Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E.
MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R.
MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC,
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA)
AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Baldomero S.P. Gatbonton, Jr. and Michelle B. Lazaro for F.R. Marcos, Jr.
Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manalastas for Imelda R. Marcos.
Robert A.C. Sison for Irene R. Marcos-Araneta.
Sales De Leon Tecoon & Desiderio for F.R. Marcos, Jr. and Imelda
(Imee) Marcos-Manotoc.
DECISION
CORONA, J : p
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

seeking to (1) set aside the Resolution dated January 31, 2002 issued by the
Special First Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141 entitled
Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et. al., and (2) reinstate
its earlier decision dated September 19, 2000 which forfeited in favor of
petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) the amount held in escrow in
the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the aggregate amount of
US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002. CDHacE
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

On December 17, 1991, 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, docketed as Civil Case No. 0141 entitled Republic of the
Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, represented by his Estate/Heirs and
Imelda R. Marcos , pursuant to RA 1379 1 in relation to Executive Order Nos.
1, 2 2, 3 14 4 and 14-A. 5
In said case, petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount
of US$356 million (now estimated to be more than US$658 million inclusive
of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funds
were previously held by the following five account groups, using various
foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
(1) Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts;
(2) Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-Valamo-Spinus-Avertina

Foundation accounts;
(3) Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy Foundation accounts;
(4) Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation accounts and

(5) Maler Foundation accounts.
In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and
US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couple's salaries,
other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property.
The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines, now
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by virtue of the freeze order issued by the
PCGG.
On October 18, 1993, respondents Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda M.
Manotoc, Irene M. Araneta and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. filed their answer.
Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement and the
Supplemental Agreements 6 dated December 28, 1993 were executed by the
Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a
global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family. Subsequently,
respondent Marcos children filed a motion dated December 7, 1995 for the
approval of said agreements and for the enforcement thereof.
The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements sought to identify,
collate, cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be
owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein. The
aforementioned General Agreement specified in one of its premises or
"whereas clauses" the fact that petitioner "obtained a judgment from the
Swiss Federal Tribunal on December 21, 1990, that the Three Hundred Fifty-
six Million U.S. dollars (US$356 million) belongs in principle to the Republic of
the Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met . . . ." The said
decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Zurich
District Attorney Peter Consandey, granting petitioner's request for legal
assistance. 7 Consandey declared the various deposits in the name of the
enumerated foundations to be of illegal provenance and ordered that they
be frozen to await the final verdict in favor of the parties entitled to
restitution.
Hearings were conducted by the Sandiganbayan on the motion to
approve the General/Supplemental Agreements. Respondent Ferdinand, Jr.
was presented as witness for the purpose of establishing the partial
implementation of said agreements.
On October 18, 1996, 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 its resolution dated November 20, 1997, the Sandiganbayan denied
petitioner's motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings
on the ground that the motion to approve the compromise agreement "
(took) precedence over the motion for summary judgment."
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a manifestation on May 26, 1998
claiming she was not a party to the motion for approval of the Compromise
Agreement and that she owned 90% of the funds with the remaining 10%
belonging to the Marcos estate.
Meanwhile, on August 10, 1995, petitioner filed with the District
Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland, an additional request for the immediate
transfer of the deposits to an escrow account in the PNB. The request was
granted. On appeal by the Marcoses, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in a
decision dated December 10, 1997, upheld the ruling of the District Attorney
of Zurich granting the request for the transfer of the funds. In 1998, the
funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow. Subsequently, respondent
Marcos children moved that the funds be placed in custodia legis because
the deposit in escrow in the PNB was allegedly in danger of dissipation by
petitioner. The Sandiganbayan, in its resolution dated September 8, 1998,
granted the motion.
After the pre-trial and the issuance of the pre-trial order and
supplemental pre-trial order dated October 28, 1999 and January 21, 2000,
respectively, the case was set for trial. After several resettings, petitioner, on
March 10, 2000, filed another motion for summary judgment pertaining to
the forfeiture of the US$356 million, based on the following grounds:
I
THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WHICH WARRANT THE FORFEITURE OF THE
FUNDS SUBJECT OF THE PETITION UNDER R.A. NO. 1379 ARE
ADMITTED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR PLEADINGS AND OTHER
SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING.
II
RESPONDENTS' ADMISSION MADE DURING THE PRE-TRIAL THAT THEY
DO NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST OR OWNERSHIP OVER THE FUNDS
SUBJECT OF THE ACTION FOR FORFEITURE TENDERS NO GENUINE
ISSUE OR CONTROVERSY AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT IN THE PRESENT
ACTION, THUS WARRANTING THE RENDITION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
8
Petitioner contended that, after the pre-trial conference, certain facts

were established, warranting a summary judgment on the funds sought to
be forfeited.
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed her opposition to the petitioner's motion
for summary judgment, which opposition was later adopted by her co-
respondents Mrs. Manotoc, Mrs. Araneta and Ferdinand, Jr.
On March 24, 2000, a hearing on the motion for summary judgment
was conducted.
In a decision 9 dated September 19, 2000, the Sandiganbayan granted
petitioner's motion for summary judgment:
CONCLUSION
There is no issue of fact which calls for the presentation of
evidence.
The Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted.

The Swiss deposits which were transmitted to and now held in
escrow at the PNB are deemed unlawfully acquired as ill-gotten wealth.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

Republic of the Philippines and against the respondents, declaring the
Swiss deposits which were transferred to and now deposited in escrow
at the Philippine National Bank in the total aggregate value equivalent
to US$627,608,544.95 as of August 31, 2000 together with the
increments thereof forfeited in favor of the State. 10
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a motion for reconsideration dated

September 26, 2000. Likewise, Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr. filed their
own motion for reconsideration dated October 5, 2000. Mrs. Araneta filed a
manifestation dated October 4, 2000 adopting the motion for
reconsideration of Mrs. Marcos, Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr.
Subsequently, petitioner filed its opposition thereto.
In a resolution 11 dated January 31, 2002, the Sandiganbayan reversed
its September 19, 2000 decision, thus denying petitioner's motion for
summary judgment:
CONCLUSION
In sum, the evidence offered for summary judgment of the case
did not prove that the money in the Swiss Banks belonged to the
Marcos spouses because no legal proof exists in the record as to the
ownership by the Marcoses of the funds in escrow from the Swiss
Banks.
The basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot be
deemed to have been established and our judgment thereon, perforce,
must also have been without basis.
WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court dated September 19,

2000 is reconsidered and set aside, and this case is now being set for
further proceedings. 12
Hence, the instant petition. In filing the same, petitioner argues that
the Sandiganbayan, in reversing its September 19, 2000 decision,
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction considering that —
I
PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO PROVE ITS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUISITES OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF R.A. NO. 1379:
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED NOT
ONLY THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS AND IMELDA R. MARCOS AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS BUT
ALSO THE EXTENT OF THEIR SALARIES AS SUCH PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, WHO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WERE PROHIBITED
FROM ENGAGING IN THE MANAGEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS.
B. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALSO ADMITTED THE EXISTENCE
OF THE SWISS DEPOSITS AND THEIR OWNERSHIP THEREOF:
1. ADMISSIONS IN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER;

2. ADMISSION IN THE GENERAL/SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS
THEY SIGNED AND SOUGHT TO IMPLEMENT;
3. ADMISSION IN A MANIFESTATION OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT IMELDA R. MARCOS AND IN THE MOTION TO
PLACE THE RES IN CUSTODIA LEGIS; AND
4. ADMISSION IN THE UNDERTAKING TO PAY THE HUMAN

RIGHTS VICTIMS.
C. PETITIONER HAS PROVED THE EXTENT OF THE LEGITIMATE
INCOME OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS AND IMELDA R. MARCOS AS
PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
D. PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE

PRESUMPTION OF UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED WEALTH.
II
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER SINCE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE
NOT RAISED ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT CONSIDERING THAT:
A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' DEFENSE THAT SWISS DEPOSITS

WERE LAWFULLY ACQUIRED DOES NOT ONLY FAIL TO TENDER AN
ISSUE BUT IS CLEARLY A SHAM; AND
B. IN SUBSEQUENTLY DISCLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THE
SWISS DEPOSITS, PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ABANDONED THEIR
SHAM DEFENSE OF LEGITIMATE ACQUISITION, AND THIS
FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE RENDITION OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
III
THE FOREIGN FOUNDATIONS NEED NOT BE IMPLEADED.
IV
THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN REVERSING HIMSELF ON THE GROUND THAT ORIGINAL
COPIES OF THE AUTHENTICATED SWISS DECISIONS AND THEIR
"AUTHENTICATED TRANSLATIONS" HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT, WHEN EARLIER THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS QUOTED
EXTENSIVELY A PORTION OF THE TRANSLATION OF ONE OF THESE
SWISS DECISIONS IN HIS "PONENCIA" DATED JULY 29, 1999 WHEN IT
DENIED THE MOTION TO RELEASE ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION US
DOLLARS ($150,000,000.00) TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS.
V
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR

OBJECTION TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SWISS FEDERAL SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS. 13
Petitioner, in the main, asserts that nowhere in the respondents’

motions for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration
were the authenticity, accuracy and admissibility of the Swiss decisions ever
challenged. Otherwise stated, it was incorrect for the Sandiganbayan to use
the issue of lack of authenticated translations of the decisions of the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court as the basis for reversing itself because respondents
themselves never raised this issue in their motions for reconsideration and
supplemental motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, this particular issue
relating to the translation of the Swiss court decisions could not be
resurrected anymore because said decisions had been previously utilized by
the Sandiganbayan itself in resolving a "decisive issue" before it.
Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan for questioning the non-production
of the authenticated translations of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court
decisions as this was a marginal and technical matter that did not diminish
by any measure the conclusiveness and strength of what had been proven
and admitted before the Sandiganbayan, that is, that the funds deposited by
the Marcoses constituted ill-gotten wealth and thus belonged to the Filipino
people.
In compliance with the order of this Court, Mrs. Marcos filed her
comment to the petition on May 22, 2002. After several motions for
extension which were all granted, the comment of Mrs. Manotoc and
Ferdinand, Jr. and the separate comment of Mrs. Araneta were filed on May
27, 2002.
Mrs. Marcos asserts that the petition should be denied on the following
grounds:
A.
PETITIONER HAS A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT THE

SANDIGANBAYAN.
B.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN SETTING THE
CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 14
Mrs. Marcos contends that petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law in view of the resolution of the
Sandiganbayan dated January 31, 2000 directing petitioner to submit the
authenticated translations of the Swiss decisions. Instead of availing of said
remedy, petitioner now elevates the matter to this Court. According to Mrs.
Marcos, a petition for certiorari which does not comply with the requirements
of the rules may be dismissed. Since petitioner has a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy, that is, to proceed to trial and submit authenticated
translations of the Swiss decisions, its petition before this Court must be
dismissed. Corollarily, the Sandiganbayan's ruling to set the case for further
proceedings cannot and should not be considered a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment.
Likewise, Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr., in their comment, prayed for
the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that:
(A)
BY THE TIME PETITIONER FILED ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ON 10 MARCH 2000, IT WAS ALREADY BARRED FROM DOING SO.
(1) The Motion for Summary Judgment was based on private
respondents’ Answer and other documents that had long been in
the records of the case. Thus, by the time the Motion was filed on
10 March 2000, estoppel by laches had already set in against
petitioner.
(2) By its positive acts and express admissions prior to filing

