G.R. No. 148154 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS).RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly declared in default by the anti-graft court on April 6, 1989. [12] In Imelda R. Marcos, et al. v. Garchitorena, et al. , [13] this Court upheld the validity of the Marcoses' default status for failure to file an answer within 60 days from November 10, 1988 when the alias summonses were validly served in their house address in Hawaii. On September 29, 1989, former President Marcos died in Hawaii. He was substituted by his estate, represented by Mrs. Marcos and their three children, upon the motion of the PCGG. [14] On July 13, 1992, Mrs. Marcos filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default, [15] which was granted by the anti-graft court on October 28, 1992. [16] In Republic v. Sandiganbayan , [17] this Court affirmed the resolution of the anti-graft court, ruling that Mrs. Marcos had a meritorious defense, and that failure of a party to properly respond to various complaints brought about by the occurrence of circumstances which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, such as being barred from returning to the Philippines, numerous civil and criminal suits in the United States, deteriorating health of her husband, and the complexities of her legal battles, is considered as due to fraud, accident and excusable negligence. [18] On September 6, 1995, Mrs. Marcos filed her answer, [19] arguing that the former President Marcos' wealth is not ill-gotten and that the civil complaints and proceedings are void for denying them due process. She also questioned the legality of the PCGG's acts and asked for P20 billion moral and exemplary damages and P10 million attorney's fees. On January 11, 1999, after pre-trial briefs had been filed by Cruz, the PCGG, and Mrs. Marcos, the court directed former President Marcos' children to appear before it or it will proceed with pre-trial and subsequent proceedings. [20] On March 16, 1999, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File a Responsive Pleading as executor of his late father's estate. [21] The PCGG opposed the motion, citing as ground the absence of a motion to set aside the default order or any order lifting the default status of former President Marcos. [22] On May 28, 1999, the court granted respondent's motion: x x x x The Court concedes the plausibility of the stance taken by the Solicitor General that the default Order binds the estate and the executor for they merely derived their right, if any, from the decedent. Considering however the complexities of this case, and so that the case as against the other defendants can proceed smoothly as the stage reached to date is only a continuation of the pre-trial proceedings, the Court, in the interest of justice and conformably with the discretion granted to it under Section 3 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court hereby accords affirmative relief to the prayer sought in the motion. Accordingly, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.[,] as executor of the [estate of] deceased defendant Ferdinand E. Marcos[,] is granted a period of ten (10) days from receipt of