SC affirms forfeiture of Ligot’s hidden assets

By Gerome Dalipe

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that wealth acquired during public service that “clearly exceeds lawful income is presumed unlawfully acquired and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.”

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao for the SC’s Third Division, upheld the forfeiture of PHP 155 million in properties and assets traced to retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot, a former comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Ligot, who served the AFP from 1970 to 2004, became the subject of a lifestyle investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman, which found a significant disparity between his declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) from 1982 to 2003 and the properties held under his name and those of his close family members.

The investigation led to a forfeiture petition before the Sandiganbayan, which determined that PHP 102 million worth of properties and PHP 53 million in deposits and investment funds were unlawfully acquired.

The petition included Ligot, his wife, children, sister, and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his illicit wealth.

The SC affirmed the Sandiganbayan ruling and detailed how the assets were hidden under the names of various relatives.

Ligot’s wife and children, despite having no independent income, held substantial properties and numerous bank and investment accounts.

Condominiums titled under his sister’s name were found to have amortizations paid directly by Ligot.

Another condominium under his brother-in-law’s name was originally purchased by Ligot’s wife, who had no legitimate income source to justify the acquisition.

The SC ruled that these circumstances were sufficient to establish that Ligot was the true owner of the assets, regardless of whose names appeared on the titles.

Citing Republic Act 1379, the high court reiterated that a public officer’s properties are presumed illegally acquired when they are “manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.”

It stressed that the presumption applies not only to assets under a public officer’s name but also to “those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.”