Sandiganbayan; jurisdiction. Petitioners maintain that the jurisdictional facts necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter in CC No. 0033-A have yet to be established. Petitioners claim that the Republic failed to prove the ill-gotten nature of the sequestered coconut farmers’ UCPB shares. Accordingly, the controversy is removed from the subject matter jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and necessarily any decision rendered on the merits, such as PSJ-A and PSJ-F, is void. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the subdivided amended complaints. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The question on whether a given suit comes within the pale of a statutory conferment is determined by the allegations in the complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff will be entitled at the end to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Judging from the allegations of the defendants’ illegal acts thereat made, it is fairly obvious that both CC Nos. 0033-A and CC 0033-F partake, in the context of EOs 1, 2 and 14, series of 1986, the nature of ill-gotten wealth suits. Both deal with the recovery of sequestered shares, property or business enterprises claimed, as alleged in the corresponding basic complaints, to be ill-gotten assets of President Marcos, his cronies and nominees and acquired by taking undue advantage of relationships or influence and/or through or as a result of improper use, conversion or diversion of government funds or property. Recovery of these assets — determined as prima facie ill-gotten — falls within the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, January 24, 2012.
Sandiganbayan; jurisdiction. PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975 and EO 14, Series of 1986, vests the Sandiganbayan with original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection with EOs 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Correlatively, the PCGG Rules and Regulations defines the term “Ill-Gotten Wealth” as “any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of [EOs] 1 and 2, acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates.” The Republic’s averments in the amended complaints, particularly those detailing the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants, sufficiently reveal that the subject matter thereof comprises the recovery by the Government of ill-gotten wealth acquired by then President Marcos, his cronies or their associates and dummies through the unlawful, improper utilization or diversion of coconut levy funds aided by PD 755 and other sister decrees. There was no actual need for Republic, as plaintiff a quo, to adduce evidence to show that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints as it leaned on the averments in the initiatory pleadings to make visible the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the ill-gotten wealth complaints. A perusal of the allegations easily reveals the sufficiency of the statement of matters disclosing the claim of the government against the coco levy funds and the assets acquired directly or indirectly through said funds as ill-gotten wealth. Moreover, the Court finds no rule that directs the plaintiff to first prove the subject matter jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint is filed. Rather, such burden falls on the shoulders of defendant in the hearing of a motion to dismiss anchored on said ground or a preliminary hearing thereon when such ground is alleged in the answer. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al, v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, January 24, 2012.
x x x."