the Motion for Summary Judgment on 10 March 1990, petitioner
had legally bound itself to go to trial on the basis of existing
issues. Thus, it clearly waived whatever right it had to move for
summary judgment.
(B)
EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT LEGALLY BARRED FROM
FILING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE SANDIGANBAYAN
IS CORRECT IN RULING THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED A
PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE FORFEITURE OF THE SWISS FUNDS.
(1) Republic Act No. 1379, the applicable law, is a penal
statute. As such, its provisions, particularly the essential
elements stated in Section 3 thereof, are mandatory in nature.
These should be strictly construed against petitioner and liberally
in favor of private respondents.
(2) Petitioner has failed to establish the third and fourth
essential elements in Section 3 of R.A. 1379 with respect to the
identification, ownership, and approximate amount of the
property which the Marcos couple allegedly "acquired during
their incumbency."
(a) Petitioner has failed to prove that the Marcos couple
"acquired" or own the Swiss funds.
(b) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the fact of
acquisition has been proven, petitioner has categorically
admitted that it has no evidence showing how much of the
Swiss funds was acquired "during the incumbency" of the
Marcos couple from 31 December 1965 to 25 February
1986.
(3) In contravention of the essential element stated in
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 1379, petitioner has failed to establish the
other proper earnings and income from legitimately acquired
property of the Marcos couple over and above their government
salaries.
(4) Since petitioner failed to prove the three essential
elements provided in paragraphs (c) 15 ( d ) 16 and (e) 17 of
Section 3, R.A. 1379, the inescapable conclusion is that the
prima facie presumption of unlawful acquisition of the Swiss
funds has not yet attached. There can, therefore, be no
premature forfeiture of the funds.
(C)
IT WAS ONLY BY ARBITRARILY ISOLATING AND THEN TAKING CERTAIN
STATEMENTS MADE BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OUT OF CONTEXT
THAT PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO TREAT THESE AS "JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS" SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE AND
THEREAFTER A CONCLUSIVE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE FORFEITURE OF THE
SWISS FUNDS.
(1) Under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the
General and Supplemental Agreements, as well as the other
written and testimonial statements submitted in relation thereto,
are expressly barred from being admissible in evidence against
private respondents.
(2) Had petitioner bothered to weigh the alleged admissions
together with the other statements on record, there would be a
demonstrable showing that no such "judicial admissions" were
made by private respondents.
(D)
SINCE PETITIONER HAS NOT (YET) PROVEN ALL THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR FORFEITURE, AND
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT MADE ANY JUDICIAL ADMISSION
THAT WOULD HAVE FREED IT FROM ITS BURDEN OF PROOF, THE
SANDIGANBAYAN DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
DENYING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. CERTIORARI,
THEREFORE, DOES NOT LIE, ESPECIALLY AS THIS COURT IS NOT A
TRIER OF FACTS. 18
For her part, Mrs. Araneta, in her comment to the petition, claims that
obviously petitioner is unable to comply with a very plain requirement of
respondent Sandiganbayan. The instant petition is allegedly an attempt to
elevate to this Court matters, issues and incidents which should be properly
threshed out at the Sandiganbayan. To respondent Mrs. Araneta, all other
matters, save that pertaining to the authentication of the translated Swiss
Court decisions, are irrelevant and impertinent as far as this Court is
concerned. Respondent Mrs. Araneta manifests that she is as eager as
respondent Sandiganbayan or any interested person to have the Swiss Court
decisions officially translated in our known language. She says the
authenticated official English version of the Swiss Court decisions should be
presented. This should stop all speculations on what indeed is contained
therein. Thus, respondent Mrs. Araneta prays that the petition be denied for
lack of merit and for raising matters which, in elaborated fashion, are
impertinent and improper before this Court.
PROPRIETY OF PETITIONER'S
ACTION FOR CERTIORARI
But before this Court discusses the more relevant issues, the question
regarding the propriety of petitioner Republic's action for certiorari under
Rule 65 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Sandiganbayan
Resolution dated January 21, 2002 should be threshed out.
At the outset, we would like to stress that we are treating this case as
an exception to the general rule governing petitions for certiorari. Normally,
decisions of the Sandiganbayan are brought before this Court under Rule 45,
not Rule 65. 20 But where the case is undeniably ingrained with immense
public interest, public policy and deep historical repercussions, certiorari is
allowed notwithstanding the existence and availability of the remedy of
appeal. 21
One of the foremost concerns of the Aquino Government in February
1986 was the recovery of the unexplained or ill-gotten wealth reputedly
amassed by former President and Mrs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, their relatives,
friends and business associates. Thus, the very first Executive Order (EO)
issued by then President Corazon Aquino upon her assumption to office after
the ouster of the Marcoses was EO No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986. It
created the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and
charged it with the task of assisting the President in the "recovery of all ill-
gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether
located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration
of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them during
his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage
of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence,
connections or relationship." The urgency of this undertaking was tersely
described by this Court in Republic vs. Lobregat 22 :
surely . . . an enterprise "of great pith and moment"; it was
attended by "great expectations"; it was initiated not only out of
considerations of simple justice but also out of sheer necessity — the
national coffers were empty, or nearly so.
In all the alleged ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG, this Court
has seen fit to set aside technicalities and formalities that merely serve to
delay or impede judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases
resolved on the merits at the Sandiganbayan. But substantial justice to the
Filipino people and to all parties concerned, not mere legalisms or perfection
of form, should now be relentlessly and firmly pursued. Almost two decades
have passed since the government initiated its search for and reversion of
such ill-gotten wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits
is thus long overdue. If there is proof of illegal acquisition, accumulation,
misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, let it be brought out now. Let the
ownership of these funds and other assets be finally determined and
resolved with dispatch, free from all the delaying technicalities and annoying
procedural sidetracks. 23
We thus take cognizance of this case and settle with finality all the
issues therein.
ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT
The crucial issues which this Court must resolve are: (1) whether or not
respondents raised any genuine issue of fact which would either justify or
negate summary judgment; and (2) whether or not petitioner Republic was
able to prove its case for forfeiture in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of RA
1379.
(1) THE PROPRIETY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
We hold that respondent Marcoses failed to raise any genuine issue of
fact in their pleadings. Thus, on motion of petitioner Republic, summary
judgment should take place as a matter of right.
In the early case of Auman vs. Estenzo, 24 summary judgment was
described as a judgment which a court may render before trial but after both
parties have pleaded. It is ordered by the court upon application by one
party, supported by affidavits, depositions or other documents, with notice
upon the adverse party who may in turn file an opposition supported also by
affidavits, depositions or other documents. This is after the court summarily
hears both parties with their respective proofs and finds that there is no
genuine issue between them. Summary judgment is sanctioned in this
jurisdiction by Section 1, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SECTION 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking
to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto
has been served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or
admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part
thereof. 25
Summary judgment is proper when there is clearly no genuine issue as

to any material fact in the action. 26 The theory of summary judgment is
that, although an answer may on its face appear to tender issues requiring
trial, if it is demonstrated by affidavits, depositions or admissions that those
issues are not genuine but sham or fictitious, the Court is justified in
dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for petitioner
Republic.
The Solicitor General made a very thorough presentation of its case for
forfeiture:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Respondent Ferdinand E. Marcos (now deceased and

represented by his Estate/Heirs) was a public officer for several
decades continuously and without interruption as Congressman,
Senator, Senate President and President of the Republic of the
Philippines from December 31, 1965 up to his ouster by direct action of
the people of EDSA on February 22-25, 1986.
5. Respondent Imelda Romualdez Marcos (Imelda, for short)
the former First Lady who ruled with FM during the 14-year martial law
regime, occupied the position of Minister of Human Settlements from
June 1976 up to the peaceful revolution in February 22-25, 1986. She
likewise served once as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa
during the early years of martial law from 1978 to 1984 and as Metro
Manila Governor in concurrent capacity as Minister of Human
Settlements. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
11. At the outset, however, it must be pointed out that based
on the Official Report of the Minister of Budget, the total salaries of
former President Marcos as President from 1966 to 1976 was P60,000
a year and from 1977 to 1985, P100,000 a year; while that of the
former First Lady, Imelda R. Marcos, as Minister of Human Settlements
from June 1976 to February 22-25, 1986 was P75,000 a year. . . . .
ANALYSIS OF RESPONDENTS
LEGITIMATE INCOME
xxx xxx xxx
12. Based on available documents, the ITRs of the Marcoses

for the years 1965-1975 were filed under Tax Identification No. 1365-
055-1. For the years 1976 until 1984, the returns were filed under Tax
Identification No. M 6221-J 1117-A-9.
13. The data contained in the ITRs and Balance Sheet filed by
the "Marcoses are summarized and attached to the reports in the
following schedules:
Schedule A:
Schedule of Income (Annex "T" hereof);

Schedule B:
Schedule of Income Tax Paid (Annex "T-1" hereof);
Schedule C:
Schedule of Net Disposable Income (Annex "T-2" hereof);
Schedule D:
Schedule of Networth Analysis (Annex "T-3" hereof).
14. As summarized in Schedule A (Annex "T" hereof), the

Marcoses reported P16,408,442.00 or US$2,414,484.91 in total income
over a period of 20 years from 1965 to 1984. The sources of income
are as follows:
Official Salaries - P2,627,581.00 - 16.01%
Legal Practice - 11,109,836.00 - 67.71%
Farm Income - 149,700.00 - .91%
Others - 2,521,325.00 - 15.37%
——————— ————
Total P16,408,442.00 - 100.00%
15. FM's official salary pertains to his compensation as

Senate President in 1965 in the amount of P15,935.00 and
P1,420,000.00 as President of the Philippines during the period 1966
until 1984. On the other hand, Imelda reported salaries and allowances
only for the years 1979 to 1984 in the amount of P1,191,646.00. The
records indicate that the reported income came from her salary from
the Ministry of Human Settlements and allowances from Food
Terminal, Inc., National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, National
Food Authority Council, Light Rail Transit Authority and Home
Development Mutual Fund.
16. Of the P11,109,836.00 in reported income from legal

practice, the amount of P10,649,836.00 or 96% represents
"receivables from prior years" during the period 1967 up to 1984.
17. In the guise of reporting income using the cash method

under Section 38 of the National Internal Revenue Code, FM made it
appear that he had an extremely profitable legal practice before he
became a President (FM being barred by law from practicing his law
profession during his entire presidency) and that, incredibly, he was
still receiving payments almost 20 years after. The only problem is that
in his Balance Sheet attached to his 1965 ITR immediately preceding
his ascendancy to the presidency he did not show any Receivables
from client at all, much less the P10,65-M that he decided to later
recognize as income. There are no documents showing any withholding
tax certificates. Likewise, there is nothing on record that will show any
known Marcos client as he has no known law office. As previously
stated, his networth was a mere P120,000.00 in December, 1965. The
joint income tax returns of FM and Imelda cannot, therefore, conceal
the skeletons of their kleptocracy.
18. FM reported a total of P2,521,325.00 as Other Income for

the years 1972 up to 1976 which he referred to in his return as
"Miscellaneous Items" and "Various Corporations." There is no
indication of any payor of the dividends or earnings.
19. Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda did not declare any

income from any deposits and placements which are subject to a 5%
withholding tax. The Bureau of Internal Revenue attested that after a
diligent search of pertinent records on file with the Records Division,
they did not find any records involving the tax transactions of spouses
Ferdinand and Imelda in Revenue Region No. 1, Baguio City, Revenue
Region No. 4A, Manila, Revenue Region No. 4B1, Quezon City and
Revenue No. 8, Tacloban, Leyte. Likewise, the Office of the Revenue
Collector of Batac. Further, BIR attested that no records were found on
any filing of capital gains tax return involving spouses FM and Imelda
covering the years 1960 to 1965.
20. In Schedule B, the taxable reported income over the
twenty-year period was P14,463,595.00 which represents 88% of the
gross income. The Marcoses paid income taxes totaling P8,233,296.00
or US$1,220,667.59. The business expenses in the amount of
P861,748.00 represent expenses incurred for subscription, postage,
stationeries and contributions while the other deductions in the amount
of P567,097.00 represents interest charges, medicare fees, taxes and
licenses. The total deductions in the amount of P1,994,845.00
represents 12% of the total gross income.
21. In Schedule C, the net cumulative disposable income
amounts to P6,756,301.00 or US$980,709.77. This is the amount that
represents that portion of the Marcoses income that is free for
consumption, savings and investments. The amount is arrived at by
adding back to the net income after tax the personal and additional
exemptions for the years 1965-1984, as well as the tax-exempt salary
of the President for the years 1966 until 1972.
22. Finally, the networth analysis in Schedule D, represents

the total accumulated networth of spouses, Ferdinand and Imelda.
Respondent's Balance Sheet attached to their 1965 ITR, covering the
year immediately preceding their ascendancy to the presidency,
indicates an ending networth of P120,000.00 which FM declared as
Library and Miscellaneous assets. In computing for the networth, the
income approach was utilized. Under this approach, the beginning
capital is increased or decreased, as the case may be, depending upon
the income earned or loss incurred. Computations establish the total
networth of spouses Ferdinand and Imelda, for the years 1965 until
1984 in the total amount of US$957,487.75 , assuming the income from
legal practice is real and valid . . . .
G. THE SECRET MARCOS DEPOSITS

IN SWISS BANKS
23. The following presentation very clearly and
overwhelmingly show in detail how both respondents clandestinely
stashed away the country's wealth to Switzerland and hid the same
under layers upon layers of foundations and other corporate entities to
prevent its detection. Through their dummies/nominees, fronts or
agents who formed those foundations or corporate entities, they
opened and maintained numerous bank accounts. But due to the
difficulty if not the impossibility of detecting and documenting all those
secret accounts as well as the enormity of the deposits therein hidden,
the following presentation is confined to five identified accounts
groups, with balances amounting to about $356-M with a reservation
for the filing of a supplemental or separate forfeiture complaint should
the need arise.
H. THE AZIO-VERSO-VIBUR
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
24. On June 11, 1971, Ferdinand Marcos issued a written
order to Dr. Theo Bertheau, legal counsel of Schweizeresche
Kreditanstalt or SKA, also known as Swiss Credit Bank, for him to
establish the AZIO Foundation . On the same date, Marcos executed a
power of attorney in favor of Roberto S. Benedicto empowering him to
transact business in behalf of the said foundation. Pursuant to the said
Marcos mandate, AZIO Foundation was formed on June 21, 1971 in
Vaduz. Walter Fessler and Ernst Scheller, also of SKA Legal Service,
and Dr. Helmuth Merling from Schaan were designated as members of
the Board of Trustees of the said foundation. Ferdinand Marcos was
named first beneficiary and the Marcos Foundation, Inc. was second
beneficiary. On November 12, 1971, FM again issued another written
order naming Austrahil PTY Ltd. In Sydney, Australia, as the
foundation's first and sole beneficiary. This was recorded on December
14, 1971.
25. In an undated instrument, Marcos changed the first and
sole beneficiary to CHARIS FOUNDATION. This change was recorded on
December 4, 1972.
26. On August 29, 1978, the AZIO FOUNDATION was renamed

to VERSO FOUNDATION. The Board of Trustees remained the same. On
March 11, 1981, Marcos issued a written directive to liquidated VERSO
FOUNDATION and to transfer all its assets to account of FIDES TRUST
COMPANY at Bank Hofman in Zurich under the account "Reference
OSER." The Board of Trustees decided to dissolve the foundation on
June 25, 1981.
27. In an apparent maneuver to bury further the secret
deposits beneath the thick layers of corporate entities, FM effected the
establishment of VIBUR FOUNDATION on May 13, 1981 in Vaduz. Atty.
Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fides
Trust, were designated as members of the Board of Trustees. The
account was officially opened with SKA on September 10, 1981. The
beneficial owner was not made known to the bank since Fides Trust
Company acted as fiduciary. However, comparison of the listing of the
securities in the safe deposit register of the VERSO FOUNDATION as of
February 27, 1981 with that of VIBUR FOUNDATION as of December 31,
1981 readily reveals that exactly the same securities were listed.
28. Under the foregoing circumstances, it is certain that the

