G.R. No. 213027 - Estate of Marcos vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213027)

Specific object of the partial summary proceeding

The Republic moved for Partial Summary Judgment on 24 June 2009 to declare as ill-gotten, and therefore forfeited to the State, the pieces of jewelry known as the Malacañang Collection (identified in paragraph 9(6) of the 1991 petition and itemized in annexes). The Republic categorized three jewelry collections (Hawaii, Roumeliotes/MIA, and Malacañang) and limited the subject of the 2009 motion to the Malacañang Collection. Appraisals by Christie’s (and information from Sotheby’s) provided estimated values for the collections and for the Malacañang Collection specifically.

Evidentiary submissions relied upon by the Republic

The Republic relied on: (1) the 1991 petition and its annexes that itemized the Malacañang jewelry; (2) appraisals by Christie’s and Sotheby’s documenting inventories and estimated values; (3) Imelda Marcos’s 25 May 2009 letter (through counsel) demanding return of her jewelry, which the Republic treated as an admission of ownership; (4) the declared lawful income of the Marcoses during incumbency (judicially noted at USD 304,372.43); and (5) a Request for Admission served on 3 July 2009 seeking admissions concerning acquisition dates, places of purchase, valuation correspondence to Christie’s appraisals, and condition of the jewelry when recovered.

Procedural responses by petitioners and preliminary rulings below

Petitioners filed various pleadings: Manifestation and Preliminary Comments, Motions to Expunge, Motions for Reconsideration, and multiple memoranda. They argued (inter alia) that the Malacañang Collection was not properly subject of Civil Case No. 0141 because it was only “trivially mentioned,” not specifically prayed for, and the Sandiganbayan had earlier characterized the Malacañang jewelry as not then the subject of a cause of action. The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners’ motions to expunge and required them to answer the Request for Admission. The petitioners failed to timely file the sworn answers required by Rule 26, Section 2. After full briefing, the Sandiganbayan issued a Partial Summary Judgment on 13 January 2014 declaring the Malacañang Collection ill-gotten and forfeited; motions for reconsideration were denied on 11 June 2014.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

The consolidated petitions raised five principal issues: (1) jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the properties; (2) whether the Malacañang Collection could properly be the subject of the forfeiture case; (3) whether forfeiture was justified under R.A. 1379; (4) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the Republic’s Request for Admission was not inconsistent with its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and (5) whether the forfeiture violated petitioners’ right to due process.

Jurisdiction and sufficiency of the 1991 petition

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Sandiganbayan properly acquired jurisdiction. The 1991 petition, read together with its annexes (F-1, F-2, F-2-a, F-3 and their equivalents), sufficiently alleged that the Malacañang jewelry formed part of the assets sought to be recovered. Under Rule 8, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and the test articulated in Goodyear v. Sy (i.e., whether, assuming the truth of the allegations, the court can render a judgment in accordance with the prayer), the petition’s annexes and material allegations were adequate to place the Malacañang Collection within the case. The Court held that the 1991 petition fulfilled Section 3(d) of R.A. 1379 concerning the filing requirements for a forfeiture petition.

Application of R.A. 1379 and the prima facie presumption of unlawful acquisition

The Court applied Section 2 of R.A. 1379: when a public officer acquires property manifestly out of proportion to lawful income, that property is prima facie presumed unlawfully acquired. The Sandiganbayan had judicially noted the Marcoses’ lawful income during incumbency (USD 304,372.43). Petitioners failed to satisfactorily prove lawful acquisition of the Malacañang jewelry; consequently, the statutory prima facie presumption stood and supported the forfeiture finding. The Court relied on its prior pronouncements in the Swiss deposits and Arelma cases to support the application of the statutory presumption in these circumstances.

Effect of the petitioners’ pleadings and Imelda Marcos’s letter on admissions

The Court treated the petitioners’ general denials in the Answer to the 1991 petition as non-specific and akin to the stock denials previously characterized as a “negative pregnant” in the Swiss deposits case—i.e., insufficient to rebut the presumption or to constitute specific denials of the itemized allegations. Further, Imelda Marcos’s 25 May 2009 letter demanding return of the jewelry was considered by the Sandiganbayan (and sustained by the Supreme Court) as corroborative of ownership and therefore relevant to the Republic’s case. The petitioners’ failure to make specific factual showings or to identify lawful sources sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption weighed against them.

Request for Admission, discovery, summary judgment interaction, and legal consequences of non-response

The Court endorsed the Sandiganbayan’s determination that the Republic’s Request for Admission was not inconsistent with its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and could complement it. Rule 26, Section 2 provides that matters in a properly served request for admission are deemed admitted if the party served does not file and ser

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213027)

Case Caption, Case Numbers, and Court Division

Reported at 803 Phil. 524, First Division, G.R. No. 213027 and G.R. No. 213253, decided January 18, 2017.
Petitioners include the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos; Imelda Romualdez Marcos; and Irene Marcos Araneta.
Respondent is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The proceedings below were before the Sandiganbayan, Special Division, in Civil Case No. 0141.
The assailed rulings are the Sandiganbayan Partial Summary Judgment dated 13 January 2014 and Resolution dated 11 June 2014, declaring the MalacaAang Collection ill-gotten and forfeited to the Republic.

Nature of the Action and Statutory Basis

The underlying action is a civil forfeiture case filed pursuant to Republic Act No. 1379 (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).
The 1991 Petition, dated 17 December 1991, was filed by the Republic through the PCGG and OSG to recover assets and properties pertaining to the Marcoses alleged to have been acquired through improper or illegal use of government funds or property.
The 1991 Petition specifically listed and clustered properties into 18 categories; certain properties subject to other pending forfeiture cases were excluded from that petition.

