Marcoses' bid to retake surrendered, forfeited assets denied by Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan has denied the motion of the Marcos family to take control anew of assets earlier forfeited in favor of the national government, surrendered by compromise agreements or considered frozen accounts.

The resolution, promulgated on January 25, 2023 by the Sandiganbayan Third Division, was in response to the Omnibus Motion filed on August 10, 2022 and in supplement to the Omnibus Motion filed on August 17, 2022 by former first lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta.

The motion sought for the issuance of the writ of execution under the Revised Rules of Court on the properties denominated as frozen accounts, surrendered by virtue of compromise agreements, sequestered (but) not in the PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) custody, and sequestered under the PCGG’s control and supervision.

The antigraft court said it denied the plea for writ of execution of the Marcoses “for lack of merit.” It also sought to “clarify” the status of some assets and properties pertinent to the case.

“(T)he Court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with respect to the properties that ‘have already been recovered by the government or transferred to third persons not involved herein.’ or those which have been the subject of Court decisions and compromise agreements as the same were barred by res judicata under its second concept, i.e., conclusiveness of judgment and mootness. Thus, the Court can no longer rule on the said properties,” the Sandiganbayan said.

"What remains to be determined, however, is the list of properties which are included in the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint for failure of the plaintiff to prove its allegations by preponderance of evidence," it added.

GMA News Online has sought comment from Malacañang and from the office of Senator Imee Marcos but has yet to receive a reply as of posting time.

Subject to the finality of the decision, the court, meanwhile lifted the sequestration orders earlier issued on at least 14 properties. It also recognized the properties without sequestration orders and those that remain under the full control and supervision of the defendants.

The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann Corpus-Manalac.

In their motion, the Marcoses asked for a writ of execution of their assets “considering that there was allegedly no evidence that this trust account was ill-gotten.”

Citing a Court of Appeals ruling, they maintained that “they have a good and valid reason for execution on the ground that the case was decided only after more than three decades and as a consequence, the defendants have suffered greatly, mentally and emotionally, and the dissipation of seized properties causing unjust and unreasonable deprivation of their proprietary rights.”

They also said that they did not give consent with respect to the compromise agreements on the surrendered assets.

“As to the sequestered assets, the defendants maintain that the PCGG only exercises powers of administration over the properties and never acquired ownership of the same. They allege that the PCGG has not offered an explanation on why some of the sequestered properties are not in their custody,” the resolution said.

In response, the antigraft court said that while the appeal was “timely in the instant case,” the prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution “cannot prosper as the judgment or order that disposes of the action is not yet final.”

“The fact that more than three decades have passed before the said case was decided is not a good reason considering that numerous factors have contributed to said length of period, which even includes the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendants on different dates, the inclusion of additional defendants after the admission of the Second and Third Amended Complaints, and the filing of numerous motions and petitions, among others. The defendants also offered no proof or reason how the properties subject of this case are being dissipated,” the Sandiganbayan said. —LDF/NB/KG, GMA Integrated News