SUCCESSION - #08

Republic v. Marcos (2012)

Doctrine: The Marcos siblings are maintained as respondents in a civil case against their
father Ferdinand because the action survives death, and, therefore, the rights to the estate
must be duly protected. Similarly, upon Ferdinands death, his heirs became co-owners of
the properties, which if proven to be ill-gotten, must be reconveyed to the state.
Facts:
1. PCGG, on behalf of the petitioner Republic, filed a complaint against Ferdinand
Marcos before the PCGG. Upon his death, he was substituted by his estate. Imelda
Marcos, Imee, Irene, Bongbong, Tomas Manotoc and Gregorio Araneta III were all
impleaded.
2. The case involves P200 billion of the Marcoses alleged accumulated ill-gotten wealth,
and the alleged use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and RPN-9 for the Marcos
familys personal benefit; the alleged use of De Soleil Apparel for dollar salting; and
the alleged illegal acquisition and operation of the bus company Pantranco North
Express, Inc.
3. The complaint interposed five causes of action: Breach of public trust, abuse of right
and power, unjust enrichment, accounting, liability for damages 1
4. The defendants filed their Demurrers to Evidence. Sandiganbayan later issued the
assailed Resolution which granted all the Demurrers to Evidence except the one filed
by Imelda R. Marcos
a. Imeldas Demurrer was denied because she had admitted that she co-owned the
properties with her husband. This was bolstered by the fact that Imelda was a
compulsory heir and administratix of the Marcos estate, thus she is responsible
for the accounting of the alleged ill-gotten funds
b. As regards the siblings, the Sandiganbayan noted that their collaboration in the
alleged illegal activities were never established. The court (SB) held that their
relationship to the Marcos spouses was not enough reason to hold them liable.
5. The petitioner filed an MR which was denied, hence, this Petition for Review
Issue: W/N the Demurrers to Evidence filed by the Marcos siblings were correctly
granted? NO2
Held/ Ratio:
1. The Marcos siblings are being sued in their capacities as alleged co-conspirators, and
as the compulsory heirs of their father
a. As co-conspirators, the SC held that the petitioner failed to prove that the Marcos
siblings (including their spouses) participated in the alleged accumulation of
wealth by the first couple
2. As to the issue related to the respondents as heirs, the SC first noted that the
complaint is one that survives the death of Marcos, it being one for the reversion, the
reconveyance, the restitution and the accounting of alleged ill-gotten wealth and the
payment of damages. Since it survives Marcoss death, due process dictates that his
estate be duly represented
a. The SC also took judicial notice of the probate proceedings regarding the will of
Ferdinand E. Marcos where the RTC granted the letters testamentary to Bongbong
and Imelda who are executors of the estate

1 Other parties were impleaded but they are not relevant to our discussion
2 There are other procedural issues here which you may read in the original but I will not
discuss here

b. As executors, the case must be maintained against Bongbong and Imelda unless
they are ready to waive in favor of the state their right to defend or protect the
estate or those properties found to be ill-gotten in their possession, control or
ownership
c. As to Irene and Imee, the SC held that the case against them as compulsory heirs
to the Marcos estate must also be maintained. The complaint shows that the
properties complained as ill-gotten were owned by their immediate family. Thus,
although it was not shown that they were co-conspirators in the acquisition of the
properties, they may be in possession or control of properties which if proven to
be ill-gotten properly belongs to the State
3. (RELEVANT) Similarly, the heirs instantaneously became co-owners of the Marcos
properties upon the death of the President based on Article777 of the Civil Code. .
The property rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a
person are transmitted to the heirs through the decedents death. The SC said that in
relation to this concept, the heirs are not precluded from exercising their right to
transfer or dispose of the properties that constitute their legitimes, even absent their
declaration or absent the partition or the distribution of the estate
a. The SC cited Manresa: that upon the death of a person, each of his heirs
becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left with respect to the part or
portion which might be adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus
formed among the coowners of the estate while it remains undivided. Note that
in co-ownership, each co-owner can dispose of his aliquot part even prior to
partition
Digested by: Cielo (A2015)