Metro Manila, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that wealth beyond the lawful income of a public official is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited even if the assets are registered with their relatives.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the court upheld the forfeiture of assets under the name of retired Lt. Gen Jacinto Ligot and properties traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives, in line with Republic Act (RA) 1379.
Under the law, public official’s assets are presumed illegally acquired when these are “manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.”
“This applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer,” the court said.
Ligot was a commissioned comptroller in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004.
The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation to see if the assets he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.
“His declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, leading to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan,” the SC said.
Apart from Ligot, the petition also named his wife, their children, his sister, and brother-in-law. His family were allegedly “used as fronts to conceal his assets.”
According to a court statement, the Sandiganbayan found a number of undeclared properties registered under Ligot and his relatives’ names, which included condominium units in Makati and Taguig City.
A petition for forfeiture of bank deposits and investment accounts under Ligot and his family was also filed as the anti-graft court found that the assets were “manifestly out of proportion” to the general’s income.
The court declared that ₱102 million in properties and ₱53 million in deposits and investment funds were unlawfully acquired by Ligot and ordered the assets to be seized.
Ligot and his family filed a petition with the SC, arguing that the condominium units in question had been legitimately bought by his relatives and that their assets were “not disproportionate to the family’s income.”
The former general died before the high court decision, but his family pursued the case.
Ligot’s sister and brother-in-law also filed their petitions, insisting that they owned the condominium units and should not be included in the order of forfeiture.
The SC rejected their claims and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling as evidence was found that Ligot and his wife made most of the units’ amortization payments.
“The Court noted that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names,” the SC said.
“The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income,” it added.
According to the high court, this meant that Ligot was the “true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.”
The SC explained that proceedings on unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy laws when bank deposits are the subject of forfeiture, as in Ligot’s case.
