Sequestration of Romualdez estates upheld

The Sandiganbayan First Division upheld government sequestration of three parcels of land identified as part of the ill-gotten wealth of Armando Romualdez, brother of former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos. In a seven-page resolution issued on March 7, the graft court said the special power of attorney given to Dulcenea Ludovico did not give her the authority to claim the lands on behalf of Patricio Reduble. “A perusal of the special power of attorney …allegedly executed by Patricio Reduble on her behalf shows that nothing therein authorizes her to file the said motion with this Court. (She) has no locus standi owing to lack of proper authority to appear and to represent her principal before this Court," the Sandiganbayan said. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) seized the properties on October 24, 1986. A forfeiture suit, Civil case No. 0019, was filed at the Sandiganbayan on July 27, 1987. Named defendants in the lawsuit were former President Ferdinand Marcos, the former first lady, couple Armando and Vilma Romualdez, Ricardo Quintos and Nelia Gonzales. PCGG claimed the respondents used firms set up by Armando Romualdez to conceal ill-gotten wealth. The firms were identified as Golden Farms Inc, Highway Builders Inc, Dipudo Industries Inc, Maconacon Airways Inc. and Isabela Gas and Power Development Corp. Government lawyers sought damages amounting to P11 billion and seized known assets of the defendants to fulfill whatever liability may eventually be imposed by the court. Among those sequestered were Romualdez’s properties in Tambo, Pamplona, Camarines Sur. Reduble claimed ownership of the three parcels of land and said that the PCGG was wrong in confiscating them as properties of Romualdez. He added that since no judicial action was taken against him, the writ of sequestration over his properties should be deemed lifted at once. The court overruled Reduble noting that the grant of his motion would terminate the forfeiture proceedings initiated by the government against the defendants. “The Court cannot treat the instant motion as a motion for intervention because the rules require that intervention must be with prior leave (of Court). Movant (Reduble) is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant who may assert claims over the property subject of action," the court said. -GMANews.TV