The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a pivotal ruling that is expected to ease the determination of the methods of corruption in government.

The decision held that wealth acquired by a public officer during their term of office that exceeds their lawful income is presumed ill-gotten and may be forfeited, even if registered in the names of other individuals.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao on 5 March 2025, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits and investment accounts under the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children and relatives.

Ligot served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period.

The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

Ligot’s declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, leading to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. 

Family affair

The petition also named his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

Several undeclared properties were found by the Sandiganbayan registered under General Ligot’s name and/or his wife. Other undeclared properties were registered under their children’s names.

Also, the anti-graft court traced several condominium units to General Ligot: units in Makati City in his sister’s name, where General Ligot and his wife made most amortization payments; and a unit in Taguig City registered under his brother-in-law, which General Ligot’s wife originally purchased.

Ligot and his family were also slapped with a petition for forfeiture, alleging that bank deposits and investment accounts under their names were manifestly out of proportion to General Ligot’s declared lawful income.

The Sandiganbayan found that the properties, valued at P102 million, and deposits and investment funds amounting to P53 million were unlawfully acquired and ordered their forfeiture.

A petition was filed by General Ligot and his family before the SC, arguing that the condominium units in question were not his and had been legitimately purchased by his relatives. They also claimed that their deposits and invested funds were not disproportionate to the family’s income.

But during the pendency of the petition, General Ligot passed away, and his family continued to pursue the case.

Ligot’s sister and brother-in-law also filed their petitions, asserting that they owned the condominium units and should not be included in the order of forfeiture.

Their claims was rejected by the high bench and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling.

The Court noted that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names. Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by General Ligot.

The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.

The SC held that these circumstances indicate that General Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

Under Republic Act 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the 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.