"Xxx.
The Swiss Deposits Decision, G.R. No. 152154, dealt only with the summary judgment as to the five Swiss accounts, because the 2000 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated 7 March 2000 specifically identified the five Swiss accounts. It did not include the Arelma account. To subscribe to the view of petitioners is to forever bar the State from recovering the assets listed above, including the properties it had specifically identified in its petition for forfeiture. As we have discussed in our Decision, the ruling of the Sandiganbayan is rightly characterized as a separate judgment, and allowed by the Rules of Court under Section 5 of Rule 36:
Separate judgments.—When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered.
Xxx."
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, Respondent. G.R. No. 189434, March 12, 2014. Accompanying case: IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 189505, March 12, 2014. (Resolution).
Source:
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_189434_2014.html.
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_189434_2014.html.
