1

#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.

Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

G.R. No. 149802, January 20, 2006

ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners,
- versus -
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF
RAMON U. COJUANGCO, represented by IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, and IMELDA O.
COJUANGCO, Respondents.
EN BANC
CARPIO MORALES, J.

FACTS:

These five consolidated petitions pray for the nullification of certain issuances of the
Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0002, Republic of the Philippines v. Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, et
al. The complaint in Civil Case No. 0002 (or the case) was filed before the Sandiganbayan on July 16,
1987 by the Republic of the Philippines (the Republic) through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) against former President and Mrs. Marcos, their three children, and some other
individuals. The complaint was later amended to implead additional defendants. The case is for the
recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, among which are shares of stock in the Philippine
Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC): 76,779 shares in the name of Ramon U. Cojuangco,
21,525 shares in the name of Imelda O. Cojuangco, and 111,415 shares in the name of Prime Holdings
Incorporated (PHI). PTIC is the biggest stockholder of PLDT, it owning some 28% of the outstanding
shares in PLDT at the time Civil Case No. 0002 was filed. Thus, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 149802 and
150320, filed by Alfonso Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation, complainants-in-intervention in Civil
Case No. 0002, assail via petition for certiorari orders and resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying their
motions to suspend trial pending discovery proceedings and to re-set trial dates (with alternative prayer
for a change in the order of trial), and declaring them as having waived their right to present evidence.
The petition in G.R. No. 150367, filed by the Republic, assails via petition for certiorari the
Sandiganbayan Orders denying its Respectful Motion for Additional Time to Complete the Presentation
of Evidence and directing it to submit its offer of evidence within 30 days. During the pendency of these
first three petitions, the Sandiganbayan continued with the proceedings in Civil Case No. 0002, no
restraining order enjoining the same having been issued by this Court. The Sandiganbayan, still during the
pendency of the first three petitions which was dismissed. The last two of the five petitions at bar, both
for review on certiorari, were thereupon filed. The petition in G.R. No. 153207 filed by the complainants-
in-intervention Yuchengcos, and that in G.R. No. 153459 filed by the Republic, both challenge the Partial
Decision. The incidents that gave rise to the filing of the petitions are stated in the minoritys dissenting
opinion penned by Justice Cancio Garcia which immediately follows this majority opinion. The
dissenting opinion substantially reiterates the draft that Justice Garcia prepared which was used by this
Court as a working basis for its deliberations.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioners in G.R. Nos. 149802, 150320 and 150367 were denied due process
when the Sandiganbayan in effect directed them to terminate the presentation of their respective evidence;
and Whether the Partial Decision being assailed via petition for review in G.R. Nos. 153207 and 153459,
conforms to the evidence presented, the law and/or settled jurisprudence.

RULING:

YES.

On the basis of the evidence, therefore, President Marcos owned PHI and all the incorporators
thereof acted under his direction. Once this is acknowledged, the following conclusions inevitably follow:

Cojuangco was elected President and took over the management of PHI in 1981 with the
cooperation of the Marcos nominees who, it must be emphasized, still held the majority stockholding as
of that date; As the remaining incorporators on the Board divested their shares only in 1983, Cojuangco
managed a Marcos-controlled corporation for at least two years; The simultaneous divestment of shares
by the three remaining incorporators on the Board to Cojuangcos close relatives in 1983 were with the
knowledge and authorization of their principal President Marcos.
 2
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

Clearly, all these circumstances mark out Cojuangco either as a nominee of Marcos as was Gapud
whom he replaced as President of PHI or, at the very least, a close associate of Marcos. As such, the
PCGG which is charged, under E.O. No. 1[54] issued by President Aquino pursuant to her legislative
powers under the Provisional Constitution, with assisting the President in regard to, inter alia, 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[55](Underscoring
supplied), can and must recover for the Republic the 111,415 PTIC shares being held by PHI, they
bearing the character of ill-gotten wealth whether they be in the hands of Marcos or those of Cojuangco.

