Marcoses, who acquired
them directly or indirectly through, or as a result of, the improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the
government. 12 The properties, subject of other pending forfeiture cases before the Sandiganbayan, were excluded;
and the properties, subject of the 1991 Petition, were specifically listed and accordingly clustered into 18. 13
Some of the properties listed in the 1991 Petition were already adjudged as ill-gotten wealth and consequently
forfeited in favor of the government. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan 14 (the Swiss deposits case), the Court en banc in
2003 decreed that the deposits in various Swiss banks, referred to in the 1991 Petition under paragraph 9 (18), 15
were ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State. 16 Likewise, in Marcos v. Republic17 (the Arelma case), the
Court's Second Division in 2012 declared that the funds, properties, and interests of Arelma were also ill-gotten
wealth and forfeited in favor of the State. 18
The present consolidated petitions emanated from the same Civil Case No. 0141, when the Republic filed a Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment19 dated 24 June 2009 with respect to another property listed in the 1991 Petition. By
way of that motion, the Republic asked the Sandiganbayan to render judgment declaring the pieces of jewelry, known
as the Malacañang Collection and specifically mentioned under paragraph 9 (6) of the 1991 Petition, as ill-gotten; and
to subsequently cause this collection of jewelry to be declared forfeited in favor of the Republic.20 The latter
categorized the pieces of jewelry recovered from the Marcoses into three collections and singled out the Malacañang
Collection as the object of the motion.21 The estimated values thereof were presented also in the motion as follows:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_213027_2017.html 1/19
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
First, the so-called Hawaii Collection x x x mentioned in paragraph 9 (7)22 of the x x x forfeiture petition
x x x seized by the United States Customs Service and x x x turned over to the Philippine Government.
Significantly, a ruling was made by the United States (U.S.) Hawaii District Court on December 18, 1992
that the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to the possession and control of the said collection. (Annex
"A")23 [The Sandiganbayan] had taken judicial notice of said ruling in its Resolution24 dated October 25,
1996.
Second, the Roumeliotes Collection x x x referred to as "MIA Jewelry" x x x seized from Roumeliotes
at the Manila International Airport on March 1, 1986. Although not covered by this forfeiture proceeding,
respondents earlier sought their inclusion in then pending negotiations for settlement.
Third, the Malacañang Collection x x x seized from Malacañang after February 25, 1986 and
transferred to the Central Bank on March 1, 1986. As ruled by this Honorable Court in the said resolution
(Annex "B"), 25 this collection is the object of this forfeiture proceeding.
This collection is itemized in ANNEX "C''26 hereof.
Based on the 1991 valuation of auction house Christie, Manson and Woods International, Inc., the
Roumeliotes, Malacañang and Hawaii collections were worth between US$5,3 l 3,575 (low estimate) to
US$7,112,879 (high estimate), at the time of the filing of the petition. (ANNEX "D")27 The value of the
Malacañang collection by itself was US$110,055 (low estimate) to US$153,089 (high estimate ).28
(citations supplied)
In support of the motion, the Republic cited the letter29 dated 25 May 2009 sent to the PCGG by Imelda Marcos,
through counsel, demanding "the immediate return of all her pieces of jewelry (i) taken by PCGG from Malacañang
Palace and (ii) those turned over to PCGG by the U.S. Government."30 The Republic argued that the letter proved the
claim of the Marcoses that they owned the Malacañang Collection, including the Hawaii Collection.31 It further argued
that in the 1991 Petition, they were deemed to have admitted the allegations regarding the pieces of jewelry.32 The
Republic said that the words or stock phrases they used in their Answer33 dated 18 October 1993 had been declared
by this Court in the Swiss deposits case as a "negative pregnant" and, as such, amounted to an admission if not
squarely denied.34 Finally, it contended that "the lawful income of the Marcoses during their incumbencies as public
officials was grossly disproportionate to the value of the pieces of jewelry."35 Invoking the declaration of his Court in
the Swiss deposits case,36 the Republic stated that their lawful income amounting to USD 304,372.43 was grossly
disproportionate to the value of the pieces of jewelry in 1991.37
On 3 July 2009, the Republic also filed a Request for Admission38 addressed to the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos,
Imelda Marcos, Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, and Irene Marcos Araneta. It requested the admission under oath of the
truth of the following:
1.That the set of jewelry described as the "Malacañang Collection" subject of this petition and Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment dated June 24, 2009 had been acquired during the incumbency of
respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos as public officials of the Republic of the
Philippines, particularly between 1966-1986.
2. That the said "Malacañang Collection'' had been acquired from abroad, particularly during
respondents' travels to Asia, Europe and the United States.
3. That the acquisition costs of the "Malacañang Collection'' more or less corresponds to the values
appraised by Christie's in 1998 as summarized in Annex F-2 of the Petition, also Annex D of the Motion
for Summary Judgment dated June 24, 2009.
4. That at the time of the recovery of the Collection in Malacañang, the pieces of jewelry were in mint
condition, and most of which has never been used by respondents.39
The Republic also submitted a Supplement to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment40 dated 14 July 2009. It restated
that the object of the motion covered only the Malacañang Collection, as the ownership of the two other collections
had been settled by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution41 dated 25 October 1996.42 It also attached the Affidavit43 of
J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel, director of the legal department of the PCGG, which was the custodian of the official
records pertaining to the cases filed for the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.44 The Affidavit sought to
prove the value of the Honolulu/PCGG Collection according to the appraisal45 by Christie's at US Customs in
Honolulu, Hawaii, on 28 and 29 September 1992; of the Roumeliotes Collection according to the appraisal46 by
Christie's at the Central Bank in Manila, Philippines, on 7 March 1988; and of the Malacañang Collection according to
the appraisal47 by Christie's at the Central Bank in Manila, Philippines, on 7 March 1988 and to the much higher
acquisition costs indicated in the Invoices48 transmitted by Gemsland to Imelda Marcos through Mrs. Gliceria
Tantoco.49
Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta filed their Manifestation and Preliminary Comments50 dated 21 July 2009.
They manifested therein that Imelda Marcos had indeed demanded the return of the jewelry to her through a letter51
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
dated 25 May 2009 and that the PCGG had been unlawfully possessing the prope1iies in view of its failure to initiate
the proper proceeding or to issue a sequestration or freeze order.52 It was further manifested that Imelda Marcos also
wrote a letter53 dated 28 May 2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which had administrative supervision and
control over the PCGG, through DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez. In turn, he sent a letter54 dated 4 June 2009 to the
PCGG through Chairperson Camilo M. Sabio ordering the latter to return the jewelry if there was no legal impediment.
The PCGG, however, referred the matter to the OSG through Solicitor General Agnes VST Devanadera in a letter55
dated 9 June 2009. The OSG replied to the Marcoses' letter56 dated 25 May 2009 by way also of a letter57 dated 21
