CASE: Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. v. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No.

189434)
(Underlined text pertains to the facts from the previous cases mentioned )
DATE: March 12, 2014
SUMMARY: The petitioner sought for reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision (April 25,
2012) which affirmed that of Sandiganbayan (April 2, 2009) which granted the motion for partial
summary judgement filed by the Republic. The anti-graft court declared the State forfeiture of
the assets of Arelma, Inc., an entity created by Ferdinand Marcos for hiding his ill-gotten wealth,
in pursuant to RA 1379 (Act declaring forfeiture in favour of the state any property found to
have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee and providing for the
proceedings therefor).

FACTS:
Prior to this resolution, Republic filed a petition for forfeiture with Sandiganbayan pertaining to
the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos. Among those listed as assets for recovery were the five
Swiss accounts. (Dec. 17, 1991)
Compromise agreements were signed by the Marcos children and PCGG for a global settlement
of the assets.
Said accounts were the subject matter of the Swiss Deposits Decision, G.R. No. 152154, which
affirmed the partial summary judgment over the Swiss deposits in favour of the Republic (July
15, 2003).
It did not include the assets of Arelma, Inc., which was held by the banking company, Merril
Lynch in New York.
April 2, 2009 Sandiganbayans assailed Decision which granted Motion for Partial Summary
Judgement; declared that proceedings in Civil Case No. 0141 had not yet been terminated, as the
Petition for Forfeiture included numerous other properties, which the Sandiganbayan and
Supreme Court had not yet ruled upon
Marcos, Jr. made the following arguments:
1. a) Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment because a) the
Republic had earlier stated that it will file a separate forfeiture action regarding the assets of
Arelma and b) Civil Case No. 0141 had already terminated; and
2. That the Sandiganbayan does not possess territorial jurisdiction over the res or the Arelma
proceeds, which are held by Merrill Lynch in the United States.

ISSUES:
1. W/n the ruling in the Civil Case only covers the Swiss deposits as listed in the
petition for forfeiture, therefore Republic is barred from filing a petition for
summary judgement on other assets, particularly Arelma, Inc.
COURT: NO, a) the decision which affirmed the partial summary judgement over the Swiss
deposits does NOT bar subsequent judgment over the other assets and properties expressly
sought to be forfeited in the case.
b) Republics success in obtaining the summary judgement over the deposits does not mean
preclude it from seeking partial summary judgment over a different subject matter covered
by the same petition for forfeiture.
c) Ruling of the Sandiganbayan is a separate judgement and is allowed by the Rules of Court
(Sec.5, Rule 36)
Separate judgments.When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, the
court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and all
counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the
claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim... [A]ction shall proceed as
to the remaining claims.
In other words, other assets can still be subject to the motion for summary judgement.
2. W/n the Republic by reserving its right to file a separate forfeiture petition
concerning the ill-gotten wealth, is deprived of its right to file for separate
judgement
COURT: No, a) No proof that there was such a reservation.
b) Nothing in RA 1379 or in the Rules prohibiting the graft court from taking cognizance
of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgement
3. W/n Sandiganbayan must first acquire territorial jurisdiction over the Arelma
proceeds
COURT: No, a) This statement fails to distinguish between an issuance of judgement and
its execution which is a ministerial phase of adjudication.
b) Petitioner contended that RA 1379 is a penal law, therefore the action should be in
personam, not in rem. However, the Court said forfeiture proceedings are actions
considered to be in the nature of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem.
One way to acquire jurisdiction over res can be as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. Its not
necessary for the court to take actual custody of the property. Potential custody is
sufficient.

(DOCTRINE OF THE CASE)
4. W/n the Republics declaration of sovereign immunity must be taken cognizance
COURT: Yes, the foreign court (Appellate Division of New York Supreme Court) agreed
to dismiss the turnover proceeding against the Arelma assets because Republics national
interests would be prejudiced if it would push through. Allowing the federal court
judgment against the estate of Marcos to be executed on property that may rightfully
belong to the citizens of the Philippines could irreparably undermine the Republic's claim
to the Arelma assets and lead to the disruption of the international comity and reciprocal
diplomatic self-interests.
VERDICT: Motions for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 25 April 2012 filed by
petitioners Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. are hereby DENIED
with FINALITY.