“[T]he burden of proof lies with the Republic to establish the allegations in its petition…”
THE forfeiture of assets and properties of errant public officers or employees is a statutory measure for the government to recover unlawfully acquired properties. Forfeiture occurs because the properties they acquired are disproportionate to their salaries or other lawful income.
The “forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act 1379 are civil in nature. [Hence,] the quantum of evidence required… is preponderance of evidence, which is the greater weight of evidence… [T]he burden of proof lies with the Republic to establish the allegations in its petition…” (Heirs of Ligot, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. R.A. 1379 creates a prima facie presumption that when “any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary… 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.” (Op cit., Section 2)
The law “covers not only properties directly under the name of the public officer or employee but also to those concealed or transferred to any other person, so long as the true ownership is traceable to said public officer or employees… [R.A.] 1379 would be rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would… forestall the presumption…”
In the case of Heirs of Ligot, et al. v. Republic of the Philippines (Republic), several properties of the Lieutenant General Jacinto Ligot were forfeited in favor of the Republic.
As to his alleged properties in the United States, the Supreme Court relied on the findings of the Sandiganbayan that “the fact of Erlinda’s (Ligot’s wife) acquisition of the two properties remained uncontroverted.” (Op cit.)
“On the Paseo Parkview condominium units, both General Ligot and the heirs of Paragas insist that Paragas was its true owner, especially since they were registered in her name.
“However, it is a fact that General Ligot and Erlinda issued checks as payment for the Paseo Parkview condominium units, covering a majority of the amortization payments.”
“Since there is sufficient proof that the consideration for the units came from General Ligot and Erlinda… it is more reasonable to conclude that they are the true owners of the Paseo Parkview condominium units.”
“Registration of properties in the name of third persons [cannot] forestall the presumption under Section 2 of the law from arising.”
“As to [his alleged] land in Tanay, Rizal, General Ligot maintains that he is not the true owner and merely stood as representative of the various AFP officers-buyers.”
“General Ligot admitted that he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale as purchaser of the Tanay property… [and he] likewise did not deny that it is registered under his name.”
“As aptly observed by the Sandiganbayan, the witnesses could not explain how much was purportedly collected from the AFP personnel who participated in the purchase.
“Moreover, to date, there is still no partitioning and conveyance of the properties to the supposed end-buyers as the title remains in General Ligot’s name.”
On the Essensa condominium unit, Gen. Ligot argued it was “improperly included as it is actually owned and titled under the name of Yambao, who had already proved that he had financial capacity to purchase the same.”
The latter argued “the presumption under Republic Act 1379 cannot prevail over the strong presumption of ownership created by the titling of the property in his name.”
The Supreme Court explained that R.A. 1379 “covers not only properties directly under the name of the public officer or employee but also to those concealed or transferred to any other person, so long as the true ownership is traceable to said public officer or employees.”
“It likewise bears stressing that the registration of a condominium certificate of title is not, by itself, a mode of acquiring ownership…” (Op cit.)
“No sufficient reason was given as to why these deposits were omitted from his SALNs, considering that the value alone was more than twice of his declared income.” There being no other proof of cash flow sources presented, the “law’s criteria of manifest disproportionality” was satisfied. (Op cit.)
Having failed to overcome the presumption that the properties were unlawfully acquired, they are deemed forfeitable in favor of the government.
For this reason, the Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan.