July 2009. It said that according to the OSG in its letter58 to the PCGG dated 19 June 2009, the former pointed out
that the fact the jewelry collection was the subject of an action for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan was a legal
impediment to their return. 59
Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta then stated that the Republic's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was
filed to justify the possession by the PCGG of the pieces of jewelry, even if these were not part of the forfeiture case -
Civil Case No. 0141.60 They based their allegations on the pronouncements of the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution61
dated 25 October 1996 and Order62 dated 19 November 2001 and on the Republic's omission of the collection in the
prayer63 of the 1991 Petition. 64
The Marcoses further stated that the Request for Admission was inconsistent with the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and the Supplement thereto and further reserved their right to present additional arguments or comments
on the Motion and the Supplement.65
Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion to Expunge66 dated 25 July
2009. They specifically stated therein that they were adopting the same arguments raised in their Comment,67 as well
as in their Motion for Reconsideration68 dated 5 May 2009, which was filed after the Sandiganbayan Decision69 dated
2 April 2009 granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Arelma account. 70
In their Manifestation and Motion to Expunge, Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta claimed that the filing of the
Request for Admission was tantamount to an abdication of the earlier position of the Republic that the case was ripe
for summary judgment.71 They argued that the Request for Admission entertained a possibly genuine issue as to a
material fact, which was needed for the grant of the motion for summary judgment.72 They further argued that the
filing of the Request for Admission was rather late, considering that it was done after the Republic had filed its Motion
for Summary Judgment in 2000 and after the case was concluded in 2004.73 They then requested that all pleadings,
motions and requests filed after the termination of the case in 2004 be expunged. 74 Pending a resolution of the
motion to expunge, they simultaneously asked for additional time to answer the Request for Admission and for
permission to conduct an ocular inspection of the subject jewelry, which had been in the Republic's possession for the
past 22 years. 75
Meanwhile, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. filed a Manifestation76 that he was adopting the Manifestation and Motion to
Expunge filed by Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta. 77 The Republic filed its Opposition78 dated 24 August 2009, in
which it said that the Manifestation and Motion to Expunge of Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta argued on
trivial matters, raised puerile arguments, and failed to refute the contention that the collection was ill-gotten and
subject to forfeiture. 79 It further stated that the Request for Admission did not depart from the legal basis of the Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. Instead, the request merely sought to elicit details regarding the acquisition of the
jewelry in order to expedite the resolution of the motion.80 The Republic therefore claimed that by operation of law, the
failure of the Marcoses to respond resulted in their admission of the matters contained in the request. 81
In response to the Marcoses' Manifestation and Preliminary Comments, the Republic likewise filed its Reply82 dated
24 August 2009. It insisted that while the Decision dated 2 April 2009 focused on the Arelma assets, it had
reservations regarding "other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable under the premises."83 These reliefs
and remedies included the prayer for the forfeiture of the Malacañang Collection as part of the ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses.84 Also, the Republic stated that the Request for Admission was not inconsistent with its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, and that the filing of the request after the motion was not prohibited by the Rules of Court.85 It
stressed that the Request for Admission was filed and served on 3 July 2009.86 It said that instead of making an
admission or a denial as a timely response to the request within 15 days or until 18 July 2009, the Marcoses filed -
and belatedly at that - a Manifestation and Motion to Expunge on 25 July 2009.87 Thus, the Republic insisted that all
the matters that were the subject of the request be deemed admitted by the Marcoses.88
A Rejoinder89 dated 7 September 2009 was filed by the Marcoses who alleged that the demand could not have meant
that the collection was part of the case, because the jewelry collection was "trivially mentioned" in the statement of
facts of the 1991 petition;90 was not specifically prayed for;91 was not subject of the case, according to the
Sandiganbayan in its Resolution92 dated 25 October 1996 and Order93 dated 19 November 2001.94 They also
reiterated that the Request for Admission was inconsistent with the Republic's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.95
In a Resolution96 dated 2 August 2010, the Sandiganbayan denied the Marcoses' Manifestation and Preliminary
Comments and Manifestation and Motion to Expunge. It ruled that (1) the proceedings in this case had not been
terminated;97 (2) in filing their objection, respondents were not deemed to have admitted the matters in the Request
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
98
for Admission; and (3) the Republic's Request for Admission was not inconsistent with the Motion for Summary
Judgment.99 The Sandiganbayan further directed the Marcoses to file and serve within 15 days their sworn answer to
the Request for Admission, 100 but they failed to comply with the directive. 101
After the submission of the parties of their respective memoranda, 102 the Sandiganbayan issued a Partial Summary
Judgment103 dated 13 January 2014 ruling that (1) the Malacañang Collection was part and subject of the forfeiture
petition; 104 (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment was proper; 105 and (3) the forfeiture of the Malacañang Collection
was justified pursuant to R.A. 1379. 106
Motions for Reconsideration were filed by the Estate of Marcos on 29 January 2014107 and by Imelda Marcos and
Irene Marcos Araneta on 30 January 2014. 108 The Republic submitted its Consolidated Opposition109 dated 25
February 2014, while Replies were submitted by the Estate of Marcos on 12 March 2014110 and by Imelda Marcos
and Irene Marcos Araneta on 31 March 2014. 111 The Republic filed its Consolidated Rejoinder112 on 23 April 2014.
In a Resolution113 dated 11 June 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motions for Reconsideration for being mere
rehashes of the arguments of the Marcoses in their Comments and Opposition to the Republic's Motion for Summary
Judgment. 114
Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta received the Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration on 24
June 2014. 115 Within the 15-day period to file a petition, they submitted to this Court a Manifestation with Entry of
Appearance and Motion for Extension of Time, asking that they be given until 09 August 2014 to file their petition. 116
Meanwhile, the Estate of Marcos filed a Motion for Extension of Time on 09 July 2014 and a Manifestation on 8
August 2014, saying that its other executor in solidum was no longer filing a separate petition for review, but was
adopting that which was filed by Imelda Marcos. 117
This Court issued a Resolution 118 on 17 November 2014 in G.R. No. 213027 granting the Motion for Extension and
noting the Manifestation of the Estate of Marcos that the latter was adopting the petition for review filed by Imelda
Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta in G.R. No. 213253. This Court also issued a Resolution 119 on 17 November 2014
in G.R. No. 213253 noting the Manifestation of Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta's counsels, who were
seeking the grant of their Motion for an Extension. 120 This Court thereafter consolidated the petitions. 121
THE ISSUES
The issues for this Court's resolution are as follows: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the
