## Facts

- In 1970, Rogelio (Roger) Roxas allegedly discovered a cache near Baguio City, Philippines, including a golden Buddha statue and gold bars.
- In April 1971, men in Philippine military uniforms allegedly acting under Ferdinand Marcos seized much of the treasure from Roxas’s home.
- Roxas alleged he was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured in connection with the seizure.
- Evidence at trial supported findings that Ferdinand Marcos exercised personal control over the treasure and disposed of it for personal benefit.
- After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed and moved to Hawaiʻi, Roxas and The Golden Budha Corporation sued in Hawaiʻi state court for conversion and related torts.
- A jury found Ferdinand Marcos liable for conversion and found false imprisonment and battery related to the seizure.
- After Ferdinand Marcos died during the litigation, the circuit court substituted Imelda Marcos as “personal representative” of his estate and entered an amended judgment that included over $22 billion in conversion damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Imelda Marcos was properly substituted as personal representative of Ferdinand Marcos’s estate under Hawaiʻi Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1).
2. Whether the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the act of state doctrine, head-of-state immunity, or lack of personal jurisdiction.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the verdict for conversion, false imprisonment, and battery.
4. What measure of damages applies to conversion of a fluctuating-value commodity (gold).
5. Whether judicial estoppel precluded Imelda Marcos from denying personal liability.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the jury’s liability findings for conversion and related torts, rejecting sufficiency challenges.
- The court held Imelda Marcos was not properly substituted as a “personal representative” because substitution required a valid judicial appointment by a court with probate jurisdiction.
- The court nonetheless allowed judgment against Imelda Marcos personally, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos estate, based on judicial estoppel arising from her litigation positions and conduct.
- The court rejected defenses based on the act of state doctrine and head-of-state immunity because the conduct was treated as personal wrongdoing rather than protected sovereign action.
- The court held limitations were tolled by circumstances that effectively prevented suit while Marcos remained in power.
- The court upheld personal jurisdiction in Hawaiʻi based on the defendants’ Hawaiʻi residence and forum contacts after exile.
- The court adopted the “New York rule” for conversion damages involving fluctuating commodities and remanded for recalculation using the highest value within a reasonable time after conversion.

## Legal Principles

- Substitution of a party for a deceased litigant under HRCP 25(a)(1) requires a properly appointed representative; a stipulation alone is insufficient without a valid probate appointment.
- The act of state doctrine does not bar adjudication when the challenged conduct is treated as personal, illegal conduct for private benefit rather than an official sovereign act.
- Head-of-state immunity may be unavailable where the claims target private acts and there is no basis to treat the conduct as protected governmental action.
- Limitations periods may be tolled where legal or political conditions effectively bar timely filing until the impediment is removed.
- Judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions in litigation to gain advantage; it may support imposing personal liability consistent with prior positions.
- For conversion of a fluctuating-value commodity, damages may be measured by the highest market value within a reasonable time after conversion (the New York rule), rather than strictly the value at the time and place of conversion.

## Conclusion

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court sustained the core tort liability for the treasure seizure, rejected immunity and act-of-state defenses, required proper probate appointment for estate substitution, imposed limited personal responsibility on Imelda Marcos through judicial estoppel, and adopted the New York rule for recalculating gold-conversion damages on remand.


Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998)