VIBUR FOUNDATION is the beneficial successor of VERSO FOUNDATION.
29. On March 18, 1986, the Marcos-designated Board of
Trustees decided to liquidate VIBUR FOUNDATION. A notice of such
liquidation was sent to the Office of the Public Register on March 21,
1986. However, the bank accounts and respective balances of the said
VIBUR FOUNDATION remained with SKA. Apparently, the liquidation
was an attempt by the Marcoses to transfer the foundation's funds to
another account or bank but this was prevented by the timely freeze
order issued by the Swiss authorities. One of the latest documents
obtained by the PCGG from the Swiss authorities is a declaration
signed by Dr. Ivo Beck (the trustee) stating that the beneficial owner of
VIBUR FOUNDATION is Ferdinand E. Marcos . Another document signed
by G. Raber of SKA shows that VIBUR FOUNDATION is owned by the
"Marcos Families."
30. As of December 31, 1989, the balance of the bank accounts

of VIBUR FOUNDATION with SKA, Zurich, under the General Account
No. 469857 totaled $3,597,544.00.
I. XANDY-WINTROP: CHARIS-SCOLARI-
VALAMO-SPINUS-AVERTINA
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
31. This is the most intricate and complicated account group.
As the Flow Chart hereof shows, two (2) groups under the foundation
organized by Marcos dummies/nominees for FM's benefit, eventually
joined together and became one (1) account group under the
AVERTINA FOUNDATION for the benefit of both FM and Imelda. This is
the biggest group from where the $50-M investment fund of the
Marcoses was drawn when they bought the Central Bank's dollar-
denominated treasury notes with high-yielding interests.
32. On March 20, 1968, after his second year in the
presidency, Marcos opened bank accounts with SKA using an alias or
pseudonym WILLIAM SAUNDERS, apparently to hide his true identity.
The next day, March 21, 1968, his First Lady, Mrs. Imelda Marcos also
opened her own bank accounts with the same bank using an American-
sounding alias, JANE RYAN. Found among the voluminous documents in
Malacañang shortly after they fled to Hawaii in haste that fateful night
of February 25, 1986, were accomplished forms for
"Declaration/Specimen Signatures" submitted by the Marcos couple.
Under the caption "signature(s)" Ferdinand and Imelda signed their real
names as well as their respective aliases underneath. These accounts
were actively operated and maintained by the Marcoses for about two
(2) years until their closure sometime in February, 1970 and the
balances transferred to XANDY FOUNDATION.
33. The XANDY FOUNDATION was established on March 3,
1970 in Vaduz. C.W. Fessler, C. Souviron and E. Scheller were named
as members of the Board of Trustees.
34. FM and Imelda issued the written mandate to establish
the foundation to Markus Geel of SKA on March 3, 1970. In the
handwritten Regulations signed by the Marcos couple as well as in the
type-written Regulations signed by Markus Geel both dated February
13, 1970, the Marcos spouses were named the first beneficiaries, the
surviving spouse as the second beneficiary and the Marcos children –
Imee, Ferdinand, Jr. (Bongbong) and Irene – as equal third
beneficiaries.
35. The XANDY FOUNDATION was renamed WINTROP

FOUNDATION on August 29, 1978. The Board of Trustees remained the
same at the outset. However, on March 27, 1980, Souviron was
replaced by Dr. Peter Ritter. On March 10, 1981, Ferdinand and Imelda
Marcos issued a written order to the Board of Wintrop to liquidate the
foundation and transfer all its assets to Bank Hofmann in Zurich in
favor of FIDES TRUST COMPANY. Later, WINTROP FOUNDATION was
dissolved.
36. The AVERTINA FOUNDATION was established on May 13,

1981 in Vaduz with Atty. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of FIDES TRUST CO., as members of the Board of
Trustees. Two (2) account categories, namely: CAR and NES, were
opened on September 10, 1981. The beneficial owner of AVERTINA was
not made known to the bank since the FIDES TRUST CO. acted as
fiduciary. However, the securities listed in the safe deposit register of
WINTROP FOUNDATION Category R as of December 31, 1980 were the
same as those listed in the register of AVERTINA FOUNDATION
Category CAR as of December 31, 1981. Likewise, the securities listed
in the safe deposit register of WINTROP FOUNDATION Category S as of
December 31, 1980 were the same as those listed in the register of
Avertina Category NES as of December 31, 1981. Under the
circumstances, it is certain that the beneficial successor of WINTROP
FOUNDATION is AVERTINA FOUNDATION. The balance of Category CAR
as of December 31, 1989 amounted to US$231,366,894.00 while that
of Category NES as of 12-31-83 was US$8,647,190.00. Latest
documents received from Swiss authorities included a declaration
signed by IVO Beck stating that the beneficial owners of AVERTINA
FOUNDATION are FM and Imelda. Another document signed by G.
Raber of SKA indicates that Avertina Foundation is owned by the
"Marcos Families."
37. The other groups of foundations that eventually joined
AVERTINA were also established by FM through his dummies, which
started with the CHARIS FOUNDATION.
38. The CHARIS FOUNDATION was established in VADUZ on
December 27, 1971. Walter Fessler and Ernst Scheller of SKA and Dr.
Peter Ritter were named as directors. Dr. Theo Bertheau, SKA legal
counsel, acted as founding director in behalf of FM by virtue of the
mandate and agreement dated November 12, 1971. FM himself was
named the first beneficiary and Xandy Foundation as second
beneficiary in accordance with the handwritten instructions of FM on
November 12, 1971 and the Regulations. FM gave a power of attorney
to Roberto S. Benedicto on February 15, 1972 to act in his behalf with
regard to Charis Foundation.
39. On December 13, 1974, Charis Foundation was renamed

Scolari Foundation but the directors remained the same. On March 11,
1981 FM ordered in writing that the Valamo Foundation be liquidated
and all its assets be transferred to Bank Hofmann, AG in favor of Fides
Trust Company under the account "Reference OMAL." The Board of
Directors decided on the immediate dissolution of Valamo Foundation
on June 25, 1981.
40. The SPINUS FOUNDATION was established on May 13,

1981 in Vaduz with Atty. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Fides Trust Co., as members of the Foundation's
Board of Directors. The account was officially opened with SKA on
September 10, 1981. The beneficial owner of the foundation was not
made known to the bank since Fides Trust Co. acted as fiduciary.
However, the list of securities in the safe deposit register of Valamo
Foundation as of December 31, 1980 are practically the same with
those listed in the safe deposit register of Spinus Foundation as of
December 31, 1981. Under the circumstances, it is certain that the
Spinus Foundation is the beneficial successor of the Valamo
Foundation.
41. On September 6, 1982, there was a written instruction

from Spinus Foundation to SKA to close its Swiss Franc account and
transfer the balance to Avertina Foundation. In July/August, 1982,
several transfers from the foundation's German marks and US dollar
accounts were made to Avertina Category CAR totaling DM 29.5-M and
$58-M, respectively. Moreover, a comparison of the list of securities of
the Spinus Foundation as of February 3, 1982 with the safe deposit
slips of the Avertina Foundation Category CAR as of August 19, 1982
shows that all the securities of Spinus were transferred to Avertina.
J. TRINIDAD-RAYBY-PALMY
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
42. The Trinidad Foundation was organized on August 26,
1970 in Vaduz with C.W. Fessler and E. Scheller of SKA and Dr. Otto
Tondury as the foundation's directors. Imelda issued a written mandate
to establish the foundation to Markus Geel on August 26, 1970. The
regulations as well as the agreement, both dated August 28, 1970 were
likewise signed by Imelda. Imelda was named the first beneficiary and
her children Imelda (Imee), Ferdinand, Jr. (Bongbong) and, Irene were
named as equal second beneficiaries.
43. Rayby Foundation was established on June 22, 1973 in

Vaduz with Fessler, Scheller and Ritter as members of the board of
directors. Imelda issued a written mandate to Dr. Theo Bertheau to
establish the foundation with a note that the foundation’s capitalization
as well as the cost of establishing it be debited against the account of
Trinidad Foundation. Imelda was named the first and only beneficiary
of Rayby foundation. According to written information from SKA dated
November 28, 1988, Imelda apparently had the intention in 1973 to
transfer part of the assets of Trinidad Foundation to another
foundation, thus the establishment of Rayby Foundation. However,
transfer of assets never took place. On March 10, 1981, Imelda issued
a written order to transfer all the assets of Rayby Foundation to
Trinidad Foundation and to subsequently liquidate Rayby. On the same
date, she issued a written order to the board of Trinidad to dissolve the
foundation and transfer all its assets to Bank Hofmann in favor of Fides
Trust Co. Under the account "Reference Dido," Rayby was dissolved on
April 6, 1981 and Trinidad was liquidated on August 3, 1981.
44. The PALMY FOUNDATION was established on May 13,
1981 in Vaduz with Dr. Ivo Beck and Limag Management, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Fides Trust Co., as members of the Foundation’s
Board of Directors. The account was officially opened with the SKA on
September 10, 1981. The beneficial owner was not made known to the
bank since Fides Trust Co. acted as fiduciary. However, when one
compares the listing of securities in the safe deposit register of
Trinidad Foundation as of December 31, 1980 with that of the Palmy
Foundation as of December 31, 1980, one can clearly see that
practically the same securities were listed. Under the circumstances, it
is certain that the Palmy Foundation is the beneficial successor of the
Trinidad Foundation.
45. As of December 31, 1989, the ending balance of the bank
accounts of Palmy Foundation under General Account No. 391528 is
$17,214,432.00.
46. Latest documents received from Swiss Authorities
included a declaration signed by Dr. Ivo Beck stating that the beneficial
owner of Palmy Foundation is Imelda. Another document signed by
Raber shows that the said Palmy Foundation is owned by "Marcos
Families."
K. ROSALYS-AGUAMINA
FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
47. Rosalys Foundation was established in 1971 with FM as
the beneficiary. Its Articles of Incorporation was executed on
September 24, 1971 and its By-Laws on October 3, 1971. This
foundation maintained several accounts with Swiss Bank Corporation
(SBC) under the general account 51960 where most of the bribe
monies from Japanese suppliers were hidden.
48. On December 19, 1985, Rosalys Foundation was

liquidated and all its assets were transferred to Aguamina
Corporation’s (Panama) Account No. 53300 with SBC. The ownership
by Aguamina Corporation of Account No. 53300 is evidenced by an
opening account documents from the bank. J. Christinaz and R.L.
Rossier, First Vice-President and Senior Vice President, respectively, of
SBC, Geneva issued a declaration dated September 3, 1991 stating
that the by-laws dated October 3, 1971 governing Rosalys Foundation
was the same by-law applied to Aguamina Corporation Account No.
53300. They further confirmed that no change of beneficial owner was
involved while transferring the assets of Rosalys to Aguamina. Hence,
FM remains the beneficiary of Aguamina Corporation Account No.
53300.
As of August 30, 1991, the ending balance of Account No. 53300

amounted to $80,566,483.00.
L. MALER FOUNDATION ACCOUNTS
49. Maler was first created as an establishment. A statement

of its rules and regulations was found among Malacañang documents.
It stated, among others, that 50% of the Company’s assets will be for
sole and full right disposal of FM and Imelda during their lifetime, which
the remaining 50% will be divided in equal parts among their children.
Another Malacañang document dated October 19, 1968 and signed by
Ferdinand and Imelda pertains to the appointment of Dr. Andre Barbey
and Jean Louis Sunier as attorneys of the company and as
administrator and manager of all assets held by the company. The
Marcos couple, also mentioned in the said document that they bought
the Maler Establishment from SBC, Geneva. On the same date, FM and
Imelda issued a letter addressed to Maler Establishment, stating that
all instructions to be transmitted with regard to Maler will be signed
with the word "JOHN LEWIS." This word will have the same value as the
couple’s own personal signature. The letter was signed by FM and
Imelda in their signatures and as John Lewis.
50. Maler Establishment opened and maintained bank

accounts with SBC, Geneva. The opening bank documents were signed
by Dr. Barbey and Mr. Sunnier as authorized signatories.
51. On November 17, 1981, it became necessary to
transform Maler Establishment into a foundation. Likewise, the
attorneys were changed to Michael Amaudruz, et al. However,
administration of the assets was left to SBC. The articles of
incorporation of Maler Foundation registered on November 17, 1981
appear to be the same articles applied to Maler Establishment. On
February 28, 1984, Maler Foundation cancelled the power of attorney
for the management of its assets in favor of SBC and transferred such
power to Sustrust Investment Co., S.A.
52. As of June 6, 1991, the ending balance of Maler
Foundation's Account Nos. 254,508 BT and 98,929 NY amount SF
9,083,567 and SG 16,195,258, respectively, for a total of SF
25,278,825.00. GM only until December 31, 1980. This account was
opened by Maler when it was still an establishment which was
subsequently transformed into a foundation.
53. All the five (5) group accounts in the over-all flow chart
have a total balance of about Three Hundred Fifty Six Million Dollars
($356,000,000.00) as shown by Annex "R-5" hereto attached as
integral part hereof.
xxx xxx xxx. 27

Respondents Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda M. Manotoc, Irene M.
Araneta and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., in their answer, stated the following:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Respondents ADMIT paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition.
5. Respondents specifically deny paragraph 5 of the Petition

in so far as it states that summons and other court processes may be
served on Respondent Imelda R. Marcos at the stated address the truth
of the matter being that Respondent Imelda R. Marcos may be served
with summons and other processes at No. 10-B Bel Air Condominium
5022 P. Burgos Street, Makati, Metro Manila, and ADMIT the rest.
xxx xxx xxx

10. Respondents ADMIT paragraph 11 of the Petition.
11. Respondents specifically DENY paragraph 12 of the

Petition for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegation since Respondents were not privy to the transactions
and that they cannot remember exactly the truth as to the matters
alleged.

Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents cannot remember
with exactitude the contents of the alleged ITRs and Balance Sheet.
with exactitude the contents of the alleged ITRs.


Petition insofar as it attributes willful duplicity on the part of the late
President Marcos, for being false, the same being pure conclusions
based on pure assumption and not allegations of fact; and specifically
DENY the rest for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation since Respondents cannot
remember with exactitude the contents of the alleged ITRs or the
attachments thereto.

with exactitude the contents of the alleged ITRs and that they are not
privy to the activities of the BIR.



