Title
Republic vs. Tuvera
Case
G.R. No. 148246
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2007
Twin Peaks secured a timber license under Marcos' administration, later deemed illegal due to lack of public bidding and abuse of power. The Supreme Court reversed dismissal, awarding damages but denying restitution due to insufficient evidence of actual loss.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 148246)

Facts:

Corporate Formation and Timber License Agreement:
Twin Peaks Development Corporation (Twin Peaks) was incorporated on March 5, 1984, with Victor P. Tuvera, son of Juan C. Tuvera (Presidential Executive Assistant to President Ferdinand Marcos), owning 48% of its shares. On May 31, 1984, Twin Peaks Vice President Evelyn Fontanilla wrote to President Marcos requesting a Timber License Agreement (TLA) for logging operations. President Marcos approved the request, granting Twin Peaks TLA No. 356, covering 26,000 hectares of forest land with an annual allowable cut of 60,000 cubic meters of timber and the right to export 10,000 cubic meters of mahogany.

Sequestration and Complaint:
After President Marcos was ousted in 1986, President Corazon Aquino established the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to recover ill-gotten wealth. On June 13, 1988, the PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration against Twin Peaks, alleging its assets were ill-gotten. On December 9, 1988, the Republic filed a complaint against Juan C. Tuvera, Victor P. Tuvera, and Twin Peaks, seeking restitution of P48 million, cancellation of TLA No. 356, and damages.

Defenses and Proceedings:
Respondents denied the allegations, claiming Twin Peaks legally amended its articles of incorporation to engage in logging and that the PCGG lacked authority to file the case. The Sandiganbayan granted respondents' demurrer to evidence, dismissing the case based on res judicata, citing a prior case, Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, which upheld TLA No. 356's validity.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly granted the demurrer to evidence based on res judicata.
  2. Whether the Republic presented sufficient evidence to prove the illegality of TLA No. 356 and the respondents' liability for unjust enrichment.
  3. Whether the Republic is entitled to restitution, actual damages, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.