Title: RP vs Fe Roa Gimenez
Respondents: Fe Roa Gimenez, Ignacio B. Gimenez, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Vilma Bautista joined by her husband, Gregorio Bautista, Oscar Carino
Court: Sandiganbayan
Nature of the case: Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting and Damages
Date filed: 07/21/87
Summary of Complaint: On account of the ruling of the Sandiganbayan declaring RP as deemed to have waived its right to file Formal Offer of Evidence, and the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence, RP filed on 9 November 2006 a Petition for Review on Certiorari docketed as G.R. 174673. On 1 March 2012, RP filed a Motion for Leave to Re-Open Proceedings, To File and Admit Attached Supplement to the Petition for Certiorari which was then granted by the Supreme Court on 20 June 2012.
After the parties filed their respective pleadings, the Supreme Court on 11 January 2016 granted RP’s petition. The case was then remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings after the finality thereof.
In the proceedings in the main case, upon Order of the Court dated 16 January 2017, the Formal Offer RP was reinstated and defendants Spouses Gimenez wered ordered to file their comment/opposition thereon. Thus, defendants Fe Roa Giminez and Ignacio Gimenez filed their respective Comment/Opposition in March 2017 to RP’s Formal Offer of Evidence as ordered by the Sandiganbayan. RP filed its Initial Consolidated Reply dated 12 April 2017. Final Compliance was filed by RP on 22 June 2017. Ignacio Gimenez filed his Rejoinder (to RP’s Initial Consolidated Reply and Manifestation) dated 5 May 2017.
Ignacio then filed a Motion to Evaluate the Admissiblity of Each of Plaintiff’s Documentary Exhibits dated 29 May 2017. To this, his estrange spouse Fe Roa Gimenez, filed a Manifestation dated 11 July 2017 stated that she will be adopting the Motion to Evaluate the Admissibility of Each Plaintiff’s Documentary Exhibits filed by co-defendant Ignacio B. Gimenez.
Ignacio Gimenez filed Comment/Opposition dated 3 July 2017 to RP’s Final Compliance to which RP filed a Motion to Admit Attached Reply dated 26 July 2017. The Motion to Admit Attached Reply filed by the plaintiff is deemed admitted in a resolution dated 3 August 2017.
The case is set for trial on 18 and 19 October 2017.
Due to the pendency of plaintiffs Final Compliance and Plaintiff’s Formal Offer of Exhibits which have yet to be resolved by the Court, hearing was reset on November 20 and 21, 2017 at 1:30 pm.
In a Resolution promulgated on January 23, 2018, the Court resolved to:
- DENY the plaintiff’s prayer for re-opening of the proceedings
- ADMIT into evidence Exh. DD to DD-3, EE-EE-1, HH to HH-3, II to II-1, JJ, NN to QQ-1 and TT to TT-3 as the objections thereto pertain to the documents probative value rather than their admissibility and
- ADMIT Exhibits A to O, P, Q to Q-18, R to S-10, T to T-8, U to V-40, W to X-1, Y to Y-13, Z, AA to CC, FF toFF-2, KK to KK-48, RR to RR-23 and SS to SS-29 with all their sub-markings as part of the testimonies of the witness presented by the plaintiff.
Hearing reset to July 9, 10, 23 and 24, 2018 all at 1:30 pm.
In an Order dated 28 May 2018, the Court noted both the “Motion for Extension of Time to file Comment (To: [1] Defendant Ignacio Gimenez’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Admit Demurrer to Evidence and [2] Defendant Fe Rosa Gimenez Demurrer to Evidence)” dated 23 May 2018, and the “Motion for Period of Time to File Comment” dated 11 May 2018 and as prayed for in both motions, granted the plaintiff Republic until 10 June 2018 within which to file its Comments to defendant Ignacio Gimenez’ Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Admit Demurrer to Evidence dated 16 April 2018 and to Fe Roa Gimenez’ Demurrer To Evidence dated 17 April 2018. Thereafter, the incidents shall be deemed submitted for resolution.
Plaintiff through the Office of the Solicitor General filed a “Consolidated Comment [re: Demurrer of Evidence dated 17 April 2018 of Fe Roa Gimenez and Demurrer of Evidence dated 16 April 2018 of Ignacio Gimenez] dated 13 June 2018, filed by Plaintiff republic of the Philippines, praying before the Court that the Demurrer to Evidence dated 17 April 2018 of Fe Roa Gimenez and Demurrer of Eviednce dated 16 April 2018 of Ignacio Gimenez be denied for lack of merit.
In a Resolution dated 11 June, 2018, acting on defendant Ignacio Gimenez’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Admit Demurrer to Evidence filed on April 18, 2018, considering that the plaintiff Republic failed to interpose its objection within the period granted by the Court in its Resolution dated may 28, 2018, the motion was GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court resolved to ADMIT the Demurrer to Evidence of defendant Ignacio Gimenez. Plaintiff Republic was given a non-extendible period of 30 days from receipt within which to FILE its comment/opposition thereto. Thereafter, with or without plaintiff’s comment/opposition, the same is deemed SUBMITTED for resolution. The hearings on the reception of evidence for the defendants scheduled on July 9, 10, 23, and 24, 2018, all at 1:30 PM, were CANCELLED.
In an Order dated 20 July 2018, the defendants were GIVEN a period of 10 days from receipt of the order to FILE their comment/opposition to the “Motion for Partial Reconsideration (RE: Resolution dated June 11, 2018” filed by the plaintiff. In Minutes held on August 16, 2018 the Court DENIED Republic’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated June 11, 2018] for lack of merit.
In a Resolution promulgated on April 22, 2019, the Court DENIED the Motion for Partial Reconsideration [Re: Resolution dated June 11, 2018 filed by RP. The Court found no reason to disturb its earlier findings, that the Motion to Make Tender of Excluded Evidence was already addressed by the Court when it denied the RP’s Motion to Re-open Proceedings (to have the certified true copies of the earlier submitted photocopies be identified in court by the public officer). According to the Court, there was no excluded evidence, as the documentary and oral evidence sought to be tendered were not timely offered in the first place.
On May 31, 2019, the Court NOTED the Manifestation dated May 29, 2019 re Courts Resolution dated June 11, 2018 [which denies the plaintiff’s Motion for Tender of Excluded Evidence], Resolution dated August 16, 2018 [which denies the plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration re: Resolution dated June 11, 2018] and another Resolution dated April 22, 2019 [which also denies the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (re Reso dated June 11, 2018)].
Status: Appeal (from Decision Favorable to the Respondents)
Date Entered Status : 11/09/06
Relevant Case/s: GR 174673
Actual recoveries:
Amount involved:
Remarks: Dismissed by SB on 13 September 2006, and appealed to the Supreme Court on 9 November 2006.