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 foundation
and corporate entities for being false, the truth being that Respondents
aforesaid properties were lawfully acquired.
23. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29 and 30 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since
Respondents were not privy to the transactions regarding the alleged
Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts, except that as to Respondent
Imelda R. Marcos she specifically remembers that the funds involved
were lawfully acquired.
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
since Respondents are not privy to the transactions and as to such
transaction they were privy to they cannot remember with exactitude
the same having occurred a long time ago, except that as to
Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she specifically remembers that the
funds involved were lawfully acquired.

and 46, of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since Respondents were
not privy to the transactions and as to such transaction they were privy
to they cannot remember with exactitude the same having occurred a
long time ago, except that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she
specifically remembers that the funds involved were lawfully acquired.
26. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 49, 50, 51 and

52, of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since Respondents were
long time ago, except that as to Respondent Imelda R. Marcos she
Upon careful perusal of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent
Mrs. Marcos and the Marcos children indubitably failed to tender genuine
issues in their answer to the petition for forfeiture. A genuine issue is an
issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished
from an issue which is fictitious and contrived, set up in bad faith or patently
lacking in substance so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.
Respondents' defenses of "lack of knowledge for lack of privity" or "(inability
to) recall because it happened a long time ago" or, on the part of Mrs.
Marcos, that "the funds were lawfully acquired" are fully insufficient to
tender genuine issues. Respondent Marcoses' defenses were a sham and
evidently calibrated to compound and confuse the issues.
The following pleadings filed by respondent Marcoses are replete with
indications of a spurious defense:
(a) Respondents' Answer dated October 18, 1993;

(b) Pre-trial Brief dated October 4, 1999 of Mrs. Marcos,
Supplemental Pre-trial Brief dated October 19, 1999 of
Ferdinand, Jr. and Mrs. Imee Marcos-Manotoc adopting the
pre-trial brief of Mrs. Marcos, and Manifestation dated
October 19, 1999 of Irene Marcos-Araneta adopting the pre-
trial briefs of her co- respondents;
(c) Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment dated

March 21, 2000, filed by Mrs. Marcos which the other
respondents (Marcos children) adopted;
(d) Demurrer to Evidence dated May 2, 2000 filed by Mrs.

Marcos and adopted by the Marcos children;
(e) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2000
filed by Mrs. Marcos; Motion for Reconsideration dated
October 5, 2000 jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand,
Jr., and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated
October 9, 2000 likewise jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and
Ferdinand, Jr.;
(f) Memorandum dated December 12, 2000 of Mrs.

Marcos and Memorandum dated December 17, 2000 of the
Marcos children;
(g) Manifestation dated May 26, 1998; and
(h) General/Supplemental Agreement dated December

23, 1993.
An examination of the foregoing pleadings is in order.
RESPONDENTS' ANSWER DATED OCTOBER 18, 1993.

In their answer, respondents failed to specifically deny each and every
allegation contained in the petition for forfeiture in the manner required by
the rules. All they gave were stock answers like "they have no sufficient
knowledge" or "they could not recall because it happened a long time ago,"
and, as to Mrs. Marcos, "the funds were lawfully acquired," without stating
the basis of such assertions.
Section 10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the
truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set
forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny the
remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made
in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial. 28
The purpose of requiring respondents to make a specific denial is to

make them disclose facts which will disprove the allegations of petitioner at
the trial, together with the matters they rely upon in support of such denial.
Our jurisdiction adheres to this rule to avoid and prevent unnecessary
expenses and waste of time by compelling both parties to lay their cards on
the table, thus reducing the controversy to its true terms. As explained in
Alonso vs. Villamor, 29
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more
deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position,
entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each
contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue
and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all
imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice
be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a
rapier's thrust.
On the part of Mrs. Marcos, she claimed that the funds were lawfully
acquired. However, she failed to particularly state the ultimate facts
surrounding the lawful manner or mode of acquisition of the subject funds.
Simply put, she merely stated in her answer with the other respondents that
the funds were "lawfully acquired" without detailing how exactly these funds
were supposedly acquired legally by them. Even in this case before us, her
assertion that the funds were lawfully acquired remains bare and
unaccompanied by any factual support which can prove, by the presentation
of evidence at a hearing, that indeed the funds were acquired legitimately by
the Marcos family.
Respondents' denials in their answer at the Sandiganbayan were based
on their alleged lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations of the petition.
It is true that one of the modes of specific denial under the rules is a
denial through a statement that the defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material
averment in the complaint. The question, however, is whether the kind of
denial in respondents’ answer qualifies as the specific denial called for by
the rules. We do not think so. In Morales vs. Court of Appeals, 30 this Court
ruled that if an allegation directly and specifically charges a party with
having done, performed or committed a particular act which the latter did
not in fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and express denial must be
made.
Here, despite the serious and specific allegations against them, the
Marcoses responded by simply saying that they had no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations.
Such a general, self-serving claim of ignorance of the facts alleged in the
petition for forfeiture was insufficient to raise an issue. Respondent Marcoses
should have positively stated how it was that they were supposedly ignorant
of the facts alleged. 31
To elucidate, the allegation of petitioner Republic in paragraph 23 of
the petition for forfeiture stated:
23. The following presentation very clearly and
overwhelmingly show in detail how both respondents clandestinely
stashed away the country's wealth to Switzerland and hid the same
under layers upon layers of foundations and other corporate entities to
prevent its detection. Through their dummies/nominees, fronts or
agents who formed those foundations or corporate entities, they
opened and maintained numerous bank accounts. But due to the
difficulty if not the impossibility of detecting and documenting all those
secret accounts as well as the enormity of the deposits therein hidden,
the following presentation is confined to five identified accounts
groups, with balances amounting to about $356-M with a reservation
for the filing of a supplemental or separate forfeiture complaint should
the need arise. 32
Respondents' lame denial of the aforesaid allegation was:

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. 33
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. 34 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, it has been held that the
qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. 35
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."
Paragraph 22 of the respondents' answer was thus a denial pregnant with
admissions of the following substantial facts:
(1) that the Swiss bank deposits existed and

(2) that the estimated sum thereof was US$356 million as
of December, 1990.
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:
Material averment in the complaint, . . . shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied. . . . . 36
By the same token, the following unsupported denials of respondents

in their answer were pregnant with admissions of the substantial facts
alleged in the Republic's petition for forfeiture:
28, 29 and 30 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation since
respondents were not privy to the transactions regarding the alleged
Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts, except that, as to respondent
Imelda R. Marcos, she specifically remembers that the funds involved

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 of the Petition for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
since respondents were not privy to the transactions and as to such
transactions they were privy to, they cannot remember with exactitude
the same having occurred a long time ago, except as to respondent
Imelda R. Marcos, she specifically remembers that the funds involved
25. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 42, 43, 45,
and 46 of the petition for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since respondents were
to, they cannot remember with exactitude, the same having occurred a
long time ago, except that as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she
26. Respondents specifically DENY paragraphs 49, 50, 51 and
52 of the petition for lack of knowledge and information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations since respondents were
long time ago, except that as to respondent Imelda R. Marcos, she
The matters referred to in paragraphs 23 to 26 of the respondents’

answer pertained to the creation of five groups of accounts as well as their
respective ending balances and attached documents alleged in paragraphs
24 to 52 of the Republic’s petition for forfeiture. Respondent Imelda R.
Marcos never specifically denied the existence of the Swiss funds. Her claim
that "the funds involved were lawfully acquired" was an acknowledgment on
her part of the existence of said deposits. This only reinforced her earlier
admission of the allegation in paragraph 23 of the petition for forfeiture
regarding the existence of the US$356 million Swiss bank deposits. TADaCH
The allegations in paragraphs 47 37 and 48 38 of the petition for

forfeiture referring to the creation and amount of the deposits of the
Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation as well as the averment in paragraph 52-a 39
of the said petition with respect to the sum of the Swiss bank deposits
estimated to be US$356 million were again not specifically denied by
respondents in their answer. The respondents did not at all respond to the
issues raised in these paragraphs and the existence, nature and amount of
the Swiss funds were therefore deemed admitted by them. As held in Galofa
vs. Nee Bon Sing, 40 if a defendant's denial is a negative pregnant, it is
equivalent to an admission.
Moreover, respondents' denial of the allegations in the petition for
forfeiture "for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations since respondents were not privy to the
transactions" was just a pretense. Mrs. Marcos' privity to the transactions
was in fact evident from her signatures on some of the vital documents 41
attached to the petition for forfeiture which Mrs. Marcos failed to specifically
deny as required by the rules. 42
It is worthy to note that the pertinent documents attached to the
petition for forfeiture were even signed personally by respondent Mrs.
Marcos and her late husband, Ferdinand E. Marcos, indicating that said
documents were within their knowledge. As correctly pointed out by
Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz, Jr. in his dissenting opinion:
The pattern of: 1) creating foundations, 2) use of pseudonyms
and dummies, 3) approving regulations of the Foundations for the
distribution of capital and income of the Foundations to the First and
Second beneficiary (who are no other than FM and his family), 4)
opening of bank accounts for the Foundations, 5) changing the names
of the Foundations, 6) transferring funds and assets of the Foundations
to other Foundations or Fides Trust, 7) liquidation of the Foundations as
substantiated by the Annexes U to U-168, Petition [for forfeiture]
strongly indicate that FM and/or Imelda were the real owners of the
assets deposited in the Swiss banks, using the Foundations as
dummies. 43
How could respondents therefore claim lack of sufficient knowledge or

information regarding the existence of the Swiss bank deposits and the
creation of five groups of accounts when Mrs. Marcos and her late husband
personally masterminded and participated in the formation and control of
said foundations? This is a fact respondent Marcoses were never able to
explain.
Not only that. Respondents' answer also technically admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and the
balance sheets of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos
attached to the petition for forfeiture, as well as the veracity of the contents
thereof.
The answer again premised its denials of said ITRs and balance sheets
on the ground of lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the contents thereof. Petitioner correctly points out that
respondents' denial was not really grounded on lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief but was based on lack of recollection.
By reviewing their own records, respondent Marcoses could have easily
determined the genuineness and due execution of the ITRs and the balance
sheets. They also had the means and opportunity of verifying the same from
the records of the BIR and the Office of the President. They did not.
When matters regarding which respondents claim to have no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are plainly and
necessarily within their knowledge, their alleged ignorance or lack of
information will not be considered a specific denial. 44 An unexplained denial
of information within the control of the pleader, or is readily accessible to
him, is evasive and is insufficient to constitute an effective denial. 45
The form of denial adopted by respondents must be availed of with
sincerity and in good faith, and certainly not for the purpose of confusing the
adverse party as to what allegations of the petition are really being
challenged; nor should it be made for the purpose of delay. 46 In the instant
case, the Marcoses did not only present unsubstantiated assertions but in
truth attempted to mislead and deceive this Court by presenting an
obviously contrived defense.
Simply put, a profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently
and necessarily within the pleader’s knowledge or means of knowing is as
ineffective as no denial at all. 47 Respondents’ ineffective denial thus failed
to properly tender an issue and the averments contained in the petition for
forfeiture were deemed judicially admitted by them.
As held in J.P. Juan & Sons, Inc. vs. Lianga Industries, Inc.:
Its "specific denial" of the material allegation of the petition
without setting forth the substance of the matters relied upon to
support its general denial, when such matters were plainly within its
knowledge and it could not logically pretend ignorance as to the same,
therefore, failed to properly tender on issue. 48
Thus, the general denial of the Marcos children of the allegations in the
petition for forfeiture "for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the allegations since they were not privy to the
transactions" cannot rightfully be accepted as a defense because they are
the legal heirs and successors-in-interest of Ferdinand E. Marcos and are
therefore bound by the acts of their father vis-a-vis the Swiss funds.
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF DATED OCTOBER 18, 1993

The pre-trial brief of Mrs. Marcos was adopted by the three Marcos
children. In said brief, Mrs. Marcos stressed that the funds involved were
lawfully acquired. But, as in their answer, they failed to state and
substantiate how these funds were acquired lawfully. They failed to present
and attach even a single document that would show and prove the truth of
their allegations. Section 6, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse
party, . . . their respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among
others:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) the documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the
purpose thereof;
xxx xxx xxx

(f) the number and names of the witnesses, and the
substance of their respective testimonies. 49
It is unquestionably within the court’s power to require the parties to
submit their pre-trial briefs and to state the number of witnesses intended to
be called to the stand, and a brief summary of the evidence each of them is
expected to give as well as to disclose the number of documents to be
submitted with a description of the nature of each. The tenor and character
of the testimony of the witnesses and of the documents to be deduced at the
trial thus made known, in addition to the particular issues of fact and law, it
becomes apparent if genuine issues are being put forward necessitating the
holding of a trial. Likewise, the parties are obliged not only to make a formal
identification and specification of the issues and their proofs, and to put
these matters in writing and submit them to the court within the specified
period for the prompt disposition of the action. 50
The pre-trial brief of Mrs. Marcos, as subsequently adopted by
respondent Marcos children, merely stated:
xxx xxx xxx
WITNESSES
4.1 Respondent Imelda will present herself as a witness and
reserves the right to present additional witnesses as may be necessary
in the course of the trial.
xxx xxx xxx

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
5.1 Respondent Imelda reserves the right to present and
introduce in evidence documents as may be necessary in the course of
the trial.
Mrs. Marcos did not enumerate and describe the documents

constituting her evidence. Neither the names of witnesses nor the nature of
their testimony was stated. What alone appeared certain was the testimony
of Mrs. Marcos only who in fact had previously claimed ignorance and lack of
knowledge. And even then, the substance of her testimony, as required by
the rules, was not made known either. Such cunning tactics of respondents
are totally unacceptable to this Court. We hold that, since no genuine issue
was raised, the case became ripe for summary judgment.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DATED MARCH 21,
2000
The opposition filed by Mrs. Marcos to the motion for summary
judgment dated March 21, 2000 of petitioner Republic was merely adopted
by the Marcos children as their own opposition to the said motion. However,
it was again not accompanied by affidavits, depositions or admissions as
required by Section 3, Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure:
. . . The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits,
depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before hearing. After
hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file,
show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. 51
The absence of opposing affidavits, depositions and admissions to

contradict the sworn declarations in the Republic’s motion only
demonstrated that the averments of such opposition were not genuine and
therefore unworthy of belief.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE DATED MAY 2, 2000; 52 MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION; 53 AND MEMORANDA OF MRS. MARCOS AND THE MARCOS
CHILDREN 54
All these pleadings again contained no allegations of facts showing
their lawful acquisition of the funds. Once more, respondents merely made
general denials without alleging facts which would have been admissible in
evidence at the hearing, thereby failing to raise genuine issues of fact.
Mrs. Marcos insists in her memorandum dated October 21, 2002 that,
during the pre-trial, her counsel stated that his client was just a beneficiary
of the funds, contrary to petitioner Republic’s allegation that Mrs. Marcos
disclaimed ownership of or interest in the funds.
This is yet another indication that respondents presented a fictitious
defense because, during the pre-trial, Mrs. Marcos and the Marcos children
denied ownership of or interest in the Swiss funds:
PJ Garchitorena:
Make of record that as far as Imelda Marcos is concerned through
the statement of Atty. Armando M. Marcelo that the US$360
million more or less subject matter of the instant lawsuit as
allegedly obtained from the various Swiss Foundations do not
belong to the estate of Marcos or to Imelda Marcos herself. That’s
your statement of facts?
Atty. MARCELO:
Yes, Your Honor.