properties; (2) whether the Malacañang Collection can be the subject of the forfeiture case; (3) whether forfeiture is
justified under R.A. 1379; (4) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment was not inconsistent with the Request for Admission; and (5) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly
declared that the forfeiture was not a deprivation of petitioners' right to due process of law. 122
OUR RULING
We find no reversible error in the ruling of the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan correctly acquired jurisdiction over the case. The properties are included in the 1991 Petition as
found in subparagraph (6) of paragraph (9), which reads:
9. However, the other properties which had been identified so far by both the PCGG and the Solicitor
General (excluding those involved in the aforesaid civil cases) are approximated at US$5-B and which
include-
xxxx
(6) Paintings and silverware sold at public auction in the United States worth $17-M as shown by Annex
"F" hereof, aside from the jewelries, paintings and other valuable decorative arts found in Malacañang
and in the United States estimated to be about $23.9-M as listed and described in Annexes "F-1",
123
"F-2",124 "F-2-a"125 and "F-3"126 hereto attached as integral parts hereof; 127 (Emphasis supplied)
The Sandiganbayan correctly noted the Annexes, which were mentioned in subparagraph 6 and made an integral part
of the 1991 Petition, itemizing and enumerating the pieces of jewelry with their estimated values. It ultimately found
that the 1991 Petition had categorically alleged that the Malacañang Collection was included in the assets, monies
and properties sought to be recovered.
With respect to the manner of making allegations in pleadings, the Rules of Court simply provides as follows:
Section 1. In general. - Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise
and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as
the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall
be
clearly and concisely stated. 128
With respect to the determination of whether an initiatory pleading sufficiently states a cause of action, this Court has
ruled in this wise:
In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a cause of action, the test is as follows: admitting the
truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer? To be
taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances
or other matters aliunde are not considered. The court may consider -- in addition to the complaint -- the
appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records. 129
The 1991 Petition is compliant with the requirements stated in law and jurisprudence. The sufficiency of its allegations
is thus established with respect to the pieces of jewelry. Not only were these listed in paragraph 9 (6) 130 of that
petition as part of the properties subject to forfeiture but these were also itemized in the documents annexed thereto:
Annexes "F-1," 131 "F-2,"132 "F-2-a," 133 and "F-3." 134 The 1991 Petition is more than enough fulfillment of the
requirement provided under Section 3135(d) of R.A. 1379.
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that the forfeiture was justified and that the Malacañang Collection was
subject to forfeiture. The legitimate income of the Marcoses had been pegged at USD 304,372.43. 136 We reiterate
what we have already stated initially in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 137 and subsequently in Marcos v. Republic: 138
that "whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is
manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the
income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully
acquired." 139 Petitioners failed to satisfactorily show that the properties were lawfully acquired; hence, the prima facie
presumption that they were unlawfully acquired prevails.
The Sandiganbayan also properly ruled that there was no inconsistency or incongruity between Republic's Request
for Admission and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Indeed, we have held that a request for admission can be
the basis for the grant of summary judgment. The request can be the basis therefor when its subject is deemed to
have been admitted by the party and is requested as a result of that party's failure to respond to the court's directive
to state what specifically happened in the case. 140 The resort to such a request as a mode of discovery rendered all
the matters contained therein as matters that have been deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 26, Section 2 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. 141
On the basis of respondent Imelda Marcos' s letter dated 25 May 2009; respondents' Answer to the 1991 Petition,
which was considered to be a "negative pregnant" in Republic v. Sandiganbayan; and respondents' failure to timely
respond to petitioner's Request for Admission, the Sandiganbayan thus correctly granted the Motion for Summary
Judgment of the Republic.
A careful scrutiny of the three bases used by the Sandiganbayan in justifying the absence of a genuine issue and
eventually granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment leads us to no other course of action but to affirm the
ruling of the Sandiganbayan. The prima facie presumption on unlawfully acquired property indeed finds application on
the first basis. Section 2 of R.A. 13 79 provides that "[w]henever any public officer or employee has acquired during
his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or
employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be
presumed primafacie to have been unlawfully acquired." And in this regard, the Sandiganbayan had taken judicial
notice of the legitimate income of the Marcoses during their incumbency as public officers for the period 1966-1986
which was pegged at USD 304,372.43. 142
With respect to the second basis - the Answer to the 1991 Petition - the denial of the Marcoses cannot be considered
a specific denial because similar to their denial in the Arelma case, in which insisted that they were not privy to the
transactions, the Marcoses gave "the same stock answer to the effect that [they] did not engage in any illegal
activities, and that all their properties were lawfully acquired." 143 That they were not privy to the actual data in the
possession of the PCGG and the Solicitor General is simply a line of defense which necessarily results in their failure
to allege the lawfulness of the mode of acquiring the property. subject of forfeiture, considering the amount of their
lawful income. 144 As in the Arelma case, the Marcoses are deemed to have admitted that the Malacanang Collection
itemized in the annexes were found in the palace and subsequently proven to have been owned by Mrs. Marcos as
she admitted in her letter dated 25 May 2009.
In light of the third basis, the factual antecedents of the case bear restating. The Republic filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment dated 24 June 2009, after which it filed and served a Request for Admission on 3 July 2009.
Afterwards, it submitted a Supplement to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated 14 July 2009. On 28 July 2009,
the Marcoses filed their Manifestation and Preliminary Comments. The Sandiganbayan noted the objection they had
raised in their Manifestation and Preliminary Comments. 145 In that manner, rather than declaring that the matters
raised in the Request for Admission were deemed admitted, the Sandiganbayan instead ruled on the objection raised
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
by the Marcoses. In short, it ruled that the Request for Admission was not inconsistent with the motion for summary
judgment. 146 The Sandiganbayan reasoned that there was no inconsistency between the two. It said that a request
for admission may even complement a summary judgment in that the request for admission may be used as basis for
filing a motion for summary judgment. 147 It then denied the Manifestation and Preliminary Comments and
Manifestation and Motion to Expunge filed by the Marcoses relative to the Republic's Request for Admission.
Thereafter, it required the Marcoses to file and serve their sworn answer to the Request for Admission. 148 The
Marcoses filed numerous pleadings, but none of these was made in response to the Request for Admission as
