MANILA — The Sandiganbayan 4th Division has upheld the dismissal of a civil case involving an estimated P200 billion in assets and properties of the Marcos family, most of which were already recovered by the government through the years.

In a resolution dated July 22, the anti-graft court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, Sr.

“Considering that the evidence already offered by the plaintiff during trial do not sufficiently establish its claims as to the properties mentioned above that are purportedly still within the Marcoses' control, the court is constrained to deny the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration dated 29 December 2019 as regards the said properties,” the court said in the resolution penned by Division Chairperson Alex Quiroz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann Corpus-Mañalac.

Civil Case No. 0002 involved assets recovered through compromise agreements or other related cases such as Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation shares, properties in Cabuyao, Laguna; Paoay, Ilocos Norte; the Sto. Nino Shrine and People’s Center in Tacloban City; the Swiss deposits; Arelma assets and properties, as well as jewelry and paintings.

In the earlier decision of the court in 2019, the civil case was dismissed for lack of strong evidence since evidence submitted to the court were mostly photocopied documents.

• Sandiganbayan dismisses P200 billion civil suit vs Marcoses

In the separate concurring opinion of Justice Mañalac, the mootness of the case because the assets were already recovered in favor of the government is the proper ground for dismissal.

• Marcoses' P200-billion civil case moot: Sandiganbayan justice

In the decision dismissing the appeal of the government this year, the court noted that four properties were not yet recovered: Pandacan, Manila house; Batac Museum; and Batac Guest House which are under the control of the Marcoses, as well as a property that is part of the San Fabian Philippine Tourism Authority Beach Resort which is under the administration of the local government.

The court, however, said that it already afforded the plaintiff the opportunity to submit further evidence in support of the subject report.

“Unfortunately, no such evidence was forthcoming,” the court said.

FROM THE ARCHIVES:

Watch more News on iWantTFC