THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that wealth accumulated by a public officer that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits and investment accounts traced to retired lieutenant general Jacinto Ligot. Ligot served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), including a stint as comptroller, until his retirement in 2004.
The case began with a lifestyle investigation by the Ombudsman. A review of Ligot’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 showed that his declared assets did not reflect the actual properties held under his name and the names of his wife, children and other relatives. These relatives were allegedly used as fronts to conceal the true ownership of the assets.
The Sandiganbayan found that Ligot’s undeclared properties, valued at P102 million, and deposits/investment funds, amounting to P53 million, were unlawfully acquired and ordered their forfeiture.
Ligot and his family appealed the decision, arguing that the 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. Ligot passed away while the appeal was pending, but the family continued the case.
The SC rejected their claims, noting that Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent sources of income but held significant assets. The court emphasized that even though titles were in other names (such as the sister’s and brother-in-law’s, for whom Ligot paid the amortizations), the circumstances indicated Ligot was the true owner.
The ruling is based on Republic Act (RA) 1379, which states that a public officer’s properties are presumed illegally acquired if they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income. The SC clarified that this presumption applies to assets that are hidden or transferred to others, provided true ownership can be traced 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 court also affirmed that unexplained wealth proceedings are exempt from bank secrecy laws. / MVG with PR