Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos v.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 213027, January 18, 2017

FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines, in a petition filed on December 17, 1991 through the Presidential
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) pursuant to Republic Act No. 1379, sought the recovery of assets
and properties pertaining to the Marcoses, who allegedly acquired them directly or indirectly through, or
as a result of, the improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the government.

On June 24, 2009, the Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for the declaration of one of
the properties listed in said 1991 Petition – pieces of jewelry known as the Malacañang Collection – as ill-
gotten, and subsequently to cause the same to be forfeited in favor of the Republic.

In support of said motion, the Republic cited Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Marcos v. Republic, decisions
involving other properties subject of the 1991 Petition, wherein the Court held that 1) the lawful income
of the Marcoses amounted to USD304,372, and hence was grossly disproportionate to the value of the
pieces of jewelry; and 2) the Marcoses’s Answer to the 1991 Petition was a “negative pregnant” amounting
to an admission of the allegations in the said petition. Furthermore, on July 3, 2009, the Republic filed a
Request for Admission addressed to herein petitioners.

Among other defenses, the Marcoses alleged that the Request for Admission was tantamount to an
abdication of the earlier position of the Republic that the case was ripe for summary judgment. They argued
that the Request for Admission entertained a possibly genuine issue as to a material fact, which was needed
for the grant of the motion for summary judgment.

The Republic countered that the Request for Admission merely sought to elicit details regarding the
acquisition of the jewelry in order to expedite the resolution of the motion for summary judgment. The
Republic further claimed that by operation of law, the failure of the Marcoses to respond to the same
resulted in their admission of the matters contained in the request.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Sandiganbayan issued a Partial Summary Judgment dated January 13,
2014 ruling that the forfeiture of the Malacañang Collection was justified pursuant to R.A. 1379.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that the forfeiture of the Malacañang Collection
was justified.

HELD: No. The Sandiganbayan correctly held that the Malacañang Collection was subject to forfeiture.
Section 2 of R.A. No. 1379 provides: "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 Sandiganbayan had taken judicial notice of the legitimate income of the Marcoses during their
incumbency as public officers for the period 1966-1986 which was found by the Court in the cited cases to
be pegged at USD304,372; whereas the Malacañang Collection, by itself, was valued in 1991 at USD110,055
to USD153,089 and hence disproportionate to the former.
In relation thereto, in its Answer to the 1991 Petition, the Marcoses used the same stock answer to the
effect that they did not engage in any illegal activities, and that all their properties were lawfully acquired.
This is simply a line of defense which results in their failure to allege the lawfulness of the mode of acquiring
the property subject of forfeiture, considering the amount of their lawful income.

Furthermore, the Court held that there is no inconsistency or incongruity between Republic's Request for
Admission and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; rather, a request for admission can be the basis for
the grant of summary judgment when its subject is deemed to have been admitted pursuant to Rule 26,
Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further cited Allied Agri-Business v. CA which held
that the burden of affirmative action is on the party upon whom notice is served to avoid the admission
rather than upon the party seeking the admission. Hence, when petitioner failed to reply to a request to
admit, it may not argue that the adverse party has the burden of proving the facts sought to be admitted.
Petitioner’s silence is an admission of the facts stated in the request, which in this case, pertain to details
regarding the acquisition of the jewelries.

Thus, petitioners having failed to satisfactorily show that the Malacañang Collection was lawfully acquired,
the prima facie presumption that they were unlawfully acquired prevails and the forfeiture is justified.