View full case

REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF ALFONSO LIM

FACTS:

The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against Alfonso Lim, Sr. and Alfonso Lim, Jr. before the Sandiganbayan. The complaint alleged that the Lims, in collusion with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, enriched themselves at the expense of the Republic and the Filipino people. The Republic sought the reconveyance of all funds and property acquired through unjust enrichment and abuse of right and power. These properties include various parcels of land and buildings, as well as shares of stocks in several companies.

The case involves the estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr., who was allegedly associated with former President Marcos. The estate filed a motion to lift the sequestration order over certain real properties, claiming that Lim, Sr. obtained title to these properties before the Marcoses came to power. The Republic opposed the motion, arguing that the sequestered properties serve as security for any judgment the Republic may obtain against Lim, Sr.'s estate or group of companies. The Sandiganbayan eventually lifted the sequestration order. Meanwhile, the Republic filed its formal offer of evidence in the main case, and the Sandiganbayan admitted the documentary exhibits. The estate of Lim, Sr., Ruthie Lim, and others filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the evidence did not prove or disprove the amassing of ill-gotten wealth by the defendants. The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration of the lifting of the sequestration order. In response, the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, alleging fraud on the part of the respondents. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration of this denial. The Sandiganbayan later denied the defendants' demurrer to evidence. The estate of Lim, Sr., Taggat Industries, Inc., and Pamplona Redwood Veneer, Inc., and Lim, Jr. filed motions for reconsideration of the denial of their demurrer to evidence. The Sandiganbayan affirmed the denial of the defendants' demurrer to evidence and also denied the Republic's motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.

The Republic filed a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the respondents. The Republic argued that there is sufficient basis for the attachment based on the evidence already on record and the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the writ of preliminary injunction and the demurrer to evidence. Respondents countered that there is no evidence of fraud as required by the Rules of Court, as stated by the Sandiganbayan in its March 28, 2003 resolution. The Sandiganbayan found that the allegations of fraud were general and lacked specific details to support the serious allegation against the respondents.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is proper in this case.

  2. Whether or not the Republic has sufficiently demonstrated the commission of fraud by the respondents.

  3. Whether the revocation/cancellation of the timber concessions of Lim, Sr. was justified.

  4. Whether the denial of the demurrer to evidence by the Sandiganbayan was proper.

  5. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Republic's motion for a writ of preliminary attachment.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment is proper in this case. Attachment is an ancillary remedy used to enable the attaching party to secure relief in the main action. It is available during the pendency of the action to preserve and protect certain rights and interests. An order granting an application for a writ of preliminary attachment cannot be the subject of an appeal independently of the main action.

  2. The Court ruled that the Republic has sufficiently demonstrated the commission of fraud by the respondents. Fraud is defined as the voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission, knowing and intending the effects that arise from such act or omission. In this case, the Republic presented evidence showing that the respondents had been holding and operating logging concessions that far exceeded the allowable area prescribed under the 1973 Constitution. The cancellation of the concessions by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) due to constitutional violations supports the finding of fraud.

  3. The revocation/cancellation of the timber concessions of Lim, Sr. was justified. The timber license agreements exceeded the 100,000-hectare threshold prescribed by the 1973 Constitution. Additionally, the TLAs were executed and granted through fraudulent means and violated the constitutional and statutory limitations on allowable area leases and concessions. The holdings of the timber concessions by Lim, Sr. and the associated corporations resulted in the concentration of large tracts of public land in the hands of a single individual, which is considered unfair, unacceptable, and unconstitutional.

  4. The denial of the demurrer to evidence by the Sandiganbayan was proper. The evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed prima facie sufficient to support an adverse verdict against the respondents for amassing illegal wealth. The evidence included a decision by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary revoking or cancelling the timber license agreements of Lim, Sr. and the associated corporations due to violations of the Constitution and special privileges granted by former President Ferdinand Marcos. The Sandiganbayan concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution, absent countervailing evidence, was sufficient to support the charges.

  5. The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the Republic's motion for a writ of preliminary attachment. The Court reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan Resolutions and directed the 2nd Division of Sandiganbayan to issue the writ of preliminary attachment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Attachment is an ancillary remedy applied for the purpose of enabling the attaching party to realize upon relief sought in the main action.

  • An order granting an application for a writ of preliminary attachment cannot be appealed independently of the main action.

  • To issue a writ of attachment, the applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud.

  • Fraud includes any act or omission involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence resulting in damage to another.

  • Fraudulent actions are intentionally wrongful, dishonest, or unfair.

  • Violation of constitutional limitations on the granting of certain privileges can be considered fraud.

  • The cancellation of concessions or licenses due to constitutional violations can support a finding of fraud.

  • Constitutional and statutory limitations are in place to prevent the concentration of large tracts of public land in the hands of a single individual.

  • The execution and granting of agreements in violation of constitutional and statutory limitations, through fraudulent means, are deemed invalid.

  • A demurrer to evidence challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the opponent to make out a case or sustain the issue.

  • The denial of a demurrer to evidence means that the evidence presented by the prosecution is prima facie sufficient to support an adverse verdict, absent countervailing evidence.

  • A demurrer to evidence challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment.

  • Fraud need not be proved by direct evidence and can be inferred from attendant circumstances.

  • Attachment is a mere provisional remedy to ensure the safety and preservation of the thing attached until the plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have such property applied to its satisfaction.

  • The denial of a writ of preliminary attachment constitutes grave abuse of discretion if the evidence used to deny the demurrer to evidence is the same evidence that demonstrates the propriety of the writ of preliminary attachment.