G.R. No.

213027

ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner

x-----------------------x

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners,

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:

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 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 for Admission;98 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.

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 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.

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

WE CONCUR:

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

BIENVENIDO L. REYES* ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

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