By Benjamin Pulta

MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has granted the petition filed by the Philippine government for the forfeiture of the unlawfully acquired properties of the late Muntinlupa mayor Maximo Argana.

In a 114-page decision dated Aug. 18, 2025, the Sandganbayan Third Division granted the petition of the government originally filed in 1991 to forfeit in favor of the state unlawfully acquired property included in the estate of Argana, who was mayor of Muntinlupa from 1964 to 1967 and then again in 1972 until his death in 1985.

The court said the heirs of the mayor who are respondents “failed to controvert petitioner’s (government) evidence that between 1964 to 1967 and from 1972 up to his death in June 1985, Argana acquired, or made expenditures for, wealth and properties with a cost of PHP5,868,317.36 that were manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income for the same period.”

“Considering respondents’ failure to justify how they were able to acquire said properties out of their lawful income, the same are therefore considered to have been unlawfully acquired and should be forfeited in favor of the State,” the court said

The court noted that during the time the property were acquired by Argana and his school teacher wife earned around PHP735,000.

In the petition, the Republic alleged that the late Argana, during his incumbency as mayor, acquired no less than 251 Original/Transfer Certificates of Title to parcels of land located in Muntinlupa and its neighboring towns and other assets which are recorded in his name and/or his ownership, and concealed by being recorded in the name of, or held by, or transferred to, his respondent spouse, daughters, brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law and family corporation.

Except for his government salary and representation allowances, the State said Argana had no other known sources of income which may justify acquisition of the aforementioned assets.

The Sandiganbayan said that although the respondents insist that Argana was engaged in the active practice of his profession as a lawyer, was engaged in aqua-culture businesses in Laguna de Bay, and was involved in several other business opportunities, there was no proof of actual income derived therefrom which would justify their acquisition of the properties listed in the petition.

“The respondents failed to sufficiently present any financial document, income statement, or any other document showing the earnings of those businesses. They merely stated the supposed sources of income, but they did not present any evidence proving such,” the court said.

“Premises considered, respondents’ properties acquired from 1964 to 1967 and from 1972 up to his death in June 1985 which were out of proportion to their lawful income for the said period should be forfeited in favor of the government for failure of the respondents to show, to the court’s satisfaction, that the same were lawfully acquired.” (PNA)