required by Rule 26, Section 2149 of the Rules of Court until the Sandiganbayan eventually issued the Partial
Summary Judgment dated 13 January 2014 and the Resolution dated 11June2014.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that "a request for admission may even complement a summary judgment in that the
request for admission may be used as basis for filing a summary judgment" 150 citing three cases as follows: Concrete
Aggregates Corp. v. CA, 151 Diman v. Alumbres, 152 and Allied Agri-Business v. CA. 153 The first case instructs that a
request for admission "should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited
with the request, whose purpose is to establish said party's cause of action or defense." 154
The second case, on the other hand, teaches the nature of modes of discovery in this wise:
Particularly as regards request for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, the law ordains that
when a party is served with a written request that he admit : (1) the genuineness of any material and
relevant document described in and exhibited with the request, or (2) the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request, said party is bound within the period designated in the
request, to file and serve on the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either (10 denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or (2) setting forth in details the reasons why
he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. If the party served does not respond with such
sworn statement, each of the matters of whichan admission is requested shall be deemed admitted.
In this case, the Dimans' request for admission was duly served by registered mail on Jose Lacalle on
February 6, 1995, and a copy thereof on his lawyers on February 4, 1995. Neither made any response
whatever within the reglementary period. Nor did either of them do so even after receiving copy of the
Dimans' "MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO ANSWER REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION." dated March 28, 1995. On account thereof, in legal contemplation, the Heirs impliedly
admitted all the facts listed in the request for admission.
xxxx
On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist -- i.e., facts are asse1ied
in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific
denials or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answer -- but the issues thus arising from the
pleadings are sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown by admissions, depositions or admissions.155
(Italics supplied)
The third case demonstrates how failure to answer the request for admission within the period resulted in the
admission of the matters stated therein. The Court, in that case, specifically ruled:
The burden of affirmative action is on the party upon whom notice is served to avoid the admission rather
than upon the party seeking the admission. Hence, when petitioner failed to reply to a request to admit, it
may not argue that the adverse party has the burden of proving the facts sought to be admitted.
Petitioners silence is an admission of the facts stated in the request.
This Court finds that the motion for summary judgment filed by respondent CHERRY VALLEY on the
ground that there were no questions of fact in issue since the material allegations of the complaint were
not disputed was correctly granted by the trial court. It is a settled rule that summary judgment may be
granted if the facts which stand admitted by reason of a partys failure to deny statements contained in a
request for admission show that no material issue of fact exists. By its failure to answer the other partys
request for admission, petitioner has admitted all the material facts necessary for judgment against itself.
156
Petitioners claim that there has been a lack of observance of due process; 157 that "there has been no trial or hearing";
158
and that "petitioners were shamefully never given an opportunity to show that the questioned properties may have
been lawfully acquired through other means." 159 We find the invocation of lack of observance of due process at this
stage of the proceedings rather belated, especially when it was never invoked before the Sandiganbayan. Needless
to say, the various pleadings petitioners have filed in this case and in other cases involving the Marcos properties
were countless occasions when they could have proven that the Malacañang Collection had indeed been lawfully
acquired as claimed. They allege that they were denied due process by not being given any opportunity to prove their
lawful acquisition of the Malacañang Collection. This allegation cannot be given credence for being utterly baseless.
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
The complete records of Civil Case No. 0141 - a total of 35 volumes along with 2 envelopes containing exhibits and 1
envelope containing the transcripts of stenographic notes - have been forwarded to this Court by the Sandiganbayan.
Pertinent parts of these documents annexed to the 1991 Petition, along with the other pleadings filed before the
Sandiganbayan relative to the present petitions, have also been extensively quoted and reproduced verbatim in this
resolution. The purpose is not only to provide a clearer statement of the factual antecedents, but also to confirm the
veracity of the reference to these documents and to equally dispel any doubt regarding them.
All in all, in the absence of any compelling legal reason, there is no basis to overturn, or carve an exception to,
existing jurisprudence on the matters raised in the present case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Partial Summary Judgment dated 13 January 2014 and Resolution
dated 11 June 2014 rendered by the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice, Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES* ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice Associate Justice
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
The Sandiganbayan was initially impleaded as a party, but is being deleted pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, in the Resolution dated 17 August 2015.
*
In lieu of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro per Raffle dated 16 January 2017.
2
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), pp. 52-77; rollo (G.R. No. 213027), pp. 3-12.
3
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), pp. 11-48; penned by Associate Justice Efren N. de la Cruz and concurred in by
Associate Justices Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos and Alex L. Quiroz.
4
Id. at 128-131.
5
Created by virtue of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution dated 2 December 2008 in A.M. No. 08-10-05-
SB, as amended by the SC Resolution dated 15 June 2010.
6
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. I, pp. 1-78.
7
An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by
Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor, 51 O.G. 4457 (18 June 1955).
8
Creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (28 February 1986).
9
Regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former
President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, Their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees (12 March 1986).
10
Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-Gotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Members of Their Immediate Family, Close Relatives, Subordinates, Close
and/or Business Associates, Dummies, Agents and Nominees (7 May 1986).
11
Amending Executive Order No. 14 (18 August 1986).
i: Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141). Vol. 1, p. 5; Petition dated 17 December 1991 in
Civil Case No. 0141, p. 5.
13
Id. at 9-16; Petition dated 17 December 1991 in Civil Case No. 0141, pp. 9-16. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
1991 Petition are quoted in full as follows:
8. This petition, therefore, excludes the assets, monies and all the other properties involved in the
said civil cases (Nos. 0002-0035, inclusive) now pending before the Sandiganbayan.
9. However, the other properties which had been identified so far by both the PCGG and the
Solicitor General (excluding those involved in the aforecited civil cases) are approximated at
US$5-B and which include -
(1) Holding companies, agro-industrial ventures and other investments identified by

