Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Public Officials’ Ill-Gotten Wealth Regardless of Title Holder

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed that any wealth a public official acquires beyond their legitimate earnings during service is presumed to be ill-gotten and may be confiscated, irrespective of whether such assets are held under the names of third parties. This interpretation stems from the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379, also known as the Forfeiture Law.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and released on November 20, the Court emphasized that properties disproportionate to a public servant’s lawful income are subject to forfeiture, regardless of ownership registration. The ruling underscored that attempts to obscure ownership through registration in others’ names will not thwart the presumption of ill-gotten wealth once true ownership can be established.

The SC stated, "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." Furthermore, it clarified that proceedings involving unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy provisions when bank deposits are implicated.

This ruling came as the Court denied consolidated petitions from the heirs of the late Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot, former Armed Forces of the Philippines comptroller, who retired in 2004. The Office of the Ombudsman undertook a lifestyle investigation, revealing that Ligot’s declared assets from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the extent of properties held under his name and that of close relatives.

The Sandiganbayan found numerous undeclared properties linked to Ligot, his wife, children, sister, and brother-in-law—individuals allegedly acting as fronts to conceal Ligot’s assets. Notably, condominium units in Makati and Taguig appeared under relatives’ names, yet amortization and purchase payments were traced to Ligot and his wife.

Additionally, the anti-graft court identified bank deposits and investments significantly exceeding Ligot’s lawful income, totaling approximately PHP 53 million, alongside PHP 102 million in ill-gotten properties. These assets were ordered forfeited.

Ligot’s family contested the forfeiture, arguing the properties and funds were legitimately acquired and owned by relatives. However, the SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, noting the absence of independent income sources for Ligot’s wife and children — making their ownership claims implausible.

Regarding the condominium units, the SC affirmed that despite their registration under Ligot’s relatives, actual financial responsibility by Ligot and his family established true ownership.

The Court reiterated the criteria for the presumption under Section 2 of RA 1379, requiring that: (1) the individual is a public official or employee; (2) they acquired a substantial amount of money or property during office tenure; and (3) such wealth is clearly disproportionate to their lawful income and legitimately obtained property.

The SC’s final disposition states:

"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."