On the other hand, respecting the thesis that PHI was, from its inception, beneficially owned by
Ramon Cojuangco, the Cojuangcos can only point to the deeds of assignment of PHI shares to members
of their family as confirming the same. The Sandiganbayan considered these deeds as competent
evidence, as opposed to the purported lack of such evidence on the part of the Republic. The most these
deeds could show, however, is that the Cojuangcos acquired PHI shares in the years 1981 and 1983, long
after the 111,415 PTIC shares were acquired in 1978 by PHI. On the decisive question of whether the
incorporators who organized PHI in 1977 acted as Marcos (or Cojuangco) nominees, these deeds are
absolutely silent.

In marked contrast, the testimonies of Campos, Gapud, and de Guzman, persons who actually participated
in the formation and early years of operation of PHI, constitute evidence that directly addresses the
critical issue. Indubitably, the preponderance of evidence lies with the Republic.
 3
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

G.R. No. 157438October 18, 2004

HEIRS OF GREGORIO LICAROS namely, CONCEPCION B. LICAROS and ABELARDO B.
LICAROS, Petitioners,
- versus -
SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Gregorio S. Licaros, predecessor-in-interest, served as governor of the Central Bank of

the Philippines from 1970 to 1980, during the incumbency of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. He
died on August 3, 1983. On July 17, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines -- through the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) -- filed
a Complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against former President
Marcos and his alleged crony, Lucio C. Tan. The Complaint, docketed as Sandiganbayan Aside from the
main defendants (Marcos, his wife Imelda R. Marcos, and Tan), twenty-three other persons -- who had
purportedly acted as their dummies, nominees or agents -- were likewise impleaded in the Complaint. It
alleged, among others, that Tan -- with the connivance of some government officials, including Central
Bank Governor Gregorio S. Licaros -- had fraudulently acquired the assets of the General Bank and Trust
Company (GBTC), now known as the Allied Bank. A pertinent portion of the Complaint Despite the
allegation, Licaros was not impleaded in this Complaint or in the subsequent Expanded Complaint. On
September 13, 1991, four years after the filing of the original action the Republic filed a Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint and for Admission of a Second Amended Complaint, which impleaded the
Estate/Heirs of Licaros for the first time. The Amended Complaint, reiterating earlier allegations in the
Expanded Complaint, detailed Licaros participation in the alleged unholy conspiracy. The Amended
Complaint restated the same causes of action originally appearing in the initial Complaint: (1) abuse of
right and power in violation of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach
of public trust; (4) accounting of all legal or beneficial interests in funds, properties and assets in excess
of lawful earnings and income; and (5) actual, moral, temperate, nominal and exemplary damages. On
September 3, 2001, the heirs of Licaros filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Essentially, it raised the
following grounds therefor: (1) lack of cause of action and (2) prescription. On October 12, 2001, the
Republic filed its Opposition to the Motion. The Sandiganbayan held that the averments in the Second
Amended Complaint had sufficiently established a cause of action against former Central Bank Governor
Licaros. Ruled untenable was the argument of petitioners that he could not be held personally liable,
because the GBTC assets had been acquired by Tan through a public bidding duly approved by the
Monetary Board. According to the anti-graft court, this argument was a matter of defense that could not
be resorted to in a motion to dismiss, and that did not constitute a valid ground for dismissal. It was
immaterial that Licaros was not a business associate of the main defendants; and not an officer, a director,
or a stockholder of any of the defendant corporations. The paramount issue hinged on his acts as Central
Bank governor, particularly his participation in an allegedly illegal conspiracy with Marcos and Domingo
to give undue advantage to Tans bid for the GBTC assets. The Sandiganbayan also brushed aside the
claim of petitioners that the action against Licaros had already prescribed. It pointed to Section 15 of
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which mandated that [t]he right of the State to recover properties
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees,
shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel, Hence, this Petition

ISSUE :

Whether or not the Second Amended Complaint states a cause of action against petitioners and
Whether or not the Second Amended Complaint is barred by prescription and laches.