Rolando Gapud in his Affidavit dated August 1, 1987 marked as Annexes "A", "A- 1" to "A-
6", inclusive, and hereto attached as integral parts hereof;
(2) Landholdings, buildings, condominium units, mansions and other houses which the
Marcos spouses built, improved or acquired during their 20-year rule as listed and
described in Annex "B'' (Bonifacio Gillego's Sworn Statement dated June 30, 1986) and the
list of landholdings, buildings and mansions of the arrival of the Marcoses discovered by the
PCGG in 1986 hereto attached as Annex "B-1 ",which arc integral parts hereof;
(3) Properties held for the Marcoses and surrendered to the Government (through PCGG)
as part of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth by his known crony, Mr. Jose Y. Campos, estimated
to be about P2.5-B as of April 8, 1986 aside from the P250-M cash as stated in his affidavit
and other documents marked as Annexes "C," "C-1," to "C-4", inclusive and hereto attached
as integral parts hereof;
(4) Properties held for the Marcoses and surrendered to the Government by another Marcos
crony, Mr. Antonio floirendo estimated to be about $30-M, aside from the P70-M cash and
the $653,856.40 paid as taxes in the United States as stated in his affidavit, Compromise
Agreement and Agreement marked as Annexes "D", "D-1" to "D-2", respectively, and
attached hereto as integral parts hereof;
(5) The so-called New York properties valued at $250-M as described in paragraphs 15-21,
inclusive, of another Affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated January 14, 1987 marked as
Annexes "E", "E-1 ", "E-2" and "E-2-a" as well as in Annex "A" of Civil Case No. 0001 hereto
attached as Annex "E-3" which are integral parts hereof;
(6) Painting and silverwares, already sold at public auction in the United States worth $17-M
as shown by Annex "F" hereof, aside from the jewelries, paintings and other valuable
decorative arts found in Malacañang and in the United States estimated to be about $23.9-
M as listed and described in Annexes "F-1", "F-2", "F-2-a" and "F-3" hereto attached as
integral parts hereof;
(7) Philippine peso bills amounting to P27,744,535.00, foreign currencies and jewelries
amounting to $4-M and Certificates of Time Deposits worth P46.4-M seized by the U.S.
customs authorities upon arrival of the Marcoses in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. (now subject
of a separate charge before the Ombudsman) when they fled hastily at the height of the
February 22-25, 1986 EDSA Revolt, as shown hereto attached documents, marked as
Annexes "G", "G-1" and "G-2'', which are integral parts hereof;
(8) The US$30-M in the custody of the Central Bank (as part of the dollar denominated
treasury bills purchased by the Marcoses from the Central Bank through their dummies
using their dollar deposits in Switzerland, the relevant documents of which are hereto
attached and marked as Annexes "H", "H-1" up to "H-4", inclusive and which are integral
parts hereof;
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
(9) Shares of stocks in Piedras Petroleum Co. Inc. (PIEDRAS) and in Oriental Petroleum &
Minerals Corporation (OCPM) worth P500-M as shown by Annexes "1", "1-1" up to "1-3'',
inclusive hereto attached as integral parts hereof;
(10) Shares of stock in Balabac Oil Company worth about P42-M as described in the
affidavit of Mr. Raymundo S. Feliciano hereto attached as Annexes "J", "J-1" and "J-2", plus
the 60% of the sequestered assets of CDCP in the amount of P 172,378,030 (Annex "J-3"
hereof), and form as integral parts hereof;
(11) The amount of P10-M as described by Jesus Tanchangco in his affidavit hereto
attached as Annex "K" and the 45% beneficial ownership of FM in Landoil as stated by Jose
de Venecia, Jr. in his affidavit dated March 7, 1987, marked as Annex "K-1" and hereto
attached as integral part hereof;
(12)The amounts of Philippine peso and US dollars deposited in the Securities Bank & Trust
Co. (SBTC) totalling P974,885,480.46 and US$6,522,36 l.29 as shown in Annexes "L" and
"L-1" which are integral parts hereof;
(13) The total amounts of the shareholding of the Marcoses in SBTC which were sold by the
PCGG at P161,200,000.00 and which has increased to P238.7-M including interests, but
excluding P 15-M already received by PCGG as shown by the hereto attached documents
marked as Annexes "M", "M-1" to ''M-2" which are integral parts hereof;
(14)The other properties already recovered such as the 21 vehicles registered in the names
of Fernando and Susan Timbol estimated to be worth about P5. l-M as shown by the
attached documents marked as Annexes "N" and "N-1" hereof;
(15) Philippine pesos deposits in Traders Royal Bank totalling over P 1-B which had been
invested by Mr. Marcos from 1978 to May 9, 1983 as shown by an analysis of Trust Account
No. 761128 and 76/l 28A of Mr. Marcos hereto attached as Annexes "O", "O-1 ", "O-2" and
"O-2-a" and which are integral parts hereof;
(16)The other properties in the United States already recovered in the total amount of
US$25.7-M as shown by the hereto attached report on recovered and sold assets abroad,
1986-91, marked as Annex "P" and hereto attached as integral part hereof;
(17)The bank deposits in Luxembourg, Hongkong, the Cayman Islands, United States and
other countries which have not yet been fully documented and the approximate amounts
therein cannot yet be determined and, hence, a reservation is hereby made to file a
separate forfeiture petition to cover the said hidden fortunes upon full discovery;
(18) The secret deposits in Swiss banks, which will be fully discussed later and being the
primary and principal object of this petition for forfeiture pursuant to judgments of the Swiss
Federal Tribunal in "Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Avertina Foundation Vaduz,
Imelda Marcos, Vibur Foundation, Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Palmy Foundation Vaduz
versus Attorney General of District of Zurich, Attorney General of Canton of Zurich, and
Republic of the Philippines x x x (Zurich Decision), and "Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda
Marcos, and Aguamina Corporation versus Chambre d' accusation of the Fribourg Cantonal
Court and the Republic of the Philippines x x x (Fribourg Decision). The certified true
translations of the Zurich and Fribourg Decision arc attached hereto as Annexes "Q" and
"Q-1", respectively, while the identified accounts and the determined balances amounting to
US$350-M, more or less, are shown by the attached Flow Charts of five (5) account groups
marked as Annexes ''R", "R-1" to "R-5", inclusive. and which are integral parts hereof.
14
453 Phil. 1059 (2003).
15
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. I, p. 11; Petition dated 17 December 1991 in Civil Case No.
0141, p. 11. Paragraph 9, subparagraph 6 of the 1991 petition, reads:
9. However, the other properties which had been identified so far by both the PCGG and the
Solicitor General (excluding those involved in the aforecited civil cases) are approximated at
US$5-B and which include –
xxxx
(7) Philippine peso bills amounting to P27,744,535.00, foreign currencies and jewelries amounting
to $4-M and Certificates of Time Deposits worth P46.4-M seized by the U.S. customs authorities
upon arrival of the Marcoses in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. (now subject of a separate charge before
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
the Ombudsman) when they fled hastily at the height of the February 22-25, 1986 EDSA Revolt,
as shown hereto attached documents, marked as Annexes "G'', "G-1" and "G-2", which are
integral parts hereof; x x x. (emphasis supplied)
16
Id
17
686 Phil. 980(2012).
18
Id.
19
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXII, pp. 400-419.
20
Id. at 416.
21
Id. at 409-411;
22
Supra note 15.
23
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141 ), Vol. XXII, pp. 421-453. The annexed document contains the
transmittal letter dated 12 April 1999 from Consul General of Honolulu, Hawaii Minerva Jean A. Falcon and the
authenticated copy of the Decision dated 18 December 1992 of the US District Court of Hawaii in Consolidated
Civil Case Nos. 86-00155 and 86-00213 entitled United States of America v. The Republic of the Philippines,
Roger Roxas and the Golden Buddha Corporation, including an attached 18-page inventory of the articles
accompanying the Marcos party upon arrival in Honolulu on 26 February 1986, which is considered an integral
part of the decision.
24
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141 ), Vol. VII, pp. 189-197. It resolved the motion filed by the children
of respondent Imelda Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos seeking to enjoin the alleged intended sale
of jewelry by the Philippine government at an auction in London on an unspecified date. The portion pertaining
to the Malacañang jewelry is quoted as follows:
The jewelry allegedly taken from Malacañang at or shortly after the EDSA event on February 25,
1986 (i.e. the "Malacañang jewelry"), however, is another matter. This group of jewelry, the
Republic informs the Cou1t, also forms part of the jewelry to be sold at auction in London. These
jewelry could be presumed to belong to the "Marcoses" - generically - since common historical fact
will tell us that the Marcoses were the principal occupants of Malacañang from 1966 up to
February 25, 1986. Unless anyone should make a claim to the contrary, that jewelry must have
belonged to the "Marcoses," whether ill-gotten by them or not. Thus these jewelry could be subject
of the compromise agreement, if there is indeed one.
While it is true that the "Malacañang jewelry" is not subject of any causes of action in this case, it
would appear that it could adversely affect the projected Compromise Agreement, should it
actually be affirmed by this Court. (id. at 193-194)
The Motion was thereafter granted in favor of the movants as follows:
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Republic is temporarily restrained from selling or causing to be sold,
disposed of or encumbered, by auction or otherwise, whether in the Philippines or abroad, the
"Malacañang jewelry," i.e., the jewelry found in Malacañang on or sho1tly after February 25, 1986
and deposited with the Central Bank on March 1, 1986, until further orders from this Court. 1âwphi1
Likewise, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, the plaintiff shall submit an inventory of all the
jewelry seized in Malacañang and delivered to the Central Bank on March 1, 1996 including the
price or value thereof.
The instant matter is now set for hearing on November 7, 1996 at 8:00 a.m.
The motion for the issuance or the temporary restraining order with respect to the sale of the
jewelry seized at the Manila International Airport on March 1, 1986 and those ceded by a
document signed by Imelda R. Marcos on October 25, 1990 with the assistance of her counsel in
Hawaii, is denied.
SO ORDERED. (id. at 196-197)

