Two in ill-gotten wealth case involving Imelda’s brother lose chance to answer charges

The Sandiganbayan has upheld its decision that two defendants in the P16-billion ill-gotten wealth case involving the late brother of former First Lady Imelda Marcos, Benjamin Romualdez, already waived their chance to contest the evidence presented by government prosecutors against them.

This developed after the Sandiganbayan Sixth Division, in a nine-page Resolution, sustained its January 2026 ruling issuing an Order of Default to Tuynita Soriano and Jorge Sosing because of these defendants’ failure to met the requirements needed to reverse said order.

Included in the allegations under Civil Case 0035 are Soriano and Sosing acting as dummies of Romualdez-owned Philippine Journalists Inc. (PJI), one of the firms supposedly used as a front by Romualdez, alongside his wife Juliette, then-President Ferdinand Marcos, and his wife Imelda,  to accumulate ill-gotten wealth “at the expense of plaintiff and the Filipino people” during Marcos’ time as President.

A default order, based on Rules of Civil Procedure, is issued “if defending party fails to answer within the time allowed [and] therefore, the court will, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default.”

The court will then proceed to render judgment granting the claimant, in this case the Philippine government, such relief of Soriano and Sosing being declared as default, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.

The Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party in default will still be entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings but will not take part in the trial.

“As pointed out by plaintiff Republic [of the Philippines], defendants Soriano and Sosing's respective Motions to lift the order of default do not comply with the requisites therefor. Their Motions were not made under oath, and there is no affidavit of merit attached to either Motion,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“The said Motions do not even fall under the exception where the affidavit of merit may be dispensed with. Accordingly, the respective motions of defendants Soriano and Sosing, with respect to their motions for reconsideration and/or to set aside or lift the order of default, are hereby denied for lack of merit and for failure to comply with the requisites for lifting or setting aside an order of default,” the anti-graft court added.

In addition, the anti-graft court said that the matter of the validity of the service of summons as to defendant Soriano has already been settled.

“In the assailed [January] Resolution, the Court categorically held that there was no valid substituted service of summons as to her. However, the Court held that jurisdiction over her person was acquired because she was deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the Court's jurisdiction when she filed pleadings wherein she did not challenge the Court's jurisdiction, but merely asked to be given an opportunity to submit her Answer, and that the case be tried on the merits,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“With respect to defendant Sosing, in the assailed Resolution, the Court discussed that service of summons was effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, but he still failed to file his Answer. In his Motion for reconsideration of the said Resolution, defendant Sosing does not dispute the same, but merely claimed that his failure to file his Answer was due to excusable negligence and that his defense is meritorious,” the Sandiganbayan added. — BM, GMA News