MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts linked to retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot, ruling that assets acquired by a public officer that clearly exceed lawful income are presumed ill-gotten even when registered under the names of relatives.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the Sandiganbayan’s orders forfeiting real estate assets and financial accounts under Ligot’s name and those traced to him but registered under his wife, children, sister, and brother-in-law.

Ligot, who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004 and acted as a commissioned comptroller, became the subject of a lifestyle investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. The probe found that his declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) from 1982 to 2003 did not reflect several properties and bank accounts attributed to him and his family members. This led to two separate petitions for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan.

The anti-graft court found that the family possessed PHP 102 million worth of undeclared properties and PHP 53 millionin bank deposits and investment funds that were disproportionate to Ligot’s lawful income. These included condominium units in Makati and Taguig registered under the names of Ligot’s sister and brother-in-law but paid for by Ligot or his wife, who had no independent income.

In their petitions before the SC, Ligot’s relatives claimed legitimate ownership of the units and argued that their bank deposits were consistent with the family’s income. Ligot passed away while the petition was pending, but his family pursued the case.

The SC rejected their arguments, noting that Ligot’s wife and children had no income of their own yet held substantial assets. The Court found that the payments for several properties were made directly by Ligot or his wife, establishing him as the true owner despite the properties being placed under other names.

Under Republic Act No. 1379, assets of public officers that are “manifestly out of proportion” to their lawful income are presumed illegally acquired. The Court stressed that this presumption also applies to assets concealed through third-party ownership.

“[RA] 1379 would be rendered ineffectual if the registration of properties in the name of third persons would suffice to forestall the presumption under Section 2 of the law from arising,” the Decision stated.

The SC also clarified that forfeiture proceedings involving unexplained wealth are exempt from bank secrecy restrictions when bank deposits are among the assets sought to be forfeited.