25
Supra note 24.
26
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXII, pp. 468-508. The annexed document pertains to the
PCGG Inventory and Valuation of Malacanang Jewelry Collection by Sotheby's (pp. 470-477; the pages contain
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
the specific item numbers and descriptions) and by Christie's (pp. 478-507; the pages contain he specific item
numbers, descriptions and estimates) and is tabulated as follows:
Bag No. Inventory as Item No. Inventory as Item No.

of March 7, of December
1988 1996
IV-2 179 (#247 & 167-345A 83 167, 169-172, 174, 175, 196, 183-
329 not 184, 187-188, 200, 201, 203-204,
seen) 206-210, 213, 223, 237, 250-260,
262-263, 265,267, 269, 271, 276-
280, 281-290, 292, 298, 302, 309,
313, 316, 317,319-321, 325, 327,
330-338, 340
IV-4 139 477-615 3 480, 491, 613
IV-5 60 347-406 20 349, 351-356, 361, 364, 370, 373,

378-
380, 384, 386, 390, 398, 405
IV-6 34 43-76 6 43,49,50,57,72, 73
IV-11 28 501-528 6 508,511,513,514,516,528
IV-13 30 529-558 13 532-533,538,539,541,54

7,548,550,555-558
IV-14 18 25-42 16 (#34 &38 25-42

not seen)
IV-15 38 407-444 3 424, 437, 440
IV-17 24 1-24 -
IV-18 87 79-165 7 82-83, 86-89, 95
IV-61 32 445-467 15 445-447, 451-452, 455, 462, 464-

465, 467-471, 474
Total 669* 172**
Valuation
Low Estimates $105,055.00
High Estimates $144,089.00
*Appraised by Christie's
** 172 out of the 669 inventoried and appraised by the Sotheby's in 1996.
Pieces of the Malacañang Collection in IV-2, IV-4, IV-5, IV-6, IV-11, IV-13, IV-14, IV-15, IV- 17, IV-
17, IV-18, and IV-61 are provided descriptions and estimated values. Except for p. 2 of IV-13 and
p. 1 of IV-14, Annex "C" of the Motion is the same as Annex "F-2" of the 1991 Petition. See notes
47 and 123.
27
Id. at 509-514. The Annex petiains to the Customs Collection of Jewelry examined by Christie's at the Central
Bank in Manila, Philippines, during the week of 7 March 1988, the Total Auction Estimates of the three sets of
jewelry as of April 1991, and the Summary of the Lower and Higher Figures for all items including "Jewellery."
These same documents were also part of the 1991 Petition and were initially labeled as Annexes "F-2," "F-2-
A," and "F-3." Supra notes 124, 125, and 126.
28
Id. at 510.
29
Sandiganbayan rollo, Vol. XXIII, pp. 16-18; The letter reads:
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
25 May 2009
Presidential Commission on Good Government