PJ Garchitorena:
That's it. Okay. Counsel for Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr. What is
your point here? Does the estate of Marcos own anything of the
$360 million subject of this case.
Atty. TECSON:
We joined the Manifestation of Counsel.

PJ Garchitorena:
You do not own anything?
Atty. TECSON:
Yes, Your Honor.
PJ Garchitorena:
Counsel for Irene Araneta?
Atty. SISON:
I join the position taken by my other compañeros here, Your

Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Atty. SISON:
Irene Araneta as heir do (sic ) not own any of the amount, Your
Honor. 55
We are convinced that the strategy of respondent Marcoses was to

confuse petitioner Republic as to what facts they would prove or what issues
they intended to pose for the court's resolution. There is no doubt in our
mind that they were leading petitioner Republic, and now this Court, to
perplexity, if not trying to drag this forfeiture case to eternity.
MANIFESTATION DATED MAY 26, 1998 FILED BY MRS. MARCOS;

GENERAL/SUPPLEMENTAL COMPROMISE AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 28,
1993
These pleadings of respondent Marcoses presented nothing but
feigned defenses. In their earlier pleadings, respondents alleged either that
they had no knowledge of the existence of the Swiss deposits or that they
could no longer remember anything as it happened a long time ago. As to
Mrs. Marcos, she remembered that it was lawfully acquired.
In her Manifestation dated May 26, 1998, Mrs. Marcos stated that:
COMES NOW undersigned counsel for respondent Imelda R.
Marcos, and before this Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests:
That respondent Imelda R, Marcos owns 90% of the subject
matter of the above-entitled case, being the sole beneficiary of the
dollar deposits in the name of the various foundations alleged in the
case;
That in fact only 10% of the subject matter in the above-entitled
case belongs to the estate of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
In the Compromise/Supplemental Agreements, respondent Marcoses

sought to implement the agreed distribution of the Marcos assets, including
the Swiss deposits. This was, to us, an unequivocal admission of ownership
by the Marcoses of the said deposits.
But, as already pointed out, during the pre-trial conference, respondent
Marcoses denied knowledge as well as ownership of the Swiss funds.
Anyway we look at it, respondent Marcoses have put forth no real
defense. The "facts" pleaded by respondents, while ostensibly raising
important questions or issues of fact, in reality comprised mere verbiage
that was evidently wanting in substance and constituted no genuine issues
for trial.
We therefore rule that, under the circumstances, summary judgment is

proper.
In fact, it is the law itself which determines when summary judgment is
called for. Under the rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are
no genuine issues of fact requiring the presentation of evidence in a full-
blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issue, if the
affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not
genuine, then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as
a matter of law. 56
In sum, mere denials, if unaccompanied by any fact which will be
admissible in evidence at a hearing, are not sufficient to raise genuine issues
of fact and will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. 57 A summary
judgment is one granted upon motion of a party for an expeditious
settlement of the case, it appearing from the pleadings, depositions,
admissions and affidavits that there are no important questions or issues of
fact posed and, therefore, the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. A motion for summary judgment is premised on the assumption that
the issues presented need not be tried either because these are patently
devoid of substance or that there is no genuine issue as to any pertinent
fact. It is a method sanctioned by the Rules of Court for the prompt
disposition of a civil action where there exists no serious controversy. 58
Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt disposition of
actions in which the pleadings raise only a legal issue, not a genuine issue as
to any material fact. The theory of summary judgment is that, although an
answer may on its face appear to tender issues requiring trial, if it is
established by affidavits, depositions or admissions that those issues are not
genuine but fictitious, the Court is justified in dispensing with the trial and
rendering summary judgment for petitioner. 59
In the various annexes to the petition for forfeiture, petitioner Republic
attached sworn statements of witnesses who had personal knowledge of the
Marcoses' participation in the illegal acquisition of funds deposited in the
Swiss accounts under the names of five groups or foundations. These sworn
statements substantiated the ill-gotten nature of the Swiss bank deposits. In
their answer and other subsequent pleadings, however, the Marcoses merely
made general denials of the allegations against them without stating facts
admissible in evidence at the hearing, thereby failing to raise any genuine
issues of fact.
Under these circumstances, a trial would have served no purpose at all
and would have been totally unnecessary, thus justifying a summary
judgment on the petition for forfeiture. There were no opposing affidavits to
contradict the sworn declarations of the witnesses of petitioner Republic,
leading to the inescapable conclusion that the matters raised in the
Marcoses' answer were false.
Time and again, this Court has encountered cases like this which are
either only half-heartedly defended or, if the semblance of a defense is
interposed at all, it is only to delay disposition and gain time. It is certainly
not in the interest of justice to allow respondent Marcoses to avail of the
appellate remedies accorded by the Rules of Court to litigants in good faith,
to the prejudice of the Republic and ultimately of the Filipino people. From
the beginning, a candid demonstration of respondents' good faith should
have been made to the court below. Without the deceptive reasoning and
argumentation, this protracted litigation could have ended a long time ago.
Since 1991, when the petition for forfeiture was first filed, up to the
present, all respondents have offered are foxy responses like "lack of
sufficient knowledge or lack of privity" or "they cannot recall because it
happened a long time ago" or, as to Mrs. Marcos, "the funds were lawfully
acquired." But, whenever it suits them, they also claim ownership of 90% of
the funds and allege that only 10% belongs to the Marcos estate. It has been
an incredible charade from beginning to end.
In the hope of convincing this Court to rule otherwise, respondents
Maria Imelda Marcos-Manotoc and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. contend that "by
its positive acts and express admissions prior to filing the motion for
summary judgment on March 10, 2000, petitioner Republic had bound itself
to go to trial on the basis of existing issues. Thus, it had legally waived
whatever right it had to move for summary judgment." 60
We do not think so. The alleged positive acts and express admissions
of the petitioner did not preclude it from filing a motion for summary
judgment.
Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Rule 35
Summary Judgment
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party

seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in
answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon all
or any part thereof.
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party

against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a
declaratory relief is sought may, at any time , move with supporting
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his
favor as to all or any part thereof. (Emphasis and italics ours) 61
Under the rule, the plaintiff can move for summary judgment "at any
time after the pleading in answer thereto (i.e ., in answer to the claim,
counterclaim or cross-claim) has been served." No fixed reglementary period
is provided by the Rules. How else does one construe the phrase "any time
after the answer has been served?"
This issue is actually one of first impression. No local jurisprudence or
authoritative work has touched upon this matter. This being so, an
examination of foreign laws and jurisprudence, particularly those of the
United States where many of our laws and rules were copied, is in order.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim may move for
summary judgment at any time after the expiration of 20 days from the
commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary
judgment by the adverse party, and that a party against whom a claim,
counterclaim or cross-claim is asserted may move for summary judgment at
any time.
However, some rules, particularly Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice
of New York, specifically provide that a motion for summary judgment may
not be made until issues have been joined, that is, only after an answer has
been served. 62 Under said rule, after issues have been joined, the motion
for summary judgment may be made at any stage of the litigation. 63 No
fixed prescriptive period is provided.
Like Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice of New York, our rules also
provide that a motion for summary judgment may not be made until issues
have been joined, meaning, the plaintiff has to wait for the answer before he
can move for summary judgment. 64 And like the New York rules, ours do not
provide for a fixed reglementary period within which to move for summary
judgment.
This being so, the New York Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 113
of the Rules of Civil Practice can be applied by analogy to the interpretation
of Section 1, Rule 35, of our 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under the New York rule, after the issues have been joined, the motion
for summary judgment may be made at any stage of the litigation. And what
exactly does the phrase "at any stage of the litigation" mean? In Ecker vs.
Muzysh, 65 the New York Supreme Court ruled:
"PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff introduced her evidence and the defendants rested on
the case made by the plaintiff. The case was submitted. Owing to the
serious illness of the trial justice, a decision was not rendered within
sixty days after the final adjournment of the term at which the case
was tried. With the approval of the trial justice, the plaintiff moved for a
new trial under Section 442 of the Civil Practice Act. The plaintiff also
moved for summary judgment under Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil
Practice. The motion was opposed mainly on the ground that, by
proceeding to trial, the plaintiff had waived her right to
summary judgment and that the answer and the opposing affidavits
raised triable issues. The amount due and unpaid under the contract is
not in dispute. The Special Term granted both motions and the
defendants have appealed.
The Special Term properly held that the answer and the opposing
affidavits raised no triable issue. Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil
Practice and the Civil Practice Act prescribe no limitation as to
the time when a motion for summary judgment must be made.
The object of Rule 113 is to empower the court to summarily
determine whether or not a bona fide issue exists between the
parties, and there is no limitation on the power of the court to
make such a determination at any stage of the litigation."
(emphasis and italics ours)
On the basis of the aforequoted disquisition, "any stage of the litigation"
means that "even if the plaintiff has proceeded to trial, this does not
preclude him from thereafter moving for summary judgment." 66
In the case at bar, petitioner moved for summary judgment after pre-
trial and before its scheduled date for presentation of evidence. Respondent
Marcoses argue that, by agreeing to proceed to trial during the pre-trial
conference, petitioner "waived" its right to summary judgment.
This argument must fail in the light of the New York Supreme Court
ruling which we apply by analogy to this case. In Ecker, 67 the defendant
opposed the motion for summary judgment on a ground similar to that
raised by the Marcoses, that is, "that plaintiff had waived her right to
summary judgment" by her act of proceeding to trial. If, as correctly ruled by
the New York court, plaintiff was allowed to move for summary judgment
even after trial and submission of the case for resolution, more so should we
permit it in the present case where petitioner moved for summary judgment
before trial.
Therefore, the phrase "anytime after the pleading in answer thereto
has been served" in Section 1, Rule 35 of our Rules of Civil Procedure means
"at any stage of the litigation." Whenever it becomes evident at any stage of
the litigation that no triable issue exists, or that the defenses raised by the
defendant(s) are sham or frivolous, plaintiff may move for summary
judgment. A contrary interpretation would go against the very objective of
the Rule on Summary Judgment which is to "weed out sham claims or
defenses thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial."
68
In cases with political undertones like the one at bar, adverse parties
will often do almost anything to delay the proceedings in the hope that a
future administration sympathetic to them might be able to influence the
outcome of the case in their favor. This is rank injustice we cannot tolerate.
The law looks with disfavor on long, protracted and expensive litigation
and encourages the speedy and prompt disposition of cases. That is why the
law and the rules provide for a number of devices to ensure the speedy
disposition of cases. Summary judgment is one of them.
Faithful therefore to the spirit of the law on summary judgment which
seeks to avoid unnecessary expense and loss of time in a trial, we hereby
rule that petitioner Republic could validly move for summary judgment any
time after the respondents’ answer was filed or, for that matter, at any
subsequent stage of the litigation. The fact that petitioner agreed to proceed
to trial did not in any way prevent it from moving for summary judgment, as
indeed no genuine issue of fact was ever validly raised by respondent
Marcoses.
This interpretation conforms with the guiding principle enshrined in
Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that the "[r]ules should
be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." 69
Respondents further allege that the motion for summary judgment was
based on respondents' answer and other documents that had long been in
the records of the case. Thus, by the time the motion was filed on March 10,
2000, estoppel by laches had already set in against petitioner.
We disagree. Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable or unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising
due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, warranting a
presumption that the person has abandoned his right or declined to assert it.
70 In effect, therefore, the principle of laches is one of estoppel because "it
prevents people who have slept on their rights from prejudicing the rights of
third parties who have placed reliance on the inaction of the original parties
and their successors-in-interest." 71
A careful examination of the records, however, reveals that petitioner
was in fact never remiss in pursuing its case against respondent Marcoses
through every remedy available to it, including the motion for summary
judgment.
Petitioner Republic initially filed its motion for summary judgment on
October 18, 1996. The motion was denied because of the pending
compromise agreement between the Marcoses and petitioner. But during the
pre-trial conference, the Marcoses denied ownership of the Swiss funds,
prompting petitioner to file another motion for summary judgment now
under consideration by this Court. It was the subsequent events that
transpired after the answer was filed, therefore, which prevented petitioner
from filing the questioned motion. It was definitely not because of neglect or
inaction that petitioner filed the (second) motion for summary judgment
years after respondents' answer to the petition for forfeiture.
In invoking the doctrine of estoppel by laches, respondents must show
not only unjustified inaction but also that some unfair injury to them might
result unless the action is barred. 72
This, respondents failed to bear out. In fact, during the pre-trial
conference, the Marcoses disclaimed ownership of the Swiss deposits. Not
being the owners, as they claimed, respondents did not have any vested
right or interest which could be adversely affected by petitioner's alleged
inaction.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that laches had already
set in, the doctrine of estoppel or laches does not apply when the
government sues as a sovereign or asserts governmental rights. 73 Nor can
estoppel validate an act that contravenes law or public policy. 74
As a final point, it must be emphasized that laches is not a mere
question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. 75 Equity demands
that petitioner Republic should not be barred from pursuing the people's
case against the Marcoses.
(2) THE PROPRIETY OF FORFEITURE
The matter of summary judgment having been thus settled, the issue
of whether or not petitioner Republic was able to prove its case for forfeiture
in accordance with the requisites of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379 now takes
center stage.
The law raises the prima facie presumption that a property is
unlawfully acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its amount or value is
manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of
the public officer who owns it. Hence, Sections 2 and 6 of RA 1379 76
provide:
xxx xxx xxx
Section 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever any public officer or
employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount or 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.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. Judgment. — If the respondent is unable to show to

the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property
in question, then the court shall declare such property in question,
forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the
property aforesaid shall become the property of the State. Provided,
That no judgment shall be rendered within six months before any
general election or within three months before any special election.
The Court may, in addition, refer this case to the corresponding
Executive Department for administrative or criminal action, or both.
From the above-quoted provisions of the law, the following facts must
be established in order that forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may
be effected:
(1) ownership by the public officer of money or property

acquired during his incumbency, whether it be in his name or
otherwise, and
(2) the extent to which the amount of that money or

property exceeds, i.e ., is grossly disproportionate to, the
legitimate income of the public officer.
That spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public officials during
the time material to the instant case was never in dispute. Paragraph 4 of
respondent Marcoses' answer categorically admitted the allegations in
paragraph 4 of the petition for forfeiture as to the personal circumstances of
Ferdinand E. Marcos as a public official who served without interruption as
Congressman, Senator, Senate President and President of the Republic of the
Philippines from December 1, 1965 to February 25, 1986. 77 Likewise,
respondents admitted in their answer the contents of paragraph 5 of the
petition as to the personal circumstances of Imelda R. Marcos who once
served as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa from 1978 to 1984
and as Metro Manila Governor, concurrently Minister of Human Settlements,
from June 1976 to February 1986. 78
Respondent Mrs. Marcos also admitted in paragraph 10 of her answer
the allegations of paragraph 11 of the petition for forfeiture which referred to
the accumulated salaries of respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R.
Marcos. 79 The combined accumulated salaries of the Marcos couple were
reflected in the Certification dated May 27, 1986 issued by then Minister of
Budget and Management Alberto Romulo. 80 The Certification showed that,
from 1966 to 1985, Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos had
accumulated salaries in the amount of P1,570,000 and P718,750,
respectively, or a total of P2,288,750:
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, AS PRESIDENT
1966-1976 at P60,000/year P660,000

