The Certificate of Titles show that the Archbishop is the legal owner. One cannot sell a property without the permission from the legal owner. Tim Rohr believes that the Certificate of Titles mean nothing because it did not mention the Declaration of Deed Restriction. According to Tim Rohr:
Now, if the 2011 Deed did not affect the ownership of the property, why would David the VG publish a Certificate of Title omitting it, especially when the actual Title Report from Title Guaranty SHOWS the Deed
We cannot accept that he did not know it was supposed to be on there. He's the Vicar General - the equivalent to our civil government's attorney general, he's supposed to be the ONE person in the diocese who knows these things. And even if he is ignorant - that's why the archdiocese has a legal counsel.http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/12/david-vgs-latest-attempt-to-defraud.html#more
In the first place, the Declaration of Deed Restriction does not need to be in the Certificate of Titles. Why? Because the Archbishop owns the declaration. It says so in the fine print at the bottom of the first four pages of the declaration. It stated:
Declaration of Deed Restriction by owner Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM, Cap., DD., Incumbent.Thus, the Archbishop owns the Declaration of Deed Restriction. As Jackie Terlaje pointed out in her press release to the media (the bold with italics is mine):
One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee. The declaration professes to be a document of a limited purpose to grant a right of perpetual use. In fact, the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction. By imposing on itself a restriction, the Archbishop, in the same way, can impose further conditions on himself as the Owner of both the Seminary Property, and the seminary itself. It is not necessary to be a legal scholar to know that the same authority who issued an administrative decree, can immediately issue the day after another administrative decree saying exactly the contrary.In other words, the Declaration of Deed Restriction is OWNED by the Archbishop; therefore, he can even remove the declaration simply because he owns it. One only need to look at the bottom of the page to see that the declaration is indeed owned by the Archbishop. Tim Rohr often cite the Bronze's legal opinion on his blog. CCOG's lawyer is wrong because
- he assumed the declaration to be a "deed" when in fact, it was never even filed as a "deed" but as a "declaration" by the Department of Tax and Revenue, and
- he did not read the fine print at the bottom, stating that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is owned by the Archbishop.