Properties at Issue and Collections Identified

The Republic categorized recovered jewelry into three distinct collections for purposes of the forfeiture proceedings:
- The Hawaii Collection (also described as the Honolulu/PCGG Collection), seized by the U.S. Customs Service and ruled by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (Decision dated 18 December 1992) to be in the possession and control of the Republic.
- The Roumeliotes Collection (referred to as "MIA Jewelry"), seized from Roumeliotes at Manila International Airport on 1 March 1986; these were not covered by the instant forfeiture proceeding.
- The MalacaAang Collection, seized from MalacaAang after 25 February 1986 and transferred to the Central Bank on 1 March 1986; this collection is the object of the Republic's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Valuations presented in the Republic's motion (based on Christie’s 1991/1998 appraisals and Sotheby’s/Christie’s inventories and appraisals) estimated the combined Roumeliotes, MalacaAang and Hawaii collections between US$5,313,575 (low estimate) and US$7,112,879 (high estimate) at the time of filing the 1991 Petition.
Specifically, the MalacaAang Collection’s value was estimated at US$110,055 (low estimate) to US$153,089 (high estimate) in the cited appraisals.
The MalacaAang Collection’s inventory and appraisals were contained in Annexes “F-1,” “F-2,” “F-2-a,” and “F-3” to the 1991 Petition and further exhibited as Annex “C” to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; the collections were separately itemized in various annexes and inventories (including Sotheby’s and Christie’s itemizations and bag/box/rack listings).

Antecedent Facts and Prior Related Decisions

Some properties listed in the 1991 Petition had previously been adjudged ill-gotten and forfeited in separate cases:
- Republic v. Sandiganbayan (the Swiss deposits case), where this Court en banc in 2003 decreed that deposits in various Swiss banks (referenced under paragraph 9(18) of the 1991 Petition) were ill-gotten and forfeited to the State.
- Marcos v. Republic (the Arelma case), where this Court’s Second Division in 2012 declared the funds, properties, and interests of Arelma to be ill-gotten wealth forfeited in favor of the State.
The Sandiganbayan had earlier taken judicial notice of the U.S. Hawaii District Court ruling of 18 December 1992 recognizing the Republic’s entitlement to possession and control of property seized in Honolulu.
In an earlier Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 25 October 1996, the tribunal remarked that the MalacaAang jewelry “is not subject of any causes of action in this case” but observed that the MalacaAang jewelry “could be presumed to belong to the ‘Marcoses’” unless contrary claimants appeared; that Resolution also temporarily restrained the Republic from selling the MalacaAang jewelry and directed the Republic to submit an inventory.

Procedural History in Civil Case No. 0141

The Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated 24 June 2009 seeking a judicial declaration that the MalacaAang Collection (identified under paragraph 9(6) of the 1991 Petition) is ill-gotten and forfeited to the Republic.
The Republic filed a Request for Admission on 3 July 2009 directed at the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, and Irene Marcos Araneta, seeking admissions as to acquisition period, origin, appraised values corresponding to Christie’s appraisals, and condition of the MalacaAang Collection at recovery.
The Republic filed a Supplement to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated 14 July 2009 and submitted the affidavit of J. Ermin Ernest Louie R. Miguel, PCGG legal department director and custodian of official records; the Supplement sought to prove appraisals for the Honolulu/PCGG, Roumeliotes, and MalacaAang collections and included invoices transmitted by Gemsland to Imelda Marcos via Mrs. Gliceria Tantoco.
The Sandiganbayan directed the Marcos respondents to file a sworn answer to the Request for Admission within 15 days following denial of their preliminary objections; the respondents failed to file the required sworn answers within the period prescribed.

Petitioners’ Pleadings, Objections, and Motions

Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta filed Manifestation and Preliminary Comments (21 July 2009) acknowledging Imelda Marcos’s 25 May 2009 letter demanding return of jewelry and asserting that PCGG unlawfully possessed the properties for failure to initiate appropriate proceedings or issue sequestration/freeze orders.
They also referenced a 28 May 2009 letter from Imelda Marcos to DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez and a 4 June 2009 DOJ letter to PCGG Chair Camilo M. Sabio ordering return of the jewelry if no legal impediment existed; PCGG referred the matter to the OSG which replied that the jewelry was the subject of an action for forfeiture pending before the Sandiganbayan.
Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta filed a Manifestation and Motion to Expunge (25 July 2009) adopting arguments from earlier filings and contending the Request for Admission undermined the Republic’s earlier posture that the case was ripe for summary judgment; they argued Respondent’s Request for Admission created a genuine issue of material fact and that the request was filed late, postdating the 2000 Motion for Summary Judgment and the purported termination of the case in 2004; they asked that pleadings filed after 2004 be expunged and requested time to answer the Request for Admission and permission for ocular inspection of the jewelry.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. filed a Manifestation adopting the Manifestation and Motion to Expunge filed by Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos Araneta.
A Rejoinder (7 September 2009) by the Marcoses reiterated that the jewelry was only “trivially mentioned” in the statement of facts of the 1991 Petition, not specifically prayed for, and the Sandiganbayan had previously ruled the MalacaAang jewelry was not the subject of the case in earlier Resolution and Order.

Republic’s Response and Arguments in Support of Summary Judgment

The Republic argued Imelda Marcos’s 25 May 2009 letter demonstra