1977-1984 at P100,000/year 800,000
1985 at P110,000/year 110,000
————
P1,570,000
IMELDA R. MARCOS, AS MINISTER
June 1976-1985 at P75,000/year P718,000

In addition to their accumulated salaries from 1966 to 1985 are the
Marcos couple’s combined salaries from January to February 1986 in the
amount of P30,833.33. Hence, their total accumulated salaries amounted to
P2,319,583.33. Converted to U.S. dollars on the basis of the corresponding
peso-dollar exchange rates prevailing during the applicable period when said
salaries were received, the total amount had an equivalent value of
$304,372.43.
The dollar equivalent was arrived at by using the official annual rates
of exchange of the Philippine peso and the US dollar from 1965 to 1985 as
well as the official monthly rates of exchange in January and February 1986
issued by the Center for Statistical Information of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.
Prescinding from the aforesaid admissions, Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court provides that:
Section 4. — Judicial admissions — An admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made. 81
It is settled that judicial admissions may be made: (a) in the pleadings
filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings,
as in the pre-trial of the case. 82 Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and
answer, as in the case at bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and
respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to contradict them or
subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with such
admissions. 83
The sum of $304,372.43 should be held as the only known lawful
income of respondents since they did not file any Statement of Assets and
Liabilities (SAL), as required by law, from which their net worth could be
determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as
President could not receive "any other emolument from the Government or
any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities." 84 Likewise, under the 1973
Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as President could "not receive during his
tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source." 85
In fact, his management of businesses, like the administration of foundations
to accumulate funds, was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution:
Article VII, Sec. 4(2) — The President and the Vice-President shall
not, during their tenure, hold any other office except when otherwise
provided in this Constitution, nor may they practice any profession,
participate directly or indirectly in the management of any business, or
be financially interested directly or indirectly in any contract with, or in
any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any
other subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government owned or controlled corporation.
Article VII, Sec. 11 — No Member of the National Assembly shall

appear as counsel before any court inferior to a court with appellate
jurisdiction, . . . . Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof including any government owned or controlled
corporation during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any
matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.
Article IX, Sec. 7 — The Prime Minister and Members of the
Cabinet shall be subject to the provision of Section 11, Article VIII
hereof and may not appear as counsel before any court or
administrative body, or manage any business, or practice any
profession, and shall also be subject to such other disqualification as
may be provided by law.
Their only known lawful income of $304,372.43 can therefore legally

and fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case
of forfeiture of the Swiss funds.
Respondents argue that petitioner was not able to establish a prima
facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss funds since it failed to prove the
essential elements under Section 3, paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of RA 1379.
As the Act is a penal statute, its provisions are mandatory and should thus
be construed strictly against the petitioner and liberally in favor of
respondent Marcoses.
We hold that it was not for petitioner to establish the Marcoses' other
lawful income or income from legitimately acquired property for the
presumption to apply because, as between petitioner and respondents, the
latter were in a better position to know if there were such other sources of
lawful income. And if indeed there was such other lawful income,
respondents should have specifically stated the same in their answer. Insofar
as petitioner Republic was concerned, it was enough to specify the known
lawful income of respondents.
Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations provides that, in
determining prima facie evidence of ill-gotten wealth, the value of the
accumulated assets, properties and other material possessions of those
covered by Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 must be out of proportion to the
known lawful income of such persons. The respondent Marcos couple did not
file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) from which their net worth
could be determined. Their failure to file their SAL was in itself a violation of
law and to allow them to successfully assail the Republic for not presenting
their SAL would reward them for their violation of the law.
Further, contrary to the claim of respondents, the admissions made by
them in their various pleadings and documents were valid. It is of record that
respondents judicially admitted that the money deposited with the Swiss
banks belonged to them.
We agree with petitioner that respondent Marcoses made judicial
admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits in their
answer, the General/Supplemental Agreements, Mrs. Marcos' Manifestation
and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and the Undertaking dated February 10,
1999. We take note of the fact that the Associate Justices of the
Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondents had made
judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds.
In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the subject
funds, respondents likewise admitted ownership thereof. Paragraph 22 of
respondents' answer stated:
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. (italics supplied)
By qualifying their acquisition of the Swiss bank deposits as lawful,
respondents unwittingly admitted their ownership thereof.
Respondent Mrs. Marcos also admitted ownership of the Swiss bank
deposits by failing to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of
certain actionable documents bearing her signature attached to the petition.
As discussed earlier, Section 11, Rule 8 86 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that material averments in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
The General 87 and Supplemental 88 Agreements executed by
petitioner and respondents on December 28, 1993 further bolstered the
claim of petitioner Republic that its case for forfeiture was proven in
accordance with the requisites of Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379. The whereas
clause in the General Agreement declared that:
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY has obtained a judgment from the
Swiss Federal Tribunal on December 21, 1990, that the $356 million
belongs in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain
conditionalities are met, but even after 7 years, the FIRST PARTY has
not been able to procure a final judgment of conviction against the
PRIVATE PARTY.
While the Supplemental Agreement warranted, inter alia, that:

In consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree that
the PRIVATE PARTY shall be entitled to the equivalent of 25% of the
amount that may be eventually withdrawn from said $356 million
Swiss deposits.
The stipulations set forth in the General and Supplemental Agreements

undeniably indicated the manifest intent of respondents to enter into a
compromise with petitioner. Corollarily, respondents’ willingness to agree to
an amicable settlement with the Republic only affirmed their ownership of
the Swiss deposits for the simple reason that no person would acquiesce to
any concession over such huge dollar deposits if he did not in fact own them.
Respondents make much capital of the pronouncement by this Court
that the General and Supplemental Agreements were null and void. 89 They
insist that nothing in those agreements could thus be admitted in evidence
against them because they stood on the same ground as an accepted offer
which, under Section 27, Rule 130 90 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
provides that "in civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of
any liability and is not admissible in evidence against the offeror."
We find no merit in this contention. The declaration of nullity of said
agreements was premised on the following constitutional and statutory
infirmities: (1) the grant of criminal immunity to the Marcos heirs was
against the law; (2) the PCGG's commitment to exempt from all forms of
taxes the properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs was against the
Constitution; and (3) the government’s undertaking to cause the dismissal of
all cases filed against the Marcoses pending before the Sandiganbayan and
other courts encroached on the powers of the judiciary. The reasons relied
upon by the Court never in the least bit even touched on the veracity and
truthfulness of respondents' admission with respect to their ownership of the
Swiss funds. Besides, having made certain admissions in those agreements,
respondents cannot now deny that they voluntarily admitted owning the
subject Swiss funds, notwithstanding the fact that the agreements
themselves were later declared null and void.
The following observation of Sandiganbayan Justice Catalino
Castañeda, Jr. in the decision dated September 19, 2000 could not have
been better said:
. . . The declaration of nullity of the two agreements rendered the
same without legal effects but it did not detract from the admissions of
the respondents contained therein. Otherwise stated, the admissions
made in said agreements, as quoted above, remain binding on the
respondents. 91
A written statement is nonetheless competent as an admission even if

it is contained in a document which is not itself effective for the purpose for
which it is made, either by reason of illegality, or incompetency of a party
thereto, or by reason of not being signed, executed or delivered.
Accordingly, contracts have been held as competent evidence of admissions,
although they may be unenforceable. 92
The testimony of respondent Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. during the hearing
on the motion for the approval of the Compromise Agreement on April 29,
1998 also lent credence to the allegations of petitioner Republic that
respondents admitted ownership of the Swiss bank accounts. We quote the
salient portions of Ferdinand Jr.'s formal declarations in open court:
ATTY. FERNANDO:
Mr. Marcos, did you ever have any meetings with PCGG Chairman
Magtanggol C. Gunigundo?
F. MARCOS, JR.:
Yes. I have had very many meetings in fact with Chairman.
ATTY. FERNANDO:
Would you recall when the first meeting occurred?
PJ GARCHITORENA:
In connection with what?

ATTY. FERNANDO:
In connection with the ongoing talks to compromise the various
cases initiated by PCGG against your family?
F. MARCOS, JR.:
The nature of our meetings was solely concerned with

negotiations towards achieving some kind of agreement between
the Philippine government and the Marcos family. The
discussions that led up to the compromise agreement were
initiated by our then counsel Atty. Simeon Mesina . . . . 93
xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. FERNANDO:
What was your reaction when Atty. Mesina informed you of this
possibility?
F. MARCOS, JR.:
My reaction to all of these approaches is that I am always open,
we are always open, we are very much always in search of
resolution to the problem of the family and any approach that
has been made us, we have entertained. And so my reaction was
the same as what I have always . . . why not? Maybe this is the
one that will finally put an end to this problem. 94
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. FERNANDO:
Basically, what were the true amounts of the assets in the bank?
PJ GARCHITORENA:
So, we are talking about liquid assets here? Just Cash?

F. MARCOS, JR.:
Well, basically, any assets. Anything that was under the Marcos
name in any of the banks in Switzerland which may necessarily
be not cash. 95
xxx xxx xxx
PJ GARCHITORENA:
. . . What did you do in other words, after being apprised of this
contract in connection herewith?
F. MARCOS, JR.:
I assumed that we are beginning to implement the agreement
because this was forwarded through the Philippine government
lawyers through our lawyers and then, subsequently, to me. I
was a little surprised because we hadn't really discussed the
details of the transfer of the funds, what the bank accounts, what
the mechanism would be. But nevertheless, I was happy to see
that as far as the PCGG is concerned, that the agreement was
perfected and that we were beginning to implement it and that
was a source of satisfaction to me because I thought that finally
it will be the end. 96
Ferdinand Jr.'s pronouncements, taken in context and in their entirety,

were a confirmation of respondents’ recognition of their ownership of the
Swiss bank deposits. Admissions of a party in his testimony are receivable
against him. If a party, as a witness, deliberately concedes a fact, such
concession has the force of a judicial admission. 97 It is apparent from
Ferdinand Jr.'s testimony that the Marcos family agreed to negotiate with the
Philippine government in the hope of finally putting an end to the problems
besetting the Marcos family regarding the Swiss accounts. This was
doubtlessly an acknowledgment of ownership on their part. The rule is that
the testimony on the witness stand partakes of the nature of a formal
judicial admission when a party testifies clearly and unequivocally to a fact
which is peculiarly within his own knowledge. 98
In her Manifestation 99 dated May 26, 1998, respondent Imelda Marcos

furthermore revealed the following:
That respondent Imelda R. Marcos owns 90% of the subject
matter of the above-entitled case, being the sole beneficiary of the
dollar deposits in the name of the various foundations alleged in the
case;
That in fact only 10% of the subject matter in the above-entitled

case belongs to the estate of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos;
xxx xxx xxx
Respondents' ownership of the Swiss bank accounts as borne out by
Mrs. Marcos' manifestation is as bright as sunlight. And her claim that she is
merely a beneficiary of the Swiss deposits is belied by her own signatures on
the appended copies of the documents substantiating her ownership of the
funds in the name of the foundations. As already mentioned, she failed to
specifically deny under oath the authenticity of such documents, especially
those involving "William Saunders" and "Jane Ryan" which actually referred
to Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos, respectively. That failure of Imelda
Marcos to specifically deny the existence, much less the genuineness and
due execution, of the instruments bearing her signature, was tantamount to
a judicial admission of the genuineness and due execution of said
instruments, in accordance with Section 8, Rule 8 100 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Likewise, in her Constancia 101 dated May 6, 1999, Imelda Marcos
prayed for the approval of the Compromise Agreement and the subsequent
release and transfer of the $150 million to the rightful owner. She further
made the following manifestations:
xxx xxx xxx
2. The Republic's cause of action over the full amount is its
forfeiture in favor of the government if found to be ill-gotten. On the
other hand, the Marcoses defend that it is a legitimate asset.
Therefore, both parties have an inchoate right of ownership over the
account. If it turns out that the account is of lawful origin, the Republic
may yield to the Marcoses. Conversely, the Marcoses must yield to the
Republic. (italics supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
3. Consistent with the foregoing, and the Marcoses having
committed themselves to helping the less fortunate, in the interest of
peace, reconciliation and unity, defendant MADAM IMELDA
ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, in firm abidance thereby, hereby affirms her
agreement with the Republic for the release and transfer of the US
Dollar 150 million for proper disposition, without prejudice to the final
outcome of the litigation respecting the ownership of the remainder.
Again, the above statements were indicative of Imelda's admission of

