LIONG CASE DIGEST FOR FINALS

REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

[ G.R. No. 166859, April 12, 2011 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES, INC., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., BALETE RANCH, INC., BLACK STALLION RANCH, INC., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, DISCOVERY REALTY CORP., DREAM PASTURES, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., FILSOV SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., HABAGAT REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., LABAYUG AIR TERMINALS, INC., LANDAIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP., LHL CATTLE CORP., LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC., METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., MISTY MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL CORP., NORTHEAST CONTRACT TRADERS, INC., NORTHERN CARRIERS CORP., OCEANSIDE MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., ORO VERDE SERVICES, INC., PASTORAL FARMS, INC., PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PRIMAVERA FARMS, INC., PUNONG-BAYAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., PURA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., RADYO PILIPINO CORP., RANCHO GRANDE, INC., REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., SILVER LEAF PLANTATIONS, INC., SOUTHERN SERVICE TRADERS, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE CORP., SPADE ONE RESORTS CORP., UNEXPLORED LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., VERDANT PLANTATIONS, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP. AND WINGS RESORTS CORP., RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 169203]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC., SILVER LEAF PLANTATIONS, INC., PRIMAVERA FARMS, INC., PASTORAL FARMS, INC., BLACK STALLION RANCH, INC., MISTY MOUNTAINS AGRICULTURAL CORP., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE CORP., LHL CATTLE CORP., RANCHO GRANDE, INC., DREAM PASTURES, INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., LAND AIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP., REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP., VERDANT PLANTATIONS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., ECJ & SONS AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INC., RADYO PILIPINO CORP., DISCOVERY REALTY CORP., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., ARCHIPELAGO FINANCE AND LEASING CORP., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, NORTHERN CARRIERS CORP., VENTURE SECURITIES, INC., BALETE RANCH, INC., ORO VERDE SERVICES, INC., AND KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 180702]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, EDGARDO J. ANGARA,^* JOSE C. CONCEPCION, AVELINO V. CRUZ, EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, PARAJA G. HAYUDINI, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, TEODORO D. REGALA, DANILO URSUA, ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, AGRICULTURAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES, INC., ANGLO VENTURES, INC., ARCHIPELAGO REALTY CORP., AP HOLDINGS, INC., ARC INVESTMENT, INC., ASC INVESTMENT, INC., AUTONOMOUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., BALETE RANCH, INC., BLACK STALLION RANCH, INC., CAGAYAN DE ORO OIL COMPANY, INC., CHRISTENSEN PLANTATION COMPANY, COCOA INVESTORS, INC., DAVAO AGRICULTURAL AVIATION, INC., DISCOVERY REALTY CORP., DREAM PASTURES, INC., ECHO RANCH, INC., ECJ & SONS AGRI. ENT., INC., FAR EAST RANCH, INC., FILSOV SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., FIRST MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., FIRST UNITED TRANSPORT, INC., GRANEXPORT MANUFACTURING CORP., HABAGAT REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., HYCO AGRICULTURAL, INC., ILIGAN COCONUT INDUSTRIES, INC., KALAWAKAN RESORTS, INC., KAUNLARAN AGRICULTURAL CORP., LABAYOG AIR TERMINALS, INC., LANDAIR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORP., LEGASPI OIL COMPANY, LHL CATTLE CORP., LUCENA OIL FACTORY, INC., MEADOW LARK PLANTATIONS, INC., METROPLEX COMMODITIES, INC., MISTY MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL CORP., NORTHEAST CONTRACT TRADERS, INC., NORTHERN CARRIERS CORP., OCEANSIDE MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., ORO VERDE SERVICES, INC., PASTORAL FARMS, INC., PCY OIL MANUFACTURING CORP., PHILIPPINE RADIO CORP., INC., PHILIPPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PRIMAVERA FARMS, INC., PUNONG-BAYAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., PURA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., RADIO AUDIENCE DEVELOPERS INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION, INC., RADYO PILIPINO CORP., RANCHO GRANDE, INC., RANDY ALLIED VENTURES, INC., REDDEE DEVELOPERS, INC., ROCKSTEEL RESOURCES, INC., ROXAS SHARES, INC., SAN ESTEBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION OFFICERS, INC., SAN PABLO MANUFACTURING CORP., SOUTHERN LUZON OIL MILLS, INC., SILVER LEAF PLANTATIONS, INC., SORIANO SHARES, INC., SOUTHERN SERVICE TRADERS, INC., SOUTHERN STAR CATTLE CORP., SPADE 1 RESORTS CORP., TAGUM AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., TEDEUM RESOURCES, INC., THILAGRO EDIBLE OIL MILLS, INC., TODA HOLDINGS, INC., UNEXPLORED LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., VALHALLA PROPERTIES, INC., VENTURES SECURITIES, INC., VERDANT PLANTATIONS, INC., VESTA AGRICULTURAL CORP. AND WINGS RESORTS CORP., RESPONDENTS.

