CASE 2014-0020: FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., PETITIONER, – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189434) IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER , – VERSUS – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 189505) (12 MARCH 2014, SERENO, CJ) SUBJECT/S: THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS (SHORT TITLE: MARCOS VS REPUBLIC)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the 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.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
PETITIONER ARGUES 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. DOES THE PHILIPPINE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE RES WHICH IS IN THE U.S.?
YES. TO RULE OTHERWISE CONTRAVENES THE INTENT OF THE FORFEITURE LAW, AND INDIRECTLY PRIVILEGES VIOLATORS WHO ARE ABLE TO HIDE PUBLIC ASSETS ABROAD: BEYOND THE REACH OF THE COURTS AND THEIR RECOVERY BY THE STATE
XXXXXXXXXX
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS?
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTIONS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS IN REM OR QUASI IN REM.
XXXXXXXXXX
HOW IS JURISDICTION OVER THE REM ACQUIRED?
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES IS ACQUIRED EITHER
(A) BY THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER LEGAL PROCESS, WHEREBY IT IS BROUGHT INTO ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE LAW; OR
(B) AS A RESULT OF THE INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH THE POWER OF THE COURT IS RECOGNIZED AND MADE EFFECTIVE.
XXXXXXXXXX
IN THE CASE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, MUST THE PROPERTY BE IN THE ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE COURT?
NO. POTENTIAL CUSTODY IS SUFFICIENT.
In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.9 The concept of potential jurisdiction over the res, advanced by respondent, is not at all new. As early as Perkins v. Dizon, deciding a suit against a non-resident, the Court held: “In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law.”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 