The Supreme Court of the Philippines has delivered a landmark ruling that properties and assets accumulated by public officials which significantly exceed their lawful income are presumed ill-gotten and can be seized by the state, even if these assets are registered under other people's names.
Court Upholds Forfeiture of Retired General's Assets
In a decisive verdict written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division affirmed the forfeiture of numerous properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts traced to retired Lieutenant General Jacinto Ligot. The former Armed Forces of the Philippines comptroller retired from service in 2004.
The case originated from a lifestyle check conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman. Investigators examining Ligot's Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 discovered that his declared assets failed to match the actual properties held under his name and those of his immediate family members and other relatives.
The Sandiganbayan anti-graft court previously determined that Ligot's undeclared properties, valued at P102 million, along with deposits and investment funds totaling P53 million, were unlawfully acquired and ordered their confiscation.
Family's Appeal Rejected by High Court
Ligot and his family contested the decision, arguing that assets including condominium units registered under his sister and brother-in-law were legitimately purchased by his relatives and not disproportionate to their overall family income. Although Ligot passed away while the appeal was pending, his family continued to pursue the case.
The Supreme Court firmly rejected these arguments, noting that Ligot's wife and children lacked independent sources of income yet possessed substantial assets. The court emphasized that despite property titles being under other names, circumstances clearly indicated Ligot was the true owner, particularly since he had been paying the amortizations for properties registered to his sister and brother-in-law.
Legal Basis and Broader Implications
The ruling rests on Republic Act 1379, which establishes that properties owned by a public officer are presumed illegally acquired if they are manifestly disproportionate to their lawful income. The SC clarified that this presumption applies to assets concealed or transferred to others, provided true ownership can be traced back to the public officer.
The court stated that RA 1379 would be "rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would suffice to forestall the presumption... from arising." The decision also affirmed that proceedings involving unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy laws, strengthening the government's ability to investigate and recover illicit assets.
This ruling sets a significant precedent in the Philippines' ongoing battle against corruption, providing judicial authorities with stronger legal grounds to pursue ill-gotten wealth regardless of how public officials attempt to conceal their ownership.