the Marcoses' ownership of the Swiss deposits as in fact "the Marcoses
defend that it (Swiss deposits) is a legitimate (Marcos) asset."
On the other hand, respondents Maria Imelda Marcos-Manotoc,
Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Maria Irene Marcos-Araneta filed a motion 102 on
May 4, 1998 asking the Sandiganbayan to place the res (Swiss deposits) in
custodia legis:
7. Indeed, the prevailing situation is fraught with danger!
Unless the aforesaid Swiss deposits are placed in custodia legis or
within the Court's protective mantle, its dissipation or misappropriation
by the petitioner looms as a distinct possibility.
Such display of deep, personal interest can only come from someone
who believes that he has a marked and intimate right over the considerable
dollar deposits. Truly, by filing said motion, the Marcos children revealed
their ownership of the said deposits.
Lastly, the Undertaking 103 entered into by the PCGG, the PNB and the
Marcos foundations on February 10, 1999, confirmed the Marcoses’
ownership of the Swiss bank deposits. The subject Undertaking brought to
light their readiness to pay the human rights victims out of the funds held in
escrow in the PNB. It stated:
WHEREAS, the Republic of the Philippines sympathizes with the
plight of the human rights victims-plaintiffs in the aforementioned
litigation through the Second Party, desires to assist in the satisfaction
of the judgment awards of said human rights victims-plaintiffs, by
releasing, assigning and or waiving US$150 million of the funds held in
escrow under the Escrow Agreements dated August 14, 1995, although
the Republic is not obligated to do so under final judgments of the
Swiss courts dated December 10 and 19, 1997, and January 8, 1998;
WHEREAS, the Third Party is likewise willing to release, assign
and/or waive all its rights and interests over said US$150 million to the
aforementioned human rights victims-plaintiffs.
All told, the foregoing disquisition negates the claim of respondents

that "petitioner failed to prove that they acquired or own the Swiss funds"
and that "it was only by arbitrarily isolating and taking certain statements
made by private respondents out of context that petitioner was able to treat
these as judicial admissions." The Court is fully aware of the relevance,
materiality and implications of every pleading and document submitted in
this case. This Court carefully scrutinized the proofs presented by the
parties. We analyzed, assessed and weighed them to ascertain if each piece
of evidence rightfully qualified as an admission. Owing to the far-reaching
historical and political implications of this case, we considered and
examined, individually and totally, the evidence of the parties, even if it
might have bordered on factual adjudication which, by authority of the rules
and jurisprudence, is not usually done by this Court. There is no doubt in our
mind that respondent Marcoses admitted ownership of the Swiss bank
deposits.
We have always adhered to the familiar doctrine that an admission
made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such
admission and becomes conclusive on him, and that all proofs submitted by
him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether
an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. 104 This doctrine is
embodied in Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made. 105
In the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, respondents'

judicial admission of ownership of the Swiss deposits is definitely binding on
them.
The individual and separate admissions of each respondent bind all of
them pursuant to Sections 29 and 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or
declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his
authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may
be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency
is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party. 106
SEC. 31. Admission by privies. — Where one derives title to
property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter,
while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against
the former. 107
The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever a

"privity of estate" exists between the declarant and the party, the term
"privity of estate" generally denoting a succession in rights. 108
Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party to the record is
competent. 109 Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents in this
case. And where several co-parties to the record are jointly interested in the
subject matter of the controversy, the admission of one is competent against
all. 110
Respondents insist that the Sandiganbayan is correct in ruling that
petitioner Republic has failed to establish a prima facie case for the
forfeiture of the Swiss deposits.
We disagree. The sudden turn-around of the Sandiganbayan was really
strange, to say the least, as its findings and conclusions were not borne out
by the voluminous records of this case.
Section 2 of RA 1379 explicitly states 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. . . ."
The elements which must concur for this prima facie presumption to
apply are:
(1) the offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) the must have acquired a considerable amount of
money or property during his incumbency; and
(3) said amount 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.
It is undisputed that spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were
former public officers. Hence, the first element is clearly extant.
The second element deals with the amount of money or property
acquired by the public officer during his incumbency. The Marcos couple
indubitably acquired and owned properties during their term of office. In
fact, the five groups of Swiss accounts were admittedly owned by them.
There is proof of the existence and ownership of these assets and properties
and it suffices to comply with the second element.
The third requirement is met if it can be shown that such assets,
money or property is manifestly out of proportion to the public officer’s
salary and his other lawful income. It is the proof of this third element that is
crucial in determining whether a prima facie presumption has been
established in this case.
Petitioner Republic presented not only a schedule indicating the lawful
income of the Marcos spouses during their incumbency but also evidence
that they had huge deposits beyond such lawful income in Swiss banks
under the names of five different foundations. We believe petitioner was
able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties
acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to
their aggregate salaries as public officials. Otherwise stated, petitioner
presented enough evidence to convince us that the Marcoses had dollar
deposits amounting to US $356 million representing the balance of the Swiss
accounts of the five foundations, an amount way, way beyond their
aggregate legitimate income of only US$304,372.43 during their
incumbency as government officials.
Considering, therefore, that the total amount of the Swiss deposits was
considerably out of proportion to the known lawful income of the Marcoses,
the presumption that said dollar deposits were unlawfully acquired was duly
established. It was sufficient for the petition for forfeiture to state the
approximate amount of money and property acquired by the respondents,
and their total government salaries. Section 9 of the PCGG Rules and
Regulations states:
Prima Facie Evidence. – Any accumulation of assets, properties,
and other material possessions of those persons covered by Executive
Order Nos. 1 and No. 2, whose value is out of proportion to their known
lawful income is prima facie deemed ill-gotten wealth.
Indeed, the burden of proof was on the respondents to dispute this

presumption and show by clear and convincing evidence that the Swiss
deposits were lawfully acquired and that they had other legitimate sources
of income. A presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed and,
unless the fact thus prima facie established by legal presumption is
disproved, it must stand as proved. 111
Respondent Mrs. Marcos argues that the foreign foundations should
have been impleaded as they were indispensable parties without whom no
complete determination of the issues could be made. She asserts that the
failure of petitioner Republic to implead the foundations rendered the
judgment void as the joinder of indispensable parties was a sine qua non
exercise of judicial power. Furthermore, the non-inclusion of the foreign
foundations violated the conditions prescribed by the Swiss government
regarding the deposit of the funds in escrow, deprived them of their day in
court and denied them their rights under the Swiss constitution and
international law. 112
The Court finds that petitioner Republic did not err in not impleading
the foreign foundations. Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, 113 taken from Rule 19b of the American Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, provides for the compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Generally, an indispensable party must be impleaded for the complete
determination of the suit. However, failure to join an indispensable party
does not divest the court of jurisdiction since the rule regarding
indispensable parties is founded on equitable considerations and is not
jurisdictional. Thus, the court is not divested of its power to render a decision
even in the absence of indispensable parties, though such judgment is not
binding on the non-joined party. 114
An indispensable party 115 has been defined as one:
[who] must have a direct interest in the litigation; and if this
interest is such that it cannot be separated from that of the parties to
the suit, if the court cannot render justice between the parties in his
absence, if the decree will have an injurious effect upon his interest, or
if the final determination of the controversy in his absence will be
inconsistent with equity and good conscience.
There are two essential tests of an indispensable party: (1) can relief
be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other party? and (2) can
the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other
party? 116 There is, however, no fixed formula for determining who is an
indispensable party; this can only be determined in the context and by the
facts of the particular suit or litigation.
In the present case, there was an admission by respondent Imelda
Marcos in her May 26, 1998 Manifestation before the Sandiganbayan that
she was the sole beneficiary of 90% of the subject matter in controversy with
the remaining 10% belonging to the estate of Ferdinand Marcos. 117 Viewed
against this admission, the foreign foundations were not indispensable
parties. Their non-participation in the proceedings did not prevent the court
from deciding the case on its merits and according full relief to petitioner
Republic. The judgment ordering the return of the $356 million was neither
inimical to the foundations’ interests nor inconsistent with equity and good
conscience. The admission of respondent Imelda Marcos only confirmed what
was already generally known: that the foundations were established
precisely to hide the money stolen by the Marcos spouses from petitioner
Republic. It negated whatever illusion there was, if any, that the foreign
foundations owned even a nominal part of the assets in question.
The rulings of the Swiss court that the foundations, as formal owners,
must be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings hinged on the
assumption that they owned a nominal share of the assets. 118 But this was
already refuted by no less than Mrs. Marcos herself. Thus, she cannot now
argue that the ruling of the Sandiganbayan violated the conditions set by the
Swiss court. The directive given by the Swiss court for the foundations to
participate in the proceedings was for the purpose of protecting whatever
nominal interest they might have had in the assets as formal owners. But
inasmuch as their ownership was subsequently repudiated by Imelda
Marcos, they could no longer be considered as indispensable parties and
their participation in the proceedings became unnecessary.
In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 119 this Court ruled that impleading the
firms which are the res of the action was unnecessary:
"And as to corporations organized with ill-gotten wealth, but are
not themselves guilty of misappropriation, fraud or other illicit conduct
— in other words, the companies themselves are not the object or thing
involved in the action, the res thereof — there is no need to implead
them either. Indeed, their impleading is not proper on the strength
alone of their having been formed with ill-gotten funds, absent any
other particular wrongdoing on their part . . .
Such showing of having been formed with, or having received ill-
gotten funds, however strong or convincing, does not, without more,
warrant identifying the corporations in question with the person who
formed or made use of them to give the color or appearance of lawful,
innocent acquisition to illegally amassed wealth — at the least, not so
as place on the Government the onus of impleading the former with the
latter in actions to recover such wealth. Distinguished in terms of
juridical personality and legal culpability from their erring members or
stockholders, said corporations are not themselves guilty of the sins of
the latter, of the embezzlement, asportation, etc., that gave rise to the
Government’s cause of action for recovery; their creation or
organization was merely the result of their members' (or stockholders')
manipulations and maneuvers to conceal the illegal origins of the
assets or monies invested therein. In this light, they are simply the res
in the actions for the recovery of illegally acquired wealth, and there is,
in principle, no cause of action against them and no ground to implead
them as defendants in said actions."
Just like the corporations in the aforementioned case, the foreign
foundations here were set up to conceal the illegally acquired funds of the
Marcos spouses. Thus, they were simply the res in the action for recovery of
ill-gotten wealth and did not have to be impleaded for lack of cause of action
or ground to implead them.
Assuming arguendo, however, that the foundations were indispensable
parties, the failure of petitioner to implead them was a curable error, as held
in the previously cited case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan: 120
"Even in those cases where it might reasonably be argued that
the failure of the Government to implead the sequestered corporations
as defendants is indeed a procedural aberration, as where said firms
were allegedly used, and actively cooperated with the defendants, as
instruments or conduits for conversion of public funds and property or
illicit or fraudulent obtention of favored government contracts, etc.,
slight reflection would nevertheless lead to the conclusion that the
defect is not fatal, but one correctible under applicable adjective rules
— e.g., Section 10, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court [specifying the remedy
of amendment during trial to authorize or to conform to the evidence];
Section 1, Rule 20 [governing amendments before trial], in relation to
the rule respecting omission of so-called necessary or indispensable
parties, set out in Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. It is relevant
in this context to advert to the old familiar doctrines that the omission
to implead such parties "is a mere technical defect which can be cured
at any stage of the proceedings even after judgment"; and that,
particularly in the case of indispensable parties, since their presence
and participation is essential to the very life of the action, for without
them no judgment may be rendered, amendments of the complaint in
order to implead them should be freely allowed, even on appeal, in fact
even after rendition of judgment by this Court, where it appears that
the complaint otherwise indicates their identity and character as such
indispensable parties." 121
Although there are decided cases wherein the non-joinder of

indispensable parties in fact led to the dismissal of the suit or the annulment
of judgment, such cases do not jibe with the matter at hand. The better view
is that non-joinder is not a ground to dismiss the suit or annul the judgment.
The rule on joinder of indispensable parties is founded on equity. And the
spirit of the law is reflected in Section 11, Rule 3 122 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. It prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-
joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint
at any stage of the proceedings, through motion or on order of the court on
its own initiative. 123
Likewise, jurisprudence on the Federal Rules of Procedure, from which
our Section 7, Rule 3 124 on indispensable parties was copied, allows the
joinder of indispensable parties even after judgment has been entered if
such is needed to afford the moving party full relief. 125 Mere delay in filing
the joinder motion does not necessarily result in the waiver of the right as
long as the delay is excusable. 126 Thus, respondent Mrs. Marcos cannot
correctly argue that the judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan was void
due to the non-joinder of the foreign foundations. The court had jurisdiction
to render judgment which, even in the absence of indispensable parties, was
binding on all the parties before it though not on the absent party. 127 If she
really felt that she could not be granted full relief due to the absence of the
foreign foundations, she should have moved for their inclusion, which was
allowable at any stage of the proceedings. She never did. Instead she
assailed the judgment rendered.
In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of
documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses failed to justify
the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said assets. Hence, the Swiss
deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the
State in accordance with Section 6 of RA 1379:
SEC. 6. Judgment. — If the respondent is unable to show to
the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property
in question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor
of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid
shall become property of the State . . . .
THE FAILURE TO PRESENT AUTHENTICATED

TRANSLATIONS OF THE SWISS DECISIONS
Finally, petitioner Republic contends that the Honorable

