Title: RP vs Bienvenido Tantoco et al.
Respondents: Bienvenido Tantoco, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr.,Gliceria R. Tantoco, Ma. Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda, Dominador Santiago, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos
Court: Sandiganbayan
Nature of the case: Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting and Damages
Date filed: 07/21/87
Summary of Complaint: Per order of the Court, RP and the defendants submitted their respective memorandum. RP filed its Memorandum Ad Cautelam on 22 July 2010 with a reminder to the court that its Petition for Certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 188881 is still pending with the Supreme Court re: denial of admission of Exhibits MMM to AAAAAAA.
In GR No. 188881, the Supreme Court in a Decision promulgated on 21 April 2014, affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s denial of admission of Exhibits MMM to AAAAAAA formally offered as evidence by the Republic. According to the High Court, the Republic failed to submit the documentary evidence during discovery when it was ordered to do so by the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court, and (ii) repeatedly failed to prove the due execution and authenticity of the documents. RP’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated 22 April 2015.
Meanwhile, Rustans Investment and Management Corporation filed a Motion Ad Cautelam to Order the Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens dated 29 July 2015 involving TCT No. 8092 as it is not a party to the case. Comment was filed by RP. It also filed a Manifestation and Motion dated 5 September 2015 praying for the cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens on TCT 8092 issued by the RD of Iligan City. Said motions were denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on 29 December 2015. According to the court (citing Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No 96073, 23 January 1995), impleading the companies involved in the recovery of ill-gotten wealth is unnecessary as they are siimply the res in the actions for the recovery of the illegally scquired wealth, and there is, in principle no cause of action against them and no ground to implead them as defendants. As justification, the Sandiganbayan explained that an “enlightened understanding of the the nature and purpose of a Notice of Lis Pendedns vis-a-vis the purpose and estent of the powers that may be wielded by the PCGG on properties or businesses considered as ill-gotten wealth during the Marcos regime is important” and that “Notice of Lis Pendens is filed for the purpose of warning all persons that the title to certain property is in lititgation and that if they purchase the same, they are in danger of being bound by an adverse judgement”, hence, the “notice is therefore intended to be a warning to the whole world that one who buys the property does so at his own risk”, and is “necessary in order tosave innocent third persons from any involvement in any future litigation concerning the property.”
Motion to Defer Decision dated 29 February 2016 was filed by the defendants Tantocos and Dominador Santiago’s Motion to defer Decision. RP thereafter filed its Comment.
The Court in its NOTICE OF RESOLUTION dated Nov. 9, 2018 stated: The Motion to Defer Decision is DENIED for lack or merit. The parties having already filed their respective Memoranda on 07 June 2010 and 02 August 2010, this case is now deemed for decision. Defendants Tantocos and Dominador Santiago filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to which the Court ordered the Republic to submit Comment/Opposition within 10 days from rececipt of Notice. In the November 23, 2018 hearing on the MR filed by the Tantocos and Dominador Santiago through counsel, movants represented by Atty. Dominador Santiago appeared. The OSG is given 10 days from notice within which to submit comment/opposition, and thereafter, matter shall be deemed submitted for resolution.
During the January 9, 2019 proceedings, the Court resolved to grant the Motion for Extension onf Time to File Comment/Opposition dated December 18, 2018 filed by OSG. OSG was given an additional period of 30 days from December 21, 2018, or until January 17, 2019 within which to file its comment/oppositin to the MR.
In a Resolution promulgated on January 31, 2019, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendants Bienvenido Tantoco, Bienvenido R. Tantoco Jr., Estate of Gliceria R. Tantoco and Dominador R. Santiago, Jr. was DENIED for lack of merit.
Status: Submitted for Resolution
Date Entered Status : 08/03/15
Relevant Case/s: GR 188881
Actual recoveries:
Amount involved:
Remarks: RP filed its Memorandum on 2 August 2010 while the defendants submitted on 7 June 2010.