RULING:

1. NO.

A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect and not to violate that right; and (3) an act or omission constituting a breach of
 4
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff or violating the right of the plaintiff, for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages. The Second Amended Complaint was unambiguous when it
charged that Licaros, during his lifetime, had conspired with the main defendants -- particularly former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Lucio Tan and Philippine National Bank President
Panfilo O. Domingo -- in facilitating the allegedly questionable transfer of the GBTC assets to Tan. This
charge of conspiracy casts a wide net, sufficiently extensive to include all acts and all incidents incidental,
related to or arising from the charge of systematic plunder and pillage against the main defendants in
Sandiganbayan Case No. 0005. The assailed role of Licaros as Central Bank governor in the questioned
GBTC deal is not excluded therefrom. If proven, the allegation of conspiracy may make him liable with
his co-defendants. Starkly similar to the foregoing discussion, the herein petitioners are seeking the
dismissal of the present case, because (1) the actions imputed to Licaros as Central Bank governor were
allegedly official acts of the members of the Monetary Board acting as a collegial body; and (2) the
acquisition was done through a public bidding and in good faith. These contentions are evidently matters
of defense, the veracity of which must be determined in a full-blown trial (or in a pretrial stipulation), and
not in a mere motion to dismiss.
 5
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R.

MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR.,
IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC,
TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO
ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS,
NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE PAGE 3
CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
(PHILCONSA), represented by its President,
CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS,
CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY
ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE
VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of
Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary
of National Defense and Chief of Staff,
respectively, respondents.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
CORTES, J
ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y
REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners,
- versus -
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,
FOURTH DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL PAGE 4
COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R.
MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC.,
ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO,
represented by IMELDA O. COJUANGCO,
and IMELDA O. COJUANGCO,
Respondents.
EN BANC
G.R. No. 149802, January 20, 2006
CARPIO MORALES, J.

SATURNINA GALMAN, REYNALDO

GALMAN and JOSE P. BENGZON, MARY
CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, JOAQUIN G.
BERNAS; S.J., M. BELLARMINE BERNAS,
O.S.B., FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, SOLITA
COLLAS-MONSOD, SANTIAGO DUMLAO, PAGE 6
JR., MARIA FERIA, MARCELO B. FERNAN,
FRANCISCO GARCHITORENA, * ANDREW
GONZALEZ, JOSE C. LAURETA,
SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, FELIX K.
MARAMBA, JR., CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA.
JAIME V. ONGPIN, FELIX PEREZ, JOSE
B.L. REYES, JOSE E. ROMERO, JR.,
RAMON DEL ROSARIO, JR., RICARDO J.
ROMULO, AUGUSTO SANCHEZ,
EMMANUEL V. SORIANO, DAVID SYCIP,
ENRIQUE SYQUIA, CRISTINA TAN, JESUS
VARGAS, BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS,
VICENTE JAYME, **, petitioners,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION
(represented by Justice Manuel Pamaran,
Chairman, and Justices Augusto Amores and
Bienvenido Vera Cruz, Members), JUSTICE
 6
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM

BERNARDO FERNANDEZ (Ombudsman) and

GEN. FABIAN C. VER, MAJ. GEN.
PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, BRIG. GEN.
LUFHER A. CUSTODIO, COL. ARTURO G.
CUSTODIO, COL. VICENTE B. TIGAS, JR.,
CAPT. FELIPE VALERIO, CAPT.
LLEWELYN KAVINTA, CAPT. ROMEO M.
BAUTISTA, 2nd LT. JESUS CASTRO, SGT.
PABLO MARTINEZ, SGT. ARNULFO DE
MESA, SGT. TOMAS FERNANDEZ, SGT.
CLARO LAT, SGT. FILOMENO MIRANDA,
SGT. ROLANDO C. DE GUZMAN, SGT.
ERNESTO M. MATEO, SGT. RODOLFO M.
DESOLONG, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA,
SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. ARMANDO
DELA CRUZ, SGT. PROSPERO A. BONA,
CIC ROGELIO MORENO, CIC MARIO
LAZAGA, AIC CORDOVA G. ESTELO, AIC
ANICETO ACUPIDO and HERMILO
GOSUICO, *** , respondents.
G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986
EN BANC
TEEHANKEE, CJ.

FERDINAND R. MARCOS,
JR., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT.
[G.R. NO. 189505] IMELDA ROMUALDEZ- PAGE 8
MARCOS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 189434, March 12, 2014
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
SERENO, C.J.

HEIRS OF GREGORIO LICAROS namely,

CONCEPCION B. LICAROS and ABELARDO
B. LICAROS, Petitioners,
- versus - PAGE 10
SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 157438October 18, 2004
PANGANIBAN, J.:
 7
#39 – Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Sunday 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM