It was brought to my attention in my last entry post that Tim Rohr thinks that the Way can sell the RM seminary without the approval of the Archbishop. The comment can be found here. That is incorrect.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.
Why wasn't said Decree of Declaration and attached Deed Restriction published in the U Matuna
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:45 am,
DeleteSee my response below.
Dear Diana, I think you are really unable to grasp what is going on. First of all, when the document says
ReplyDelete"Declaration of Deed Restriction by owner Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM, Cap., DD., Incumbent."
It is not saying that the Archbishop is the "Owner" of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, but rather that the Archbishop is the "owner" of the property as per the opening paragraph of the Declaration:
"This Declaration....is made..by Archbishop..(hereinafter "Owner")."
That same paragraph states that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is intended "hereby to legally bind Owner, Owner's heirs, successors or assigns"
Did you get that?
The Deed Restriction is to legally bind the Archbishop, and his successors.
A couple of other points. You say
"Tim Rohr believes that the Certificate of Titles mean nothing because it did not mention the Declaration of Deed Restriction."
I think you are mistaken here too. Tim Rohr is not saying the "Certificate of Titles mean nothing " because of the omission, but rather that it is inaccurate, misleading and suspicious that the Title Certificate is missing the entry in the memorials section of the title showing the contested deed.
And why would your (erroneous) assertion that the Archbishop owns the Declaration be an excuse to omit that reference? It simply doesn't follow, even if one accepts your argument (which I do not).
Finally, this question remains unanswered, and I suspect it is because you know it a problem - why would the Archbishop and his friends secretly lodge the Declaration of Deed Restriction, together with the Decree, rather than announce it publicly and clearly. It is obvious that the Declaration was intended to be kept secret.
But if everything was above-board, what justification is there for doing it secretly?
So that's the official line then? Pretty weak I'm afraid.
DeleteThe Declaration of Deed Restriction directly pertains to a certain property of which the Archbishop is designated the "owner". That is what is being said "at the bottom of the first four pages". Only the "owner" can make a declaration of deed restriction.
Any encumbrance on a property ought to be recorded on that Title. A Deed restriction is no exception, as it impacts on what the property may be used for, and on conditions that must be understood and met.
"The declaration is made by me and can be changed by me."
Well, you might think its that simple, but in reality it isn't, particularly when you have other parties involved to which a "contract" of sorts has been made.
"Finally, what makes you think that it was done in secret?"
You are jesting surely? The Declaration of Deed Restriction includes a Decree, which is a public statement. When was this Decree made public?
How is it that none, other than the perpetrators, knew of this Declaration of Deed Restriction for years after it was made? Of course it was secret. And you say "If it was done in secret, you would never have found out."
What nonsense. Would you say that the Watergate affair wasn't about matters conducted in secret, because eventually the truth came out? It is the intention that makes something secret, not the outcome.
That the Declaration of Deed Restriction was lodged secretly, with the intention of being kept secret is the only possible conclusion, because it was never announced or referred to, even when the matter was brought up at the finance committee meeting which occurred after the event!
You say "If it was done in secret, they would have not made it accessible to the public. ", by which presumably you mean that by searching the records it could be found out? And in your mind that means that it wasn't intended to be kept secret? Well then, can you describe an alternative way the Declaration could have been lodged without it going through the proper office? No. It had to be done in that way, of course, but to the extent to which the perpetrators could keep it secret and away from the general public, they did. That's the charge.
Now, if everything was above-board, why wasn't it announced publicly at the time, as any other Decree would have been?
Dear Anonymous at 10:40 am,
DeleteWhat is stated at the opening of the paragraph clearly stated that the Archbishop is the owner of the RMS property. However, what is stated at the bottom of the first four pages does not indicate ownership of the property. It stated, "Declaration of Deed Restriction by owner Archbishop of Agana....." WITHOUT mentioning the property. What was written at the bottom of the first four pages points to the declaration itself. By owning the declaration, it allows the Archbishop to make changes in the declaration.
The Declaration does not need to be in the Certificate of Titles because there is no new or different owner and there was no transfer of any kind. No transfer of property took place between the Archdiocese and the RMS or NCW. If there was a transfer, it would be recorded in the Certificate of Titles.
For example, if I owned a house and made a declaration of deed restriction to myself stating that the house is restricted to always be painted green in memory of my Father whose favorite color is green.....why should that be in the certificate of title? The declaration is made by me and can be changed by me.
Finally, what makes you think that it was done in secret? If it was done in secret, you would never have found out. But it was recorded in a way that the public had access to see it. If it was done in secret, they would have not made it accessible to the public.
Dear Anonymous at 11:49 am,
DeleteOn the contrary, the language of the law in this case is specific rather than general. In other words, you cannot tell me that the written statement at the bottom of all four pages is referring to the property, when there was no mention of the property in that one sentence.
Yes, an encumbrance should be recorded, but in this case, it it not an encumbrance. Why? Because the owner can change it at any time.
It was already known since 2011 what the Archbishop intended to do, but the former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop. In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop tried to explain that it does not involve alienation of property, but they had a difficult time understanding it just as they still do now.
Diana, why have you edited this conversation? I am the anon at 10.40 and at 11.49, but I was not replying to myself. My reply at 11.49 was made to your comment which is now recorded as at 12.00!
DeletePlease amend the comments to reflect the actual conversation, lest you be accused of "chancery-like" manipulation of facts.
"It was already known since 2011 what the Archbishop intended to do, but the former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop. In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop tried to explain that it does not involve alienation of property, but they had a difficult time understanding it just as they still do now. "
DeleteWhat? The original plan was to transfer ownership explicitly wasn't it? And when that idea was shown to be silly, and without support, the Deed Restriction was lodged - without any public statement and evidently without the knowledge of even the finance committee as the discussion was still going on!!
Thank God you're not a lawyer, and no-one needs to rely on your advice!
Dear Diana, please review your understanding of encumbrance.
DeleteFor example:
http://www.finweb.com/real-estate/types-of-real-estate-encumbrances.html#axzz3uddOaKX6
"Deed restrictions
A deed restriction is an encumbrance that usually runs with the land. Also known as restrictive covenant, this encumbrance tells the homeowner what they cannot do with their property."
Dear Anonymous at 1:12 pm,
DeleteThe encumbrance would only come into play if it were a deed given to someone else. In this case, there was no deed, but a declaration. I would not need to put a declaration on the certificate of title especially since the declaration is already stated in the Pacific American Title.
Dear Anonymous at 12:16 pm,
DeleteI did not edit anything in your comment. The words are still the same. The placing was changed when I edited MY comment.
Dear anonymous, your desperation is coming trough. You need feedback from Diana at every tiny detail in order to assure yourself about the feasibility of your law suit. But you know what? Prove it at court. You don't need to convince Diana or anybody else at this blog because we already know how big fake you are. Lol. Go and convince the court.
DeleteWe are just fed up with your antics and your way of forcing your themes on everyone else. We don't care. You are just a coward who is shaking of fear and needs someone to devour. Go ahead and devour the court. Prove your case. Be a man.
But be warned, you'll be losing much more than just a case at the court! You will be losing your credibility, the respect of the people of Guam and the respect of your own family members. You will be a cast out and losing your soul. We won't be there to tell you this, but people in your own camp will will let you know in clear terms.
So just go ahead already and make your charges at court. We are looking forward to it. That will also be day one of new life for Guam Catholics, as well. Get your Waterloo, coward, and then shut up forever. Lol.
Dear Anonymous at 12:56 pm,
DeleteSee my response in the following weblink:
http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/12/responding-to-another-commenter.html