JOVITO R. SALONGA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, VIRGILIO M. DAVID, ROMEO C. ROYANDAYAN FOR HIMSELF AND FOR SURIGAO DEL SUR FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES (SUFAC), MORO FARMERS ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR (MOFAZS) AND COCONUT FARMERS OF SOUTHERN LEYTE COOPERATIVE (COFA-SL); PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT (PRRM), REPRESENTED BY CONRADO S. NAVARRO; COCONUT INDUSTRY REFORM MOVEMENT, INC. (COIR) REPRESENTED BY JOSE MARIE T. FAUSTINO; VICENTE FABE FOR HIMSELF AND FOR PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG MGA SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA (PAKISAMA); NONITO CLEMENTE FOR HIMSELF AND FOR THE NAGKAKAISANG UGNAYAN NG MGA MALILIIT NA MAGSASAKA AT MANGGAGAWA SA NIYUGAN (NIUGAN); DIONELO M. SUANTE, SR. FOR HIMSELF AND FOR KALIPUNAN NG MALILIIT NA MAGNINIYOG NG PILIPINAS (KAMMPIL), INC., PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS.

FACTS

A complaint was filed against the defendants Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the ACCRA lawyers, Danilo Ursua and 71 corporations by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) referred here as “Republic of the Philippines” with regard to a block of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) stock which were allegedly bought through the CIIF Holding Companies and funded by the coconut levy fund passing through the Unicom Oil Mills and directly from UCPB.  The coconut levy funds were considered as government funds since this came from contributions from the coconut farmers with the purpose of improving and stabilizing the coconut farming industry, however these were said to be privatized under presidential directives of then Pres. Marcos. Defendant Cojuangco Jr., being close with the Marcoses is said to have taken undue advantage of his association, influence and connection, embarked upon different devices and schemes including the use of the ACCRA Lawyers as “nominee shareholders” and the defendant corporations as fronts to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Filipino people when he misused the coconut levy fund, amounting to $150 million, to purchase 33 million shares of the SMC through the holding companies. Hence with the allegations mentioned and with different cases and issues which remain unresolved, the block of shares representing 20% of the outstanding capital stock of SMC remained sequestered by the government.

During the pre-trial brief, the Sandiganbayan sought clarification from the parties, particularly the Republic, on their respective positions, but at the end it found the clarifications "inadequately" enlightening. To resolve various pending motions and pleadings, Sandiganbayan lifted and declared the Writs of Sequestration null and void.

Despite the lifting of the writs of sequestration, since the Republic continues to hold a claim on the shares which is yet to be resolved, it is hereby ordered that the following shall be annotated in the relevant corporate books of San Miguel Corporation:

(1) any sale, pledge, mortgage or other disposition of any of the shares of the Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. shall be subject to the outcome of this case;

(2)  the Republic through the PCGG shall be given twenty (20) days written notice by Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. prior to any sale, pledge, mortgage or other disposition of the shares;

(3)  in the event of sale, mortgage or other disposition of the shares, by the Defendants Cojuangco, et al., the consideration therefore, whether in cash or in kind, shall be placed in escrow with Land Bank of the Philippines, subject to disposition only upon further orders of this Court; and

(4)  any cash dividends that are declared on the shares shall be placed in escrow with the Land Bank of the Philippines, subject to disposition only upon further orders of this Court.  If in case stock dividends are declared, the conditions on the sale, pledge, mortgage and other disposition of any of the shares as above-mentioned in conditions 1, 2 and 3, shall likewise apply.

Sandiganbayan denied both Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Modification but eventually reduced its resolution deleting the last 2 provisions. Cojuangco, et al. filed a Motion for Authority to Sell San Miguel Corporation (SMC) shares, praying for leave to allow the sale of SMC shares and Sandiganbayan granted the motion. Cojuangco, et al. later rendered a complete accounting of the proceeds from the sale of the Cojuangco block of shares of SMC stock, informing that a total amount of P 4,786,107,428.34 had been paid to the UCPB as loan repayment.

ISSUE

Whether or not Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of dicretion in:

(a) in lifting the Writ of Sequestrations on the sequestered SMC shares.

