G.R. No. 152578 - Republic vs. Estate of Hans Menzi

In the aftermath of the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) No. 1, which created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover all ill‐gotten wealth amassed by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates.
Subsequent EOs (Nos. 2 and 14) froze all assets and properties linked to Marcos and defined the jurisdiction over cases involving such wealth.
Acting under these orders, the PCGG issued writs of sequestration to freeze the purportedly vast Marcos fortune, including shares and interests in various corporations.

The litigation centers around Bulletin Publishing Corporation shares, divided into three blocks:

In 1957, Hans Menzi purchased Bulletin from its founder, Carson Taylor.
In 1961, Emilio T. Yap acquired shares in Bulletin.
In 1968, a stock option was executed between Menzi and Yap, granting each party preferential rights concerning Bulletin shares.
After negotiations and prior to Menzi’s death, a promissory note was executed as consideration for the sale of the 154 block to US Automotive Co., Inc.
Following Menzi’s death and the probate proceedings initiated by his executor Atty. Manuel G. Montecillo, the sale was confirmed by the probate court (Order dated February 1, 1985) and payment was received on May 15, 1985.

Shares registered in the names of Jose Y. Campos, Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., and Cesar C. Zalamea were transferred on August 17, 1983 to Hans Menzi Holdings and Management, Inc. (HMHMI).
These shares were subsequently sold to Bulletin Publishing Corporation on February 21, 1986.

This group of shares, also registered in the names of Campos, Cojuangco, and Zalamea, was the subject of a prior Supreme Court resolution (the Teehankee Resolution dated April 15, 1988) and later disputed in consolidated petitions.

The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the PCGG, instituted a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages (Civil Case No. 0022) alleging that defendants—including Yap, Cojuangco, Zalamea, the Marcoses, and the Estate of Menzi—were involved in schemes using dummies or nominees to conceal the true ownership of Bulletin shares.
The evidence on record included:

Multiple writs of sequestration (dated April 22, 1986 and February 12, 1987) seizing shares and related assets.
Documentary evidence such as stock certificates, canceled checks, promissory notes, receipts, probate court orders, corporate vouchers, and BIR certifications.
Affidavits and depositions (including those of Quimson, Campos, and others) alleging that individuals (Campos, Cojuangco, Zalamea) acted as nominees or dummies for the Marcoses.

Concurrent consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 152578, 154487, and 154518) questioned different aspects of the Sandiganbayan’s Decision regarding the validity of the transactions and the classification of the shares as ill‐gotten wealth.

The Republic argued that the transactions, especially the sale of the 154 block, were a sham intended to conceal the Marcoses’ control over Bulletin shares, thereby qualifying the shares as ill-gotten wealth.
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. contended that the shares registered in his name were acquired and held as a nominee of Menzi—not as a dummy for Marcos—and denied any proprietary interest in the shares.
The Estate of Hans Menzi and HMHMI maintained that all necessary legal requirements for the valid transfer of shares (delivery of duly indorsed stock certificates, proper registration in the corporate books, and, where applicable, judicial confirmation) had been met, thus rendering the transactions valid and legal.
Additionally, disputes arose over:

Whether Atty. Montecillo, as Menzi’s executor with a General Power of Attorney and under probate court approval, was empowered to effectuate the sale after Menzi’s death.
The sufficiency and credibility of evidence—particularly affidavits—establishing that the shares held by Campos, Cojuangco, and Zalamea were in reality controlled by the Marcoses.

Whether the sale of 154,472 Bulletin Publishing Corporation shares from the late Hans Menzi (or his estate) to US Automotive Co., Inc. was valid and legal in light of allegations that it was used to conceal the true ownership by employing dummies or nominees.

Whether the shares (including the 198 block and the 214 block) registered in the names of Campos, Cojuangco, and Zalamea, and subsequently transferred and sold, qualify as ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos spouses due to their being held by nominees/dummies.
Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to impute that these shares were acquired indirectly by Marcos through intermediaries.

Whether Atty. Montecillo, acting as the executor and special administrator with authority derived from the General Power of Attorney and probate court orders, was properly empowered to negotiate, confirm, and execute the sale of the 154 block both before and after Menzi’s death.

Whether the evidence, including affidavits and documentary records, is adequate to support the claim that defendants such as Cojuangco acted merely as nominees of Menzi rather than as dummies for Marcos.
Whether the Republic’s reliance on certain pieces of evidence (e.g., Quimson’s affidavit) is duly corroborated or, conversely, is insufficient to overcome the defendants’ arguments.

Whether the Republic is entitled to actual, moral, temperate, nominal, and exemplary damages based on the alleged misappropriation or concealment of the ill-gotten wealth, in light of the evidence presented.