IRC Building, 82 EDSA,
Mandaluyong City
Attention: HON. CAMILO L. SABIO

Chairman
Sirs/Mesdames:
We write in behalf of our client, FORMER FIRST LADY IMELDA ROMULADEZ-MARCOS
(hereinafter "Mrs. Marcos"). in connection with the captioned matter.
In February 1986, at the height of the EDSA incident, the Presidential Commission on Good
Government ("PCGG") took possession of: among other things/belongings, the jewelries left by
Mrs. Marcos at the Malacañang Palace without her knowledge and consent. In the same month
and year, the U.S. Government turned over to PCGG the pieces of jewelry taken from Mrs.
Marcos and her family upon their exile in Honolulu, Hawaii.
To date, PCGG has not initiated any civil or criminal proceeding in any court, tribunal or agency for
the forfeiture of the subject jewelries. There is no existing court decision which pronounces that
these jewelries are ill-gotten and must be forfeited in favor of the government. Mrs. Marcos thus
remains to be the legitimate owner of these prized jewelries.
xxx
In view thereof, we demand for the immediate return to Mrs. Marcos of all her pieces of jewelry: (i)
taken by PCGG from the Malacañang Palace; and (ii) those turned-over to PCGG by the U.S.
Government; within five (5) days from receipt hereof
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
CHARLITO MARTIN R. MENDOZA
(Sgd.)
EFREN VINCENT M. DIZON
(Sgd.)
JOANNA V. GERONIMO
Copy furnished:
SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALES
Department of Justice
DOJ Building. Padre Faura St.,
Ermita, Manila 1004
30
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), p. 13.
31
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXII, p. 412; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p.13.
32
Id. at413.
33
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. IV, pp. 45-63. In particular, the respondents therein stated as
follows:
9. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 9 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since Respondents are not privy to the
actual data in possession of the PCGG and the Solicitor General. (id. at 47)
34
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141). Vol. XXII, p. 413.
35
Id. at 414.
36
See supra note 14.
37
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXII, p. 415.
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
38
Id. at 389-393.
39
Id. at 390-391.
40
Id. at 519-524.
41
Supra note 24.
42
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXII, p. 520.
43
Id. at 525-533.
44
Id. at 525.
45
Id. at 568-627.
46
Id. at 628-639.
47
Id. at 539-567. The appraisal is attached as Annex "B" of the Affidavit. These were also attached to the 1991
Petition as Annex "F-1" (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141]. vol. 1, pp. 275-302). Supra notes 26 and
123.
48
Id. at 640-642. The photocopies of the Invoices were attached to the Affidavit as Annexes "E", "E-1," and "E-
2." The originals of the Invoices have been submitted as Exhibits "D-1" to "D-3" in Civil Case No. 0008 entitled
Republic v. Tantoco, which is pending with the Sandiganbayan.
49
Id. at 530.
50
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXIII, pp. 10-15.
51
Supra note 29.
52
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXIII, p. 10.
53
Id. at 19-20.
54
Id. at 21-22.
55
Id. at 23.
56
Supra note 29.
57
58
Id. at 25.
59
Id. at 11.
60
Id. at 12.
61
Supra note 24. The pertinent pati of the Resolution quoted by the Marcoses is as follows:
While it is true that the "Malacañang jewelry" is not subject of any of the causes of action in this
case, it would appear that it could adversely affect the projected Compromise Agreement, should it
actually be affirmed by this Court.
62
The pertinent part of the Order quoted by the Marcoses is as follows:
Insofar as the so-called "Malacanang Jewelry" is concerned, the Court is of the view that to this
date, the PCGG has not taken any action by which it might formalize a determination of the
ownership of the jewelries seized in Malacañang on or about February 25, 1986. Under the
circumstances, this Court would appear to have no jurisdiction to make a comment on these so-
called "Malacañang Jewelry."
63
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. I, pp. 76-77. The Prayer reads:
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:
1. Before hearing, a writ be issued commanding respondents to show cause why their
assets, more pariicularly the $356-million bank deposits in five (5) account groups already
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
identified in the SKA and SBC as mentioned in the two (2) Swiss Federal Tribunal's
decisions (Annexes "Q" and "Q-1" hereof) and the $25-million and $5-million in treasury
notes being frozen in the Central Bank per freeze order of the PCGG which are in excess or
the Marcos couple's salary and other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired
property, should not be forfeited in favor of the State;
2. After hearing, an order be issued declaring such property or assets in the names of the
foundations organized by the dummies and nominees of respondents for the purpose of
concealing those secret deposits in SKA, SBC and Bank Hotinan, all in Switzerland, or so
much thereof as they may have failed to show to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court as
lawfully acquired by them be declared forfeited in favor of the State.
Petitioner further prays for other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable under the
premises.
64
65
Id. at 13.
66
Id. at 26-31.
67
On the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Arelma account. A Comment/Opposition (To Motion for
Partial Summary .Judgment Re: Arelma, Inc.) with Motion to Dismiss (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No.
0141), Vol. XXIII, pp. 553-575) and a Comment/Opposition (Re Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment)
(Id. at 628-663) were filed by Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.; a Manifestation and Opposition (to Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment) with Motion to Cite Petitioner in Direct Contempt of Court was filed by Ma. Imelda 'Imee'
Marcos Manotoc (Id. at 576-584); a Motion to Expunge (Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
dated 12 June 2004) was filed by Irene Marcos Araneta (Id. at 607-609).
68
Id. at 664-681.
69
Id. at 111-166; penned by Associate Justice Norberto Y. Geraldez and concurred in by Associate Justices
Efren N. de la Cruz and Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos.
70
Id. at 26.
71
Id. at 27.
72
Id.
73
Id. at 29.
74
Id.
75
Id. at 30.
76
Id. at 56-57.
77
Id. at 56.
78
Id. at 59-72.
79
Id. at 60.
80
Id. at 61.
81
Id. at 61-62.
82
Id. at 66-71.
83
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. I, pp. 76-77. The Prayer reads:
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:
1. Before hearing, a writ be issued commanding respondents to show cause why their assets, more
particularly the $356-million bank deposits in five (5) account groups already identified in the SKA and
SBC as mentioned in the two (2) Swiss Federal Tribunal's decisions (Annexes "Q" and "Q-1" hereof) and
the $25-million and $5-million in treasury notes being frozen in the Central Bank per freeze order of the
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
PCGG which are in excess of the Marcos couple's salary and other lawful income and income from
legitimately acquired property, should not be forfeited in favor of the State;
2. After hearing, an order be issued declaring such property or assets in the names of the foundations
organized by the dummies and nominees of respondents for the purpose of concealing those secret
deposits in SKA, SBC and Bank Hofman, all in Switzerland, or so much thereof as they may have failed
to show to the satisfaction of this Honorable Court as lawfully acquired by them be declared forfeited in
favor of the State.
Petitioner further prays for other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable under the premises.
(emphasis supplied)
84
85
Id. at 68.
86
Id. at 69.
87
Id.
88
Id.
89
Id. at 94-100.
90
Id. at 95.
91
Id.
92
Supra note 61.
93
Supra note 62.
94
95
Id. at 98.
96
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXIV. pp. 385-394. An Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration
dated 27 August 2010 was filed by Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta (id. at 396-412) but this was
denied by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution dated 29 December 2010 (id. at 456-460).
97
Id. at 388.
98
Id. at 390.
99
Id. at 392.
100
Id. at 394.
101
The Marcoses' failure to file an answer to the request for admission within the period stated was specifically
pointed out by the Republic when it filed its Motion to Resolve dated 22 October 2012 (Sandiganbayan rollo
[Civil Case No. 0141], Vol. XXVI, pp. 126-146).
102
The Republic filed its Memorandum dated 23 October 2009 (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol.
XXIII, pp. 168-202) while the Marcoses filed their Memoranda dated 26 October 2009 (Id. at. 288-306).
103
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141). Vol. XXVI pp. 329-361.
104
Id. at 340.
105
Id. at 349.
106
Id. at 358.
107
Id. at 364-371.
108
Id. at 397-411.
109
Id. at 416-439.
110
Id. at 442-445.
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
111
Id. at 455-473.
112
Id. at 497-505.
113
Id. at 522-525.
114
Id. at 523.
115
Rollo (G.R. No. 213027), p. 3.
116
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), p. 5.
117
Rollo (G.R. No. 213027), pp. 8-12.
118
ld. at l3.
119
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), p. 215.
120
Id.
121
Supra notes 118 and 119.
122
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), pp. 59-60.
123
The annexed documents consist of a listing of racks, boxes and bags of items as follows:
Rack 1:
Boxes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Rack 2:
Boxes 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Rack 3:
Boxes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
Rack 4:
Boxes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
Rack 5:
Boxes 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, E-3 (three brown envelopes)
(Note: Bxs. 45 & 46 are placed in front of Rack 5)
Rack 6:
Boxes, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 47
SGV IV-2 - on top of Rack 6 (Maroon leather luggage)
Rack 7:
Boxes 48, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63
SGV IV-3 -- on top of Rack 7
SGV IV - 5 - on top of Rack 7
SGV IV-6 & SGV IV-17 – 5th layer of Rack 7
SGV IV-15 - in front of Rack 7
SGV IV-18- 1st layer of Rack 7
Coconut Palace - (3 boxes)
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
C-1 - (Biggest box) Front of Stand 1
C-2 - on top of stand 2
C-3 - on top of stand 2
BAGS:
#'s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42,43,53
These annexed documents in the 1991 Petition (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol.
1, pp. 275-302) also form part of Annex "C'' (supra note 26) of the Republic's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment dated 24 June 2009 (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol. XXII,
pp. 468-508) and Annex "B" (supra note 47) of the Affidavit of J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel in
the Supplement to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (id. at 539-567).
124
The annexed document is the cover page of the subsequent documents, Annexes "F-2," "F-2-A," and "F-3"
of the 1991 Petition. It is entitled "Appraisal of Customs Collection of Jewelry Examined by Christie's at the
Central Bank in Manila, Philippines during the week of March 7, 1988." (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No.
0141], Vol. I, p. 303) This same document is also Annex "D" (supra note 27) of the Republic's Motion dated 24
June 2009 (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol. XXll, p. 509).
125
The annexed document in the 1991 Petition (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol. 1, p. 304) is
also part of Annex "D" (supra note 27) of the Republic's motion dated 24 June 2009 (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil
Case No. 0141], Vol. XXII, p. 510). It contains the Jewelry Appraisal of Christie Manson and Woods
International Inc. as of April 1991 as follows:
Collection Low High Estimate