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena committed grave
abuse of discretion in reversing himself on the ground that the original
copies of the authenticated Swiss decisions and their authenticated
translations were not submitted to the court a quo. Earlier PJ Garchitorena
had quoted extensively from the unofficial translation of one of these Swiss
decisions in his ponencia dated July 29, 1999 when he denied the motion to
release US$150 Million to the human rights victims.
While we are in reality perplexed by such an incomprehensible change
of heart, there might nevertheless not be any real need to belabor the issue.
The presentation of the authenticated translations of the original copies of
the Swiss decision was not de rigueur for the public respondent to make
findings of fact and reach its conclusions. In short, the Sandiganbayan’s
decision was not dependent on the determination of the Swiss courts. For
that matter, neither is this Court's.
The release of the Swiss funds held in escrow in the PNB is dependent
solely on the decision of this jurisdiction that said funds belong to the
petitioner Republic. What is important is our own assessment of the
sufficiency of the evidence to rule in favor of either petitioner Republic or
respondent Marcoses. In this instance, despite the absence of the
authenticated translations of the Swiss decisions, the evidence on hand tilts
convincingly in favor of petitioner Republic.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution
of the Sandiganbayan dated January 31, 2002 is SET ASIDE. The Swiss
deposits which were transferred to and are now deposited in escrow at the
Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount of
US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002, plus interest, are hereby
forfeited in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-
Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ ., concur.
Puno and Vitug, JJ ., in the result.
Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ ., on official leave.
Carpio, J ., took no part. While Presidential Legal Counsel, acted as
chair of a committee that oversaw the transfer of these funds to the
Philippines.
Footnotes
1. An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property To Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the
Procedure Therefor.
2. E.O. No. 1 — promulgated on February 28, 1986, only two (2) days after the
Marcoses fled the country, creating the PCGG which was primarily tasked to
assist the President in the recovery of vast government resources allegedly
amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and
close associates, both here and abroad.
3. E.O. No. 2 — issued twelve (12) days later, warning all persons and entities who
had knowledge of possession of ill-gotten assets and properties under pain of
penalties prescribed by law, prohibiting them from concealing, transferring or
dissipating them or from otherwise frustrating or obstructing the recovery
efforts of the government.
4. E.O. No. 14 — Series of 1986, as amended by E.O. No. 14-A.
5. Also series of 1986, vested Sandiganbayan the exclusive and original jurisdiction
over cases, whether civil or criminal, to be filed by the PCGG with the
assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General. The law also declared that
the civil actions for the recovery of unlawfully acquired property under
Republic Act No. 1379 or for restitution, reparation of damages, or
indemnification for consequential and other damages or any other civil action
under the Civil Code or other existing laws filed with the Sandiganbayan
against Ferdinand Marcos, et. al., may proceed independently of any criminal
proceedings and may be proved by preponderance of evidence.
6. Declared null and void by this Court on December 9, 1998 in the case of
"Francisco I. Chavez vs. PCGG and Magtanggol Gunigundo," docketed as G.R.
No. 130716.
7. In April 1986, pursuant to E.O. No. 2, the Republic of the Philippines through the
PCGG filed a request for mutual assistance with the Swiss Federal Police
Department, under the procedures of the International Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Proceedings (IMAC) to freeze the bank deposits of the Marcoses
located in Switzerland.
IMAC is a domestic statute of Switzerland which generally affords relief to
the kind of request from foreign governments or entities as authorized under
E.O. No. 2.
The various Swiss local authorities concerned granted the request of
petitioner Republic, and ordered the Swiss deposits to be “blocked” until the
competent Philippine court could decide on the matter.
8. Volume III, Rollo , p. 2195.
9. Penned by Justice Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. and concurred in by Presiding
Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong.
10. Volume III, Rollo , p. 2218.
11. Penned by Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena with the separate
concurring opinions of Associate Justice Nicodemo T. Ferrer and Associate
Justice Gregory S. Ong. Associate Justices Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. and
Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. both wrote their respective dissenting opinions.
12. Volume I, Rollo , pp. 145-146.
13. Volume I, Rollo , pp. 60-62.
14. Volume IV, Rollo , p. 2605.
15. Sec. 3 — the petition shall contain the following information
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The approximate amount of property he has acquired during his
incumbency in his past and present offices and employments.
16. (d) A description of said property, or such thereof as has been identified by the
Solicitor General.
17. (e) The total amount of his government salary and other proper earnings and
incomes from legitimately acquired property. . . . .
18. Volume IV, Rollo , pp. 2651-2654.
19. Same as Section 1, Rule 65 of the old Rules of Court.
20. Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222 [1996].

21. Central Bank vs. Cloribel, 44 S 307, 314 [1972].
22. 240 SCRA 376 [1995].
23. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 269 SCRA 316 [1997].
24. 69 SCRA 524 [1976].
25. Substantially the same as Section 1, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court.
26. Agcanas vs. Nagum , L-20707, 143 Phil. 177, [1970].

27. Rollo , Vol. I, pp. 22-37.
29. 16 Phil. 315, 321-322 [1910].
30. 197 SCRA 391 [1991].
31. Philippine Advertising vs. Revilla , 52 SCRA 246 [1973].
32. Petition, Annex C, Volume I, Rollo , p. 236.
33. Answer, Annex D, Volume II, Rollo , p. 1064.

34. 61A Am. Jur., 172-173.
35. Blume vs. MacGregor, 148 P. 2d. 656 [see p. 428, Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1995 ed.].
37. Supra.
38. Supra.
39. "All the five (5) group accounts in the over-all flow chart have a total balance of
about Three Hundred Fifty Six Million Dollars ($356,000,000.00) as shown by
Annex 'R-5' hereto attached as integral part hereof."
40. 22 SCRA 48 [1968].
41. XANDY-WINTROP-AVERTINA FOUNDATION: (a) Contract for opening of deposit
dated March 21, 1968; (b) Handwritten instruction; (c) Letter dated March 3,
1970; (d) Handwritten regulation of Xandy dated February 13, 1970; (e)
Letter of instruction dated March 10, 1981; (f) Letter of Instructions dated
March 10, 1991.
TRINIDAD-RAYBY-PALMY FOUNDATION: (a) Management agreement dated
August 28, 1990; (b) Letter of instruction dated August 26, 1970 to Markers
Geel of Furich; (c) Approval of Statutes and By-laws of Trinidad Foundation
dated August 26, 1990; (d) Regulations of the Trinidad Foundation dated
August 28, 1970; (e) Regulations of the Trinidad Foundation prepared by
Markers Geel dated August 28, 1970; (f) Letter of Instructions to the Board of
Rayby Foundation dated March 10, 1981; (g) Letter of Instructions to the
Board of Trinidad Foundation dated March 10, 1981.
MALER ESTABLISHMENT FOUNDATION: (a) Rules and Regulations of Maler

dated October 15, 1968; (b) Letter of Authorization dated October 19, 1968
to Barbey d Suncir; (c) Letter of Instruction to Muler to Swiss Bank dated
October 19, 1968.
42. "Where an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or
attached to the corresponding pleading . . . , the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
be the facts . . . ."
43. Annex A-F, Volume I, Rollo , pp. 193-194.
44. Ice Plant Equipment vs. Martocello, D.C.P., 1941, 43 F. Supp. 281.
45. Phil. Advertising Counselors, Inc. vs. Revilla , L-31869, Aug. 8, 1973.
46. Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd. vs. Reyes, et al., 55 O.G. 3109-3111.

47. Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567 [1991].
48. 28 SCRA 807, 812 [1969].
49. Rule 20 of the old Rules of Court was amended but the change(s) had no
adverse effects on the rights of private respondents.
50. Development Bank of the Phils. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-49410, 169 SCRA 409 [1989].
52. Adopted by the Marcos children.
53. Dated September 26, 2000 as filed by Mrs. Marcos; dated October 5, 2000 as
jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and Ferdinand, Jr.; supplemental motion for
reconsideration dated October 9, 2000 jointly filed by Mrs. Manotoc and
Ferdinand, Jr.;
54. Dated December 12, 2000 and December 17, 2000 as filed by the Marcos
children.
55. TSN, pp. 47-48, October 28, 1999.
56. Evadel Realty and Development Corp. vs. Spouses Antera and Virgilio Soriano ,
April 20, 2001.
57. Plantadosi vs. Loew's, Inc., 7 Fed. Rules Service, 786, June 2, 1943.
58. Rabaca vs. Velez, 341 SCRA 543 [2000].
59. Carcon Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 348 [1989].
60. Rollo , pp. 2659-70.

61. Substantially the same as Sections 1 and 2, Rule 34 of the old Rules of Court.
62. Rule 113. Summary Judgment. — When an answer is served in an action to
recover a debt or a liquidated demand arising,
1. on a contract, express or implied, sealed or not sealed; or
2. on a judgment for a stated sum;

the answer may be struck out and judgment entered thereon on motion, and
the affidavit of the plaintiff or of any other person having knowledge of the
facts, verifying the cause of action and stating the amount claimed, and his
belief that there is no defense to the action; unless the defendant by affidavit
or other proof, shall show such facts as may be deemed, by the judge
hearing the motion, sufficient to entitle him to defend. (emphasis and italics
ours)
63. 73 Am Jur 2d 733, §12; 49 C.J.S. 412, § 224.
64. Moran, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT, Vol. II. (1996), pp. 183-184.
65. 19 NYS2d 250 [1940].
66. 73 Am Jur 2d 733, §12; 49 C.J.S. 412, § 224.
67. Supra.
68. Gregorio Estrada vs. Hon. Francisco Consolacion, et al., 71 SCRA 523 [1976].
70. Madeja vs. Patcho, 123 SCRA 540 [1983].

71. Mejia de Lucas vs. Gamponia, 100 Phil. 277 [1956].
72. Diaz vs. Gorricho, 103 Phil. 261 [1958].
73. Collado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107764, October 4, 2002; Section 15,
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
74. Go Tian An vs. Republic of the Philippines, 124 Phil. 472 [1966].
75. Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 [1968].
76. "An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property Found to Have
Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing
for the Proceedings Therefor," approved on June 18, 1955.
77. Petition, Annex D, Volume II, p. 1081.
78. Ibid.
79. Id., p. 1062.
80. Exhibit "S".

82. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 1997 ed., p. 650.
83. Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Volume V, 1980 ed., p. 64.
84. Section 9, Article VII.
85. Section 4(1), Article VII.
87. Annex F-1, Volume II, Rollo , pp. 1095-1098.

88. Annex F-2, Volume II, Rollo , pp. 1099-1100.
89. Chavez vs. PCGG , 299 SCRA 744, [1998].
91. Annex HH, Volume III, Rollo , p. 2205.
92. 31A C.J.S., Par. 284, p. 721.
93. Annex I, Volume II, Rollo , pp. 1177-1178.

94. Ibid. , p. 1181.
95. Ibid. , p. 1188.
96. Ibid. , p. 1201.
97. 29A Am. Jur., Par. 770, p. 137.
98. 31A C.J.S., Par. 311, p. 795.
99. Annex M, Volume II, Rollo , pp. 1260-1261.
101. Annex S, Volume II, Rollo , pp. 1506-1507.
102. Annex L, Volume II, Rollo , p. 1256.

103. Annex P-1, Volume II, Rollo , p. 1289.
104. Santiago vs. de los Santos, 61 SCRA 146 [1974].
108. 29 Am Jur 2d Par. 824, p. 211.
109. 31A C.J.S., Par. 322, p. 817.

110. Ibid. , p. 814.
111. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Rules of Court Annotated, 1999 ed., p. 857.
112. Rollo , pp. 2255-2265.
113. Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest
without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or defendants. The same as Section 7, Rule 3 of the old
Rules of Court.
114. 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parties §97 (2000).
115. Supra note 3 § 13 (2000).
116. Supra note 3 citing Picket vs. Paine, 230 Ga 786, 199 SE2d 223.
117. Rollo , p. 1260. Manifestation:
"Comes now undersigned counsel for the respondent Imelda R. Marcos, and
before this Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests:
I. That respondent Imelda R. Marcos owns 90% of the subject-matter of
the above-entitled case, being the sole beneficiary of the dollar deposits in
the name of the various Foundations alleged in the case;
II. That in fact only 10% of the subject-matter in the above-entitled case
belongs to the Estate of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos;"
118. Rollo , p. 2464, quoted from the December 18, 2000 memorandum of
respondent Mrs. Marcos:
"On the other hand, the opponent to the appeal, formally the owner of the
assets to be seized and restituted, has not been involved in the collecting
procedure pending in the Philippines. Even though such opponent is nothing
but a legal construction to hide the true ownership to the assets of the
Marcos family, they nevertheless are entitled to a hearing as far as the
proceedings are concerned with accounts which are nominally theirs. The
guarantees of the Republic of the Philippines therefore must include the
process rights not only of the defendants but also of the formal owners of the
assets to be delivered."
119. 240 SCRA 376, 469 [1995].
120. Supra.
121. Id. at 470-471.
123. Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-
joinder of parties is ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
124. Same as Section 7, Rule 3 of the old Rules of Court.
125. Supra note 3 § 265 (2000)
126. Id. citing Gentry vs. Smith (CA5 Fla) 487 F2d 571, 18 FR Serv 2d 221, later
app (CA5 Fla) 538 F2d 1090, on reh (CA5 Fla) 544 F2d 900, holding that a
failure to request the joinder of a defendant was excused where the moving
party's former counsel, who had resisted the joinder, abruptly withdrew his
appearance and substitute counsel moved promptly to join the corporation.
127. Supra note 3.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

(2) Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-Valamo-Spinus-Avertina

(4) Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation accounts and

Petitioner contended that, after the pre-trial conference, certain facts

The Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

Respondent Mrs. Marcos ﬁled a motion for reconsideration dated

WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court dated September 19,

1. ADMISSIONS IN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER;

4. ADMISSION IN THE UNDERTAKING TO PAY THE HUMAN

D. PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE

A. PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' DEFENSE THAT SWISS DEPOSITS

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR

Petitioner, in the main, asserts that nowhere in the respondents’

PETITIONER HAS A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT THE

BY THE TIME PETITIONER FILED ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(2) By its positive acts and express admissions prior to ﬁling

Summary judgment is proper when there is clearly no genuine issue as

4. Respondent Ferdinand E. Marcos (now deceased and

12. Based on available documents, the ITRs of the Marcoses

Schedule of Income (Annex "T" hereof);

Schedule of Income Tax Paid (Annex "T-1" hereof);

14. As summarized in Schedule A (Annex "T" hereof), the

15. FM's oﬃcial salary pertains to his compensation as

16. Of the P11,109,836.00 in reported income from legal

17. In the guise of reporting income using the cash method

18. FM reported a total of P2,521,325.00 as Other Income for

19. Spouses Ferdinand and Imelda did not declare any

22. Finally, the networth analysis in Schedule D, represents

G. THE SECRET MARCOS DEPOSITS

26. On August 29, 1978, the AZIO FOUNDATION was renamed

28. Under the foregoing circumstances, it is certain that the

30. As of December 31, 1989, the balance of the bank accounts

35. The XANDY FOUNDATION was renamed WINTROP

36. The AVERTINA FOUNDATION was established on May 13,

39. On December 13, 1974, Charis Foundation was renamed

40. The SPINUS FOUNDATION was established on May 13,

41. On September 6, 1982, there was a written instruction

43. Rayby Foundation was established on June 22, 1973 in

48. On December 19, 1985, Rosalys Foundation was

As of August 30, 1991, the ending balance of Account No. 53300

49. Maler was ﬁrst created as an establishment. A statement

50. Maler Establishment opened and maintained bank

xxx xxx xxx. 27

5. Respondents speciﬁcally deny paragraph 5 of the Petition

xxx xxx xxx

11. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 12 of the

12. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 13 of the

15. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 16 of the

16. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 17 of the

18. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 19 of the

19. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 20 of the

20. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 21 of the

21. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraph 22 of the

25. Respondents speciﬁcally DENY paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 45,