Hidden in another name, forfeitable under the law

Under the law, every government employee or public officer is required to completely disclose his assets, liabilities, and net worth by filing his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

According to the Supreme Court, this requirement seeks to prevent the attainment of unexplained wealth or that which is grossly disproportionate to this employee or officer’s income or sources of income that cannot be accounted for or explained.

Notably, the concerned individual who has acquired money or property manifestly disproportionate to his salary or other lawful income shall be presumed to have unlawfully acquired it. Such money or property may be forfeited in favor of the Philippine State under Republic Act No. 1379.

This presumption may apply even if the property was registered under another person’s name, considering the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Heirs of Ligot v. Republic of the Philippines.

In this case, petitioner Jacinto Ligot was an officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, having retired with the rank of lieutenant general. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) had been investigating whether the wealth and properties acquired by General Ligot while in active government service were manifestly disproportionate to his salary and other lawful income.

Upon comparing General Ligot’s SALNs with the actual assets declared in his and his relatives’ names, the OMB concluded that he had acquired unexplained wealth, which consisted of, among others, cars, condominium units, houses, machineries, and parcels of land.

Thus, OMB, representing respondent Republic of the Philippines, filed a petition for forfeiture against General Ligot before the Sandiganbayan (SB), impleading his relatives and co-petitioners as his conspirators, conduits, dummies, and fronts.

The SB partly granted the Republic’s petition by attributing most properties to General Ligot and declaring them to have been unlawfully acquired by him and thus, subject to forfeiture.

These properties were registered either under General Ligot’s and his wife’s names, but excluded from their SALNs, or under the names of their children, who did not have the financial capacity to purchase them.

Meanwhile, a condominium unit registered under General Ligot’s sister’s name was found to be subject to forfeiture since she, while having such financial capacity, acquired it with a substantial portion of the amortization payments made by General Ligot and his wife.

Likewise, another unit registered under General Ligot’s brother-in-law was subject to forfeiture since General Ligot’s wife bought it before its ownership was transferred.

See Also

Redefining taste: The updated rules of interior styling

General Ligot and his co-petitioners moved to reconsider the SB’s decision, which the latter court dismissed. Thus, they filed their respective petitions for review before their Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court denied these petitions and affirmed the SB’s decision. In so doing, it has held that the element of unlawfully acquired properties under the forfeiture law covers those directly under the name of the concerned government employee or public officer, and extends to those concealed or transferred to any other person, so long as the true ownership is traceable to said employee or officer.

The forfeiture law becomes otherwise ineffective if the registration of the affected property in a third person’s name would disprove its status as having been unlawfully acquired.

In this case, the Supreme Court has found that General Ligot and his co-petitioners have failed to substantiate their claims that third persons own some of the disputed properties.

In fact, the admitted evidence, as well as petitioners’ admissions, established that, among others: (a) General Ligot’s wife, who had no independent income, could have only purchased one of the properties with his money; (b) their children did own the concerned properties, including the improvements; and (c) by covering most of the amortization payments on one of the disputed units, General Ligot and his wife were deemed its true owners, and not his sister as the supposed registered owner.