Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

152375 (2011)

FACTS:

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, entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos,
represented by his Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. Marcos.

In said case, petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million
deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. 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 their Answer, particularly, in paragraph 22, they stated that:

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.

ISSUE: Whether or not paragraph 22 of the Answer constitutes negative pregnant

HELD:

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. 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, has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact
itself is admitted.

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.

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.