The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2020 Sandiganbayan decision that lifted the sequestration of a Baguio City property owned by Ramon Cojuangco, founder of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), and wife Imelda.
The decision, written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, denied the petition filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) challenging the Sandiganbayan’s decision dated March 13, 2020 and the resolution dated Jan. 5, 2021.
The Sandiganbayan decision granted the petition filed by C&O Investment and Realty Corp. and its chairman and president Miguel Cojuangco, one of the heirs of spouses Ramon and Imelda.
The anti-graft court ruled that the Baguio City property should not be considered as ill-gotten wealth because the transfer certificate of title (TCT) shows that the property was acquired by the spouses Cojuangco on Dec. 12 1955, prior to the term of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.
Also, the Sandiganbayan said the C&O Investment and Miguel Cojuangco presented a deed of absolute sale dated Dec. 23, 1976 between spouses Cojuangco and C&O. The deed of absolute sale showed that before the sequestration letter was issued by the PCGG, the property has long been sold by the Cojuangcos and should not have been considered part of their assets.
In its petition before the SC, PCGG insisted that the Baguio City property is validly being held to answer for dividends and interests accruing from the Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation. The sequestration is akin to attachment, it said.
At the same time, the PCGG claimed that the original complaint against the Marcoses was superseded by a third amended complaint which impleaded the estate of Ramon Cojuangco, Imelda Cojuangco, and the Philippine Holdings, Inc. (PHI) and to recover from said defendants, their nominees agents, to reconvey to the government the 111, 415 PTIC shares in the name of PHI.
In denying the PCGG petition, the SC pointed out that the Baguio City property was acquired by the spouses Cojuangco in 1955 or a decade before Marcos Sr. became President.
“As correctly held by the Sandiganbayan, the subject property could not have been acquired by the spouses Cojuangco through any illegal or improper use of funds belonging to the government, and thus is not a proper object of sequestration as intended by Executive Order No. I,” the SC said.
The SC also said:
“In this case, to prove its ownership over the subject property, the respondents presented a photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale and this was never objected to under the Best Evidence Rule. Settled is the rule that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.
“Courts are not precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no objection was raised when it was formally offered.
“C&O, as the buyer of the subject property, has a legitimate interest over the same such that it may be considered a real party-in-interest. As the Court has ruled, to qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced.
“Wherefore, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied and the Sandiganbayan's Decision, dated March 13, 2020, and the Resolution,
dated Jan. 5, 2021 in Civil Case No. SB-17-CVL-0002 are affirmed. So Ordered.”