The Sandiganbayan building in Quezon City. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the petition of the United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation (COCOLIFE) over the reconveyance of the United Coconut Planters Bank's (UCPB) shares in the company.

Last July 2024, COCOLIFE filed an instant petition for declaratory relief, arguing that the subject shares are not covered by the Republic Act. No. 11524 or the Coconut Farmers and Industry Fund (CFITF) Act.

The petition stemmed from Civil Case No. 0033-B, which is a complaint for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth from firms created out of coconut levy funds.

The Presidential Commission for Good Government (PCGG) alleged COCOLIFE was formed and/or funded using coco levy funds. The PCGG sought to return to the government 255,823,678 shares of UCPB, citing the CFITF Act.

In a 27-page decision promulgated on February 24, 2025, the Second Division agreed with the position of the PCGG that UCPB's shares are coco levy assets.

“After a circumspect review, the Court finds the present petition unmeritorious. UCPB’s shares of stock in COCOLIFE are reconveyable coconut levy assets within the purview of the CFITF Act," it said.

"The subject shares of UCPB in COCOLIFE fall squarely within the broad definition of "coconut levy assets" as defined in the CFITF Act. The law is clear: any and all assets acquired through coconut levy assets, regardless of whether they have been finally declared by the Supreme Court as belonging to government," the Sandiganbayan stated.

The anti-graft court cited Section 6 of the CFITF Act, which was being contested by COCOLIFE and the PCGG.

Under the provision, all government agencies and any person with coco levy assets and/or funds that have been finally declared by the Supreme Court as belonging to the government shall reconvey them to the Republic of the Philippines within one year upon effectivity of the act.

The same provision provided for the reconveyance of other coco levy assets later declared belonging to the Philippine government.

"The CFITF Act clearly distinguishes between coconut levy assets in the first and second paragraphs. The distinction made by the law thus implies that reconveyance of coconut levy assets does not require a final declaration by the Supreme Court, that these assets belong to the Philippine government," the Sandiganbayan said.

"COCOLIFE misreads the CFITF Act in making the final declaration by the Supreme Court a requirement for coconut levy assets to be reconveyed. The first paragraph of Section 6 of the CFITF Act merely serves to impose a period within which to reconvey those assets so declared," the anti-graft court explained.

The Sandiganbayan further said the PCGG may still act on coco levy assets that may be recovered even after the stated period.

In its petition, COCOLIFE said the question on ownership of the shares remains unresolved because of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 0033-B.

However, the Sandiganbayan said it was already established in the Republic vs. COCOFED case that the subject shares were bought using coco levy funds.

"Ruling in favor of the PCGG and thus reversing the Sandiganbayan's Order, the Supreme Court held that the Philippine government should be allowed to vote the sequestered shares because they were acquired with coconut levy funds," it said.

"The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in COCOFED vs. Republic, stating that plainly enough, the coconut levy funds are public funds," the anti-graft court added.

The Sandiganbayan said disputed coconut levy assets are also reconveyable under the CFITF Act and may be recovered for the Philippine government.

The Second Division directed COCOLIFE to immediately comply with its "ministerial duty" for the reconveyance of UCPB's shares to the government.

"Petitioner COCOLIFE is ordered to immediately issue certificates of stocks in the name of the Republic of the Philippines covering the 255,823,678 shares of stocks registered in the name of UCPB for the benefit of the coconut farmers," the decision stated.

 The anti-graft court noted it has jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief, after the PCGG argued the plea should have been filed before a Regional Trial Court.

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over all incidents arising from, incidental to or related to such cases," it said.