Robinsons Land’s bid to be excluded in forfeiture case vs. Romualdez couple, companies junked

The Sandiganbayan has ruled that Robinsons Land Corporation (RLC) will remain on the list of defendants in the forfeiture case filed against former First Lady Imelda Marcos’ brother, Alfredo Romualdez, his wife Agnes, and several corporations, in connection with 42 properties that RLC acquired from Romson Reality, Inc.

In a 13-page Resolution, the anti-graft court denied RLC’s Manifestation and Motion for Preliminary Hearing on the Affirmative Defenses for lack of merit, citing that its inclusion as one of the defendants in the forfeiture case was a fair decision, contrary to RLC’s claims.

The anti-graft court cited a 2010 Supreme Court ruling affirming that the Ombudsman’s inquiry in 1991 which led to the filing of the forfeiture case versus the Romualdez couple, Romson Realty, Inc., R&S Transport, Inc., Fidelity Management, Inc., and Dio Island Resort “satisfied the requirement under Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) 1379.”

RA 1379 is the Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefore.

“In its Answer, RLC argues that the case against it must be dismissed for the failure to conduct a previous inquiry as to itself. The Court disagrees. To repeat, the record reveals that a previous inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation in criminal cases was conducted by the Ombudsman as early as 1991,” the anti-graft court said.

“The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman satisfied the requirement of R.A. No. 1379. Thus, a relitigation of the same issue would violate the principle of res judicata (a matter decided),” the Sandiganbayan added.

Further, the anti-graft court ruled that the fact that there was no preliminary investigation or previous inquiry specifically as to RLC is inconsequential to the matter at hand.

“Understandably, RLC was not included in said inquiry for the plain reason that it was not yet the registered owner of some of the properties involved in this case. It was simply impossible to conduct a previous inquiry against RLC when it did not own any property subject of this case during that time,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“As a successor-in-interest of Romson Realty Inc, it is bound by any matter already adjudged against the latter whether or not it was impleaded. More importantly, forfeiture proceedings are actions in rem. Thus, RLC will be bound by any decision in this case whether or not it is impleaded. Indeed, its inclusion as a respondent was done precisely to protect its interest and right to due process,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.

In addition, the Sandiganbayan dismissed RLC’s argument that government prosecutors are barred from going after the 42 properties involved in the ill-gotten wealth cases due to prescription, noting that Section 15, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides for “the right of the state to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.”

“Thus, even if the Sequestration Order dated April 14, 1986 was deemed automatically lifted pursuant to Section 26, Article 18 of the Constitution, the State is not thereby barred from filing this petition against respondent Romualdez et al,” the Sandiganbayan said.

As to RLC's assertion that it is a purchaser in good faith, the anti-graft court decided that this is a question of fact which requires the presentation of evidence from both parties for proper resolution.

“Wherefore, respondent Robinsons Land Corporation's Manifestation and Motion for Preliminary Hearing on the Affirmative Defenses dated November 4, 2019 is denied for lack of merit,” the Sandiganbayan said. — BM, GMA News