Estimate
Roumeliotes/Customs $4,767,100 $6,400,160
Collection
Malacañang Collection 110,055 153,089
PCGG Collection 436,420 559,630
Total $5,313,575 $7,112,879
126
The annexed document in the 1991 Petition (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil Case No. 0141], Vol. I, p. 305) is
also part of Annex "D" (supra note 27) of the Republic's Motion dated 24 June 2009 (Sandiganbayan rollo [Civil
Case No. 0141 ], vol. XXII, p. 511 ). It contains the Sotheby's Summary as follows:
LOWER FIGURES
Silver ................................................................................................... 3,837,730.00
Jewellery .............................................................................................. 4,194,920.00
European Ceramics.................................................................................... 194,000.00
Chinese Ceramics.................................................................................... 291,103.00
Icons................................................................................................... 58,390.00
Pictures ................................................................................................ 8,377,650.00
GRAND TOTAL US$ 16,952,793.00
HIGHER FIGURES
Silver ................................................................................................... 5,085,970.00
Jewellery ............................................................................................. 5, 736,600.00
European Ceramics ............................................................................. 280,700.00
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
Chinese Ceramics................................................................................. 423, 136.00
Icons....................................................................................................... 85,520.00
Pictures ............................................................................................. 12,297,600.00
GRAND TOTAL US$ 23,909,526.00

127
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141). Vol. l, pp. 9 and 11.
128
Rules of Court, Section I, Rule 8.
129
Goodyear v. Sy, 511 Phil. 41 (2005).
130
Supra note 13.
131
Supra note 123.
132
Supra note 124.
133
Supra note 125.
134
Supra note 126.
135
Supra note 128.
136
Supra note 14.
137
Id.
138
Supra note 17.
139
Section 2. Filing of petition. ---- Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his
incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or
employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall
be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. x x x
140
Concrete Aggregates Corp. v. CA, 334 Phil. 77 (1997), Diman v. Alumbres, 359 Phil. 796 (1998), and Allied
Agri-Business v. CA, 360 Phil. 64 (1998).
141
Section 2. Implied admission. Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after
service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission of a sworn statement either denying
specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within the
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and
his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be
made as early as practicable.
142
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXVI, p. 359.
143
Id. at 356.
144
Id.
145
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXIV, p. 392.
146
Id. at 393.
147
Id. at 394.
148
Id.
149
Section 2. Implied admission. - Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after
service thereof: or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is
directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically
1/29/2021 G.R. No. 213027
the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully
either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party requested within the
period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and
his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved, which resolution shall be
made as early as practicable.
150
Sandiganbayan rollo (Civil Case No. 0141), Vol. XXIV, pp. 394.
151
334 Phil. 77 (1997).
152
359 Phil. 796 (1998).
153
360 Phil. 64 (1998).
154
Supra note 151, at 82.
155
Supra note 152, at 813-815.
156
Supra note 153, at 73.
157
Rollo (G.R. No. 213253), p. 70.
158
Id. at 70.
159
Id. at 70-71.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos vs. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/29/2021 G.R. No.

Today is Friday, January 29, 2021

January 18, 2017

G.R. No. 213027

ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners,

THE ANTECEDENT FACTS

This collection is itemized in ANNEX "C''26 hereof.

We find no reversible error in the ruling of the Sandiganbayan.

clearly and concisely stated. 128

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice, Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

BIENVENIDO L. REYES* ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

(1) Holding companies, agro-industrial ventures and other investments identified by

The Motion was thereafter granted in favor of the movants as follows:

SO ORDERED. (id. at 196-197)

Bag No. Inventory as Item No. Inventory as Item No.

IV-4 139 477-615 3 480, 491, 613

IV-5 60 347-406 20 349, 351-356, 361, 364, 370, 373,

380, 384, 386, 390, 398, 405

IV-6 34 43-76 6 43,49,50,57,72, 73

IV-11 28 501-528 6 508,511,513,514,516,528

IV-13 30 529-558 13 532-533,538,539,541,54

IV-14 18 25-42 16 (#34 &38 25-42

IV-15 38 407-444 3 424, 437, 440

IV-18 87 79-165 7 82-83, 86-89, 95

IV-61 32 445-467 15 445-447, 451-452, 455, 462, 464-

Total 669* 172**

Low Estimates $105,055.00

High Estimates $144,089.00

Presidential Commission on Good Government

Attention: HON. CAMILO L. SABIO

We write in behalf of our client, FORMER FIRST LADY IMELDA ROMULADEZ-MARCOS

(hereinafter "Mrs. Marcos"). in connection with the captioned matter.

Very truly yours,

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:

Boxes 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Boxes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

(Note: Bxs. 45 & 46 are placed in front of Rack 5)

SGV IV-2 - on top of Rack 6 (Maroon leather luggage)

Boxes 48, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63

SGV IV-3 -- on top of Rack 7

SGV IV - 5 - on top of Rack 7

SGV IV-6 & SGV IV-17 – 5th layer of Rack 7

SGV IV-15 - in front of Rack 7

SGV IV-18- 1st layer of Rack 7

Coconut Palace - (3 boxes)

C-2 - on top of stand 2

C-3 - on top of stand 2

#'s: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

Collection Low High Estimate

Silver ................................................................................................... 3,837,730.00

Jewellery .............................................................................................. 4,194,920.00

European Ceramics.................................................................................... 194,000.00

Chinese Ceramics.................................................................................... 291,103.00

Pictures ................................................................................................ 8,377,650.00