Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Declaration Of Deed Restriction

Many people in the jungle including CCOG's lawyer believed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is some kind of deed that conveys the RMS property from the Archdiocese of Agana to a corporation called RMS.  Take a closer look at the Declaration of Deed Restriction, which can be found in the jungle's blog weblink below: 


There are 26 items listed under "Type of instrument recorded" which the recorder at the Department of Revenue and Taxation is supposed to mark with an X.  These 26 items included (the bold is mine): 

  1. Deed
  2. Mortgage
  3. Assignment
  4. Addendum
  5. Decree
  6. Orders
  7. Power of Attorney
  8. Agreement
  9. Affidavit
  10. Release
  11. Amendment
  12. Assumption
  13. Map
  14. Judgment
  15. Revocation
  16. Termination
  17. Lease
  18. Contract
  19. Certificate
  20. Declaration
  21. Easement
  22. Claims
  23. Cancellation
  24. Notice
  25. Bill of Sale
  26. Withdrawal
Of the 26 items, the recorder check marked "Declaration."  Deed, which was the very first item, was never checked marked.  Furthermore, look at very first sentence in the Declaration of Deed Restriction."  It stated (the bold is mine): 
THIS DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION ("Declaration") is made on this 21st day of November, by ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA, A CORPORATION SOLE, ANTHONY SABLAN APURON, OFM, CAP., D.D., INCUMBENT (hereinafter "Owner"), whose mailing address is...........
Look at what I placed in bold above.  What the jungle calls a "deed restriction" even states that it is a "declaration" rather than a "deed."  And this is the evidence that CCOG plans to provide as proof that the Archbishop gave away the property?  

This written document actually favors the Archbishop's side because it is written right there in black and white that it is a declaration just as Jackie Terlaje stated.  It was NEVER a deed of any kind.  Tim Rohr deceived his readers by focusing on only the word "Deed." They overlooked the fact that the word "Declaration" was checked marked as the type of instrument on paper.  They overlooked the fact that even the first sentence identified the Declaration of Deed Restriction as a "declaration".     

This was no different when the jungle also deceived its readers into believing that RMS was a separate corporation.  They focus on only the words Redemptoris Mater House of Formation and left out the words "Archdiocese of Agana", which was also written in Article I of the Articles of Incorporation. 


  1. Now you are an attorney who specializes in corporate law on Guam? Jackie is a divorce attorney who has no clue about corporate law here in Guam. So why not just let the local court just decide who's interpretation is correct. That way this immature back and forth opinion can finally end.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:24 am,

      I am not an attorney. I am simply reading the document as it is rather than looking at only one word. CCOG can go ahead and take the Archbishop to court; however, I think they should get a second opinion on the Declaration of Deed Restriction. After all, CCOG is using the donation of their constitutents to bring it to court.

    2. Anon. 8:24 am, Don't know where u got the idea that Jackie is a divorce lawyer. She isn't a divorce lawyer at all.

  2. I'm not attorney either but have dealt with attorneys here in the states and I Guam extensively and know that stateside legal opinions differ from local laws unless brought before the federal court. All that matters in this case is the opinion from the jurisdiction the case is brought before.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:07 am,

      Every state also has different laws of their own, and the law firm in Denver deals with many different states. With that said, I am certain that the Denver law firm took into consideration the local civil laws in Guam's jurisdiction when making their report. The question is...did CCOGs lawyer take into consideration the laws governing religious institutions, corporation soles, and canon law?

  3. Really? You want us to believe that you know what the truth is? That's laughable.

    The document is a "Declaration of Deed Restriction". Are you really going to claim there is no "Deed Restriction" at all, just a "Declaration"?

    Remind me to never take your advice.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:00 am,

      Rather than resorting to mockery, do you then have an explanation as to why this "deed restriction" was recorded as a "declaration" instead of a "deed" at the Department of Revenue and Taxation????

    2. Yes. Although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me to be relatively straightforward. The document is marked as a Declaration because that is what it is. The declarant (the Archbishop) is making a declaration that he hereby granting a certain right to a certain party.

