The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the wealth acquired by public officers beyond their lawful income during their time in office is presumed ill-gotten and can be forfeited even if registered in the names of other persons.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and made public on Thursday, Nov. 20, the SC said that under Republic Act No. 1379, the Forfeiture Law, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

The SC pointed out that the presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as the true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

It explained that “RA 1379 would be rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would suffice to forestall the presumption under Section 2 of the law from arising.”

It also said that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public official.

It added that the proceedings on unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy laws when bank deposits are the subject of forfeiture.

With the decision, the SC denied the consolidated petitions filed by the heirs of the late and retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot who was then the comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) until his retirement in 2004.

In a summary of the decision, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation to determine whether the properties acquired by Ligot during his active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

It said that in his declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, leading to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan.

The petition also named Ligot’s wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

The Sandiganbayan found several undeclared properties registered under Ligot’s name and/or his wife. Other undeclared properties were registered under their children’s names.

The anti-graft court also traced several condominium units to Ligot: units in Makati City in his sister’s name, where most amortization payments were made by General Ligot and his wife; and a unit in Taguig City registered under his brother-in-law, which was originally purchased by Ligot’s wife.

Another petition for forfeiture was filed against Ligot and his family, alleging that bank deposits and investment accounts under their names were manifestly out of proportion to his declared lawful income.

The Sandiganbayan found that the properties, worth P102 million, and deposits and investment funds of P53 million, were unlawfully acquired and ordered their forfeiture.

Ligot and his family then filed a petition before the SC and argued that the condominium units in question were not his and had been legitimately purchased by his relatives. They also claimed that their deposits and invested funds were not disproportionate to the family’s income.

During the pendency of the petition, Ligot passed away. His family continued to pursue the petition.

Ligot’s sister and brother-in-law also filed their petitions, asserting that they owned the condominium units and should not be included in the order of forfeiture.

The SC denied the petitions and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling.

It noted that Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

On the condominium units, the SC said that while they were titled in the name of Ligot’s sister, the amortizations were paid by Ligot.

It also said that the condominium listed under the name of Ligot’s brother-in-law was initially bought by the wife, who lacked her own income.

Thus, the SC held that under these circumstances, Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

The SC said: “Again, for the presumption under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 to apply, three requisites must be established: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee; (2) they must have acquired a considerable amount of money or property during their incumbency; and (3) the said amount is manifestly out of proportion to their salary as such public officer or employee, and to their other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.”

The dispositive portion of the SC decision:

“The consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari in G.R. Nos. 257827, 258109, and 259593 are denied. The Feb. 3, 2021 Decision and the July 21, 2021 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0197 are affirmed.

“Further, the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 257940 is denied. The May 26, 2021 Decision and the Nov. 15, 2021 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 are likewise affirmed. So ordered.”