Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    47) Republic vs. Estate of Menzi G.R. No. 152578 November 23, 2005 PCGG Facts

    Uploaded by

    YR
    1) The PCGG issued writs of sequestration to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and associates pursuant to executive orders issued by President Corazon Aquino. 2) One writ sequestered shares in a publishing corporation owned by Marcos, Cojuangco, and their nominees. Another writ sequestered shares, assets, properties, records and documents of a holdings company. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while the PCGG is not empowered to sell sequestered assets without Sandiganbayan approval, it was allowed to accept a cash deposit offered in payment for sequestered shares in this case due to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    47) Republic vs. Estate of Menzi G.R. No. 152578 November 23, 2005 PCGG Facts

    Uploaded by

    YR
    46 views1 page
    1) The PCGG issued writs of sequestration to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and associates pursuant to executive orders issued by President Corazon Aquino. 2) One writ sequestered shares in a publishing corporation owned by Marcos, Cojuangco, and their nominees. Another writ sequestered shares, assets, properties, records and documents of a holdings company. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while the PCGG is not empowered to sell sequestered assets without Sandiganbayan approval, it was allowed to accept a cash deposit offered in payment for sequestered shares in this case due to

    Original Description:

    Rem case digest

    Original Title

    Rem Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The PCGG issued writs of sequestration to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and associates pursuant to executive orders issued by President Corazon Aquino. 2) One writ sequestered shares in a publishing corporation owned by Marcos, Cojuangco, and their nominees. Another writ sequestered shares, assets, properties, records and documents of a holdings company. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while the PCGG is not empowered to sell sequestered assets without Sandiganbayan approval, it was allowed to accept a cash deposit offered in payment for sequestered shares in this case due to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    47) Republic vs. Estate of Menzi G.R. No. 152578 November 23, 2005 PCGG Facts

    Uploaded by

    YR
    1) The PCGG issued writs of sequestration to recover ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and associates pursuant to executive orders issued by President Corazon Aquino. 2) One writ sequestered shares in a publishing corporation owned by Marcos, Cojuangco, and their nominees. Another writ sequestered shares, assets, properties, records and documents of a holdings company. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that while the PCGG is not empowered to sell sequestered assets without Sandiganbayan approval, it was allowed to accept a cash deposit offered in payment for sequestered shares in this case due to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    47) REPUBLIC vs.

    ESTATE OF MENZI
    G.R. No. 152578 November 23, 2005 PCGG
    FACTS:
    In the aftermath of the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
    Order (EO) No. 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) tasked
    with the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his
    immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. This was followed by EO Nos. 2
    and 14, respectively freezing all assets and properties in the Philippines in which the former
    President, his wife, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or
    nominees have any interest or participation, and defining the jurisdiction over cases involving the
    ill-gotten wealth. Pursuant to the executive orders, several writs of sequestration were issued by
    the PCGG in pursuit of the reputedly vast Marcos fortune.
    The PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration sequestering the shares of Marcos and with the Emilio
    Yap and Eduardo Cojuangco and their nominees and agents in the Bulletin Publishing Corporation
    (Bulletin) where they own substantial holdings, and another Writ of Sequestration for the shares
    of stock, assets, properties, records and documents of Hans Menzi Holdings and Management, Inc.
    (HMHMI).

    ISSUE:
    Whether PCGG is empowered to sell sequestered assets.

    RULING:
    Whether PCGG empowered to sell sequestered assets.

    RULING:
    Yes. While it is true that the PCGG is not empowered to sell sequestered assets without
    prior Sandiganbayan approval, this case presents a clear exception because this Court itself
    directed the PCGG to accept the cash deposit offered by Bulletin in payment for the Cojuangco
    and Zalamea sequestered shares subject to the alternatives mentioned therein and the outcome of
    the remand to the Sandiganbayan on the question of ownership of these sequestered shares.

    Like the remedies of “freeze order” and “provisional takeover” with which the PCGG has
    been equipped, sequestration is not meant to deprive the owner or possessor of his title or any right
    to his property and vest the same in the sequestering agency, the Government or any other person,
    as these can be done only for the causes and by the processes laid down by law. These remedies
    “are severe, radical measures taken against apparent, ostensible owners of property, or parties
    against whom, at the worst, there are merely prima facie indications of having amassed ‘ill-gotten
    wealth,’ indications which must still be shown to lead towards actual facts in accordance with the
    judicial procedures of the land.” Considering that sequestration is not meant to create a permanent
    situation as regards the property subject thereof and subsists only until ownership is finally
    judicially determined, it stands to reason that, upon its dissolution, the property sequestered should
    likewise be returned to its owner/s.

    You might also like