Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375 (2011) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Charmaine Maghirang
    Respondent Mrs. Marcos and others filed an answer to a petition for forfeiture brought by the Republic regarding $356 million deposited in escrow in PNB. In paragraph 22 of their answer, respondents denied that they "clandestinely stashed the country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired." The Court held that this denial was a "negative pregnant," which carries an implication or admission favorable to the opposing party. Specifically, it admitted the substantial facts regarding the existence of the Swiss bank deposits, even if denying how they were acquired. Therefore, the allegations in the petition regarding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375 (2011) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Charmaine Maghirang
    32 views2 pages
    Respondent Mrs. Marcos and others filed an answer to a petition for forfeiture brought by the Republic regarding $356 million deposited in escrow in PNB. In paragraph 22 of their answer, respondents denied that they "clandestinely stashed the country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired." The Court held that this denial was a "negative pregnant," which carries an implication or admission favorable to the opposing party. Specifically, it admitted the substantial facts regarding the existence of the Swiss bank deposits, even if denying how they were acquired. Therefore, the allegations in the petition regarding

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    243

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent Mrs. Marcos and others filed an answer to a petition for forfeiture brought by the Republic regarding $356 million deposited in escrow in PNB. In paragraph 22 of their answer, respondents denied that they "clandestinely stashed the country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired." The Court held that this denial was a "negative pregnant," which carries an implication or admission favorable to the opposing party. Specifically, it admitted the substantial facts regarding the existence of the Swiss bank deposits, even if denying how they were acquired. Therefore, the allegations in the petition regarding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152375 (2011) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Charmaine Maghirang
    Respondent Mrs. Marcos and others filed an answer to a petition for forfeiture brought by the Republic regarding $356 million deposited in escrow in PNB. In paragraph 22 of their answer, respondents denied that they "clandestinely stashed the country's wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired." The Court held that this denial was a "negative pregnant," which carries an implication or admission favorable to the opposing party. Specifically, it admitted the substantial facts regarding the existence of the Swiss bank deposits, even if denying how they were acquired. Therefore, the allegations in the petition regarding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

    152375 (2011)

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),


    represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture
    before the Sandiganbayan, entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos,
    represented by his Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. Marcos.

    In said case, petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million
    deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. Petitioner filed a motion for summary
    judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed her opposition
    thereto which was later adopted by respondents Mrs. Manotoc, Mrs. Araneta and
    Ferdinand, Jr.

    In their Answer, particularly, in paragraph 22, they stated that:

    22. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 23 insofar as it alleges that Respondents


    clandestinely stashed the country’s wealth in Switzerland and hid the same under layers
    and layers of foundations and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that
    Respondents’ aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired.

    ISSUE: Whether or not paragraph 22 of the Answer constitutes negative pregnant

    HELD:

    Evidently, this particular denial had the earmark of what is called in the law on pleadings
    as a negative pregnant, that is, a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial
    facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an
    admission of the averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a
    form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication
    of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of
    the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or
    modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally
    denied, has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact
    itself is admitted.

    In the instant case, the material allegations in paragraph 23 of the said petition were not
    specifically denied by respondents in paragraph 22 of their answer. The denial contained
    in paragraph 22 of the answer was focused on the averment in paragraph 23 of the
    petition for forfeiture that Respondents clandestinely stashed the country’s wealth in
    Switzerland and hid the same under layers and layers of foundations and corporate
    entities.

    Therefore, the allegations in the petition for forfeiture on the existence of the Swiss bank
    deposits in the sum of about US$356 million, not having been specifically denied by
    respondents in their answer, were deemed admitted by them pursuant to Section 11, Rule
    8 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.

    You might also like