      So the Deed of Restriction is a record of a property or right granted; and the declaration of the Deed Restriction is the instrument by which the Deed is declared.

      I assume that the option for "Deed" on the Department of Revenue and Taxation checklist relates to grant deeds, warranty deeds or quitclaim deeds, or something similar.

      In any case, I'm not sure what your argument is. Why are you bringing this up except to suggest that somehow the Deed of Restriction is not actually a Deed of Restriction? Surely everyone agrees that a Deed of Restriction has been placed on the title?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:37 am,

      The argument is to clarify that the Declaration of Deed Restriction was NEVER a deed in which property was transferred from one person to a different person as the jungle and CCOG assumed. The Declaration of Deed Restriction placed a restriction only on the use of the property. It has nothing to do with who owns the property. The option for "deed" on the checklist includes all kinds of deed including a deed of gift, quitclaim deed, etc.

    4. Dear Diana,

      so, you are happy to understand that " The Declaration of Deed Restriction placed a restriction only on the use of the property".

      Can you imagine restricting the use of a thing so much, for someone else's benefit, that effectively you lose the use of that thing yourself?

      In such a case, it would be like you simply gave the thing away, wouldn't it? That's the general argument.

      You might imagine an old man leaving his house to his son when he dies, only for the son to discover that the old man declared a deed of restriction on the property that the butler and his family could live there and have its use, in perpetuity.

      Surely even you would acknowledge that this is tantamount to giving the property to the butler, even if the title is still in the old man's name.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 4:20 pm,

      This is not to benefit only the Archbishop. Having a seminary benefits the people of Guam and the Pacific region.

      You stated: "You might imagine an old man leaving his house to his son when he dies, only for the son to discover that the old man declared a deed of restriction on the property that the butler and his family could live there and have its use, in perpetuity."

      I say that is a very good Father to take care of the butler who has served him for many years. And if the son was a good son, he would be happy with the butler for serving his father loyally. He would be happy to find that the butler's family will also serve the son in the same way.

    6. Who said anything about the butler "serving his family loyally"? IN fact, the butler sought to deceive the old man, get in his good graces and then fleece him for everything he owned. The butler was motivated by greed and a secret resentment for the family he worked for.

      The son is quite rightly upset because he can see what has been going on.

      Now what? How about appreciating what is being said, rather than trying to be smart? Can you understand that in this example the deed restriction acts as a transfer of ownership even though the title remains unchanged?

    7. Dear Anonymous at 10:39 am,

      It that were true of the Butler, the father would be able to see it. After all, you shall know them by their fruits.

    8. No, the father was ill and his senses were cloudy. He was most vulnerable to the butlers machinations. The son could see what was happening, but the butler had orchestrated to keep him away from the father.

      Anyway, getting back to the point.

      Can you understand that in this example the deed restriction acts as a transfer of ownership even though the title remains unchanged?

    9. Dear Anonymous at 12:14 pm,

      The father had a clear mind. There was no record of any psychological problems. Although the father had diabetes, persons with diabetes were able to function well at their jobs as the father has proven. Unfortunately, the father has a few enemies who enjoys making up stories.

    10. There was no record of psychological problems because the records were managed by the butler.

      In any event, you have demonstrated just how weak your argument is, as you can't even bear to face the truth demonstrated by the analogy. How sad. Those members of this blogs audience who haven't yet had their logic and reason fatally compromised by exposure to the NCW, will understand.

    11. Dear Anonymous at 12:40 pm,

      In the first place, the butler has nothing to do with psychiatric care. He is only a butler. And since the beginning, you were the one who INVENTED the butler story, so who does that make you? The enemy of the father.

    12. How can inventing the story make me an enemy of a character in the story? This new logic astounds me. Perhaps you can explain again how sheeps bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes?

      In any case, the butler had secretly been attending night classes and was recently awarded a doctorate in clinical psychoanalysis. Even his family didn't know!!

    13. Dear Anonymous at 4:42 pm,

      It makes you a character in the story because the inventor is the one who needed psychiatric help. The fact that he asks to equate sheep bladders to prevent earthquake is the symptom of mental instability.

    14. Whoa!! It was just an analogy, Diana---to illustrate why putting a restriction on use could be problematic. Can you just acknowledge that point and keep it real??? Analogies are often meant to help clarify a person's point of view--not to start a whole new argument!! if you feel the analogy is not accurate then just state your reason.
      A case of "deflection", to be sure.

    15. Dear Anonymous at 8:28 am,

      It is only problematic to people who apparently do not want it to be a seminary in perpetuity. A seminary is a good thing.

    16. "A seminary is a good thing. "

      Yes, unless its a bad seminary; or if it came about at the cost of the dignity and reputation of others, or at the expense of the good of the faithful.

      But otherwise, yes, a seminary is a good thing.

    17. Amazing! Most of the islands in the Pacific do not have a major seminary of their own. We have two. And yet some disparage this wonderful fact. Instead of feeling proud that Archbishop Apuron managed to erect two seminaries, they keep on their vilification trip.

      The truth is that the majority of those who denigrate these seminaries, have never even been in any of them.

      “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” (Søren Kierkegaard)

    18. Exactly. We should be proud of our heritage. Guam is so beautiful. These seminaries are a sign that our church is alive


  5. This is funny. I see how amateurish these people at the jungle are. They talk as if they'd understand what they are talking about. But they have no clue. As complacent and conceited they are, they are so ignorant, as well. A bunch of losers, that's what they are.

    So come on, jungle folks, why don't you sue for the seminary? We are looking forward to your courage. But you know what? Losers will never sue, because they are cowards. Their mouth is all the talk, but their action is lacking. A bunch of angry zombies sprinkling fake blood all around... Wow, how scary that is?! Ha-ha-ha.

    1. Dear Anonymous @ 8:47pm--
      Be careful what you say...while you are putting down jungle folks for not carrying out their threat to sue, remember that our Archbishop also threatened to sue and it, too, has yet to happen....
      "Losers", "cowards", "all talk, but action is lacking", etc. etc. : are you referring to him as well?

    2. Ha-ha-ha, anon 8:32 am! You are extremely funny. It is not us, but you are the ones who act like angry zombies howling and shaking your bones. You are the ones who sprinkle the fake blood and threaten with scary faces. Ooh-huh, we are s-s-s-so frightened!

      We are the ones who offer peace and embrace our sisters and brothers because we know all you truly need is a good hug to assure you about the love of God. One day you will wake up and receive what the Holy Spirit is telling you through your conscience.

      But now, we are waiting in patient calm on your next stupid move trying to prevent you from injuring yourselves. Please, go beyond your miserable cowardice. We are here for you to help you to overcome your fears with a good laugh.

    3. Pride comes before a fall

  6. AT 8:32 AM.... ''LOSERS,'' ''COWARDS'' Where's John Tycoon Toves, You Know who? the one who all talk and no Action!!


  7. Absoloute evidence Diana AAA is corrupt .
    His corruption stems back even before NCW.
    Now evidence informs us of corruption.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:04 pm,

      What evidence is there??? John Toves came out accusing the Archbishop of molesting his cousin, and we find out that he never even spoke to his cousin. The jungle put out an announcement foe any victims who have been molested by the Archbishop and so far.........nothing. The jungle believes that the victims are too afraid to come forward when in reality there were no victims at all.

      Now, that the Archbishop has the Certificate of Titles, exactly what is CCOG going to charge him with as they take him to court???


  8. Demand to know how he is corrupt? How dare you write such evil speculations concerning Guam's Spiritual Father. Archbishop is our brother in walking the way. You 6.04pm should be ashamed writing such trash comments. Do you know the Archbishop? Do you know his mind, his good heart, pure soul? Doubt it very much! No. You are just one of those people casting wild stories throughout Archdiocese about a good holy man. Stop speculations. As Diana says " what evidence do you have he is corrupt?" There is no corruption. So stop casting stories go back to where you come from. You do not belong in our island home.

  9. RIGHT........ON---- 8:38PM