 (c) in deleting the last two conditions the Sandiganbayan had earlier imposed on the subject shares of stock.

RULING

Among the WOS issued, only one writ WOS 87-0218 complied with PCGG Rules and Regulations requirement that the issuance be made by at least two Commissioners. However, even if Writ of Sequestration No. 87-0218 complied with the requirement that the same be issued by at least two Commissioners, the records fail to show that it was issued with factual basis or with factual foundation. It is the absence of a prima facie basis for the issuance of a writ of sequestration and not the lack of authority of two (2) Commissioners which renders the said writ void ab initio.  Thus, being the case, Writ of Sequestration No. 87-0218 must be automatically lifted. Consequently, the writs of sequestration nos. 86-0062, 86-0069, 86-0085, 86-0095, 86-0096, 86-0097 and 86-0098 must be lifted for not having complied with the pertinent provisions of the PCGG Rules and Regulations, all of which were issued by only one Commissioner.

Nor did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in reducing from four to only two the conditions imposed for the lifting of the WOS. The Sandiganbayan thereby acted with the best of intentions, being all too aware that the claim of the Republic to the sequestered assets and properties might be prejudiced or harmed pendente lite unless the protective conditions were annotated in the corporate books of SMC. Moreover, the issue became academic following the Sandiganbayan’s promulgation of its decision dismissing the Republic's Amended Complaint, which thereby removed the stated reason - "the Republic continues to hold a claim on the shares which is yet to be resolved" - underlying the need for the annotation of the conditions (whether four or two).

DANTE YAP GO VS. REPUBLIC

[ G.R. No. L-38600, February 25, 1982 ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, DANTE YAP GO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the lower court’s decision of granting citizenship to petitioner Dante Yap Go alleging the petitioner’s failure to file a declaration of intention, incompetency of the witnesses, and the failure to prove that he has all the qualifications and none of the qualifications for citizenship. Pending the said appeal Dante Yap Go was granted Philippine citizenship by Presidential Decree No. 836, taking his oath of allegiance on January 9, 1978.

RULING

Case dismissed for being moot and academic.

BAYOT VS. BAYOT

[ G.R. No. 155635, November 07, 2008 ]

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. NO. 163979]

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Vicente Madrigal Bayot and Marie Rebecca Makapugay  were married on April 20, 1979. On its face, the Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an American citizen born in Agaña, Guam, USA to Cesar Tanchiong Makapugay, American, and Helen Corn Makapugay, American.

On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. From then on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic.  The Dominican court granted the couple’s dissolution of marriage as well as settled the conjugal property of the spouses. Meanwhile, in the same year, Rebecca also filed for a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage but later moved to withdraw petition. On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment stating under oath that she is an American citizen; that, since 1993, she and Vicente have been living separately; and that she is carrying a child not of Vicente.

On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity. Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the amount of PhP 220,000. Vicente filed for a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action and the petition barred by previous judgment of divorce. Rebecca interposed her Filipino citizenship as affirmed by DOJ and hence there was no valid divorce to speak of.

ISSUE/S

Whether petitioner Rebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the divorce judgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic on February 22, 1996 and whether the judgment of divorce is valid

RULING

It is true that Rebecca was granted a Filipino Citizenship as evidenced by Bureau of Immigration (Bureau) of Identification (ID) Certificate No. RC 9778 and a Philippine Passport. However the certificate shows that although the confirmation from the Bureau of Immigration was dated October 11, 1995, the affirmation from the Secretary of Justice was only issued on June 8, 2000. It is clearly suggested that before the affirmation, Rebecca was not yet recognized as Filipino citizen. It is indubitable that Rebecca did not have that status of, or at least was not yet recognized as, a Filipino citizen when she secured the February 22, 1996 judgment of divorce from the Dominican Republic.

Going to the second issue whether the divorce decreed by the Dominican court was valid. First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated, Rebecca was still to be recognized, assuming for argument that she was in fact later recognized, as a Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public documents as an American citizen. At the very least, she chose, before, during, and shortly after her divorce, her American citizenship to govern her marital relationship. Second, she secured personally said divorce as an American citizen, as is evident in the text of the Civil Decrees. Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce.  Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated through their Agreement executed on December 14, 1996 after Civil Decree No. 362/96 was rendered on February 22, 1996, and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued on March 4, 1997.  Veritably, the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca was valid.

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plain language, Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other. Rebecca no longer has a cause of action in the declaration of nullity of marriage since there is already no marriage to speak of.

Petition denied.