This is indeed a turning point in this outrageous conflict within Guam's Catholic Church. After three years, the controversy over the RMS property has finally come to an end with the new issuance of the Certificate of Titles by the Department of Land Management in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General. Of course, CCOG and LFM still have the freedom to hire their Bronze attorney and take it to court. However, considering the issuance of the new certificate of titles by the Department of Land Management in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General, the case would simply be tossed out the courtroom. As the Archbishop said since the beginning, the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. And the Certificate of Titles certified the Archbishop as the legal owner. The owner was NEVER the Redemptoris Mater Seminary no matter how much Tim Rohr twists and manipulates the wording in the documents.
Even in its website, the RM Seminary on Guam have stated that it is a corporation sole with the Archbishop as the only corporate sole of RMSAA (Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana). See the weblink below:
https://pruebapablopr.wordpress.com/estructura/2-civil/the-sole-member/
Two government agencies - the Department of Land Management and the Office of the Attorney General - have determined that the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana, just as the Archbishop had claimed all along. The jungle can trash the two government agencies all they want, the FACT still stands. Regardless of whether the Declaration of Deed Restriction was in the memorial or not, that does not change who actually owns the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. According to the Umatuna:
The Department of Land Management issued new Certificate of Titles on March 15, 2016, once again confirming that the legal and sole owner of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary of Guam in Yona (former Hotel Accion property) is the Archbishop of Agana.
The Department of Land Management, issued Certificates of Title Nos. 136387, 136388, 136389 and 136390 for the purpose of memorializing the Declaration of Deed Restriction recorded on November 22, 2011 to the Redemptoris Mater Missionary Seminary of Guam and the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Theological Institute. As part of this formal process, the Director of Land Management and Registrar of Titles, Michael Borja, determined that the proper way to proceed with this memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title Nos. 135922, 135923, 135924 and 135925, which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title. The issuance of the new Certificates of Titles did not change the Department of Land Management's certificates of ownership; the Archbishop of Agana is the owner of the property, and the certification is dated March 15, 2016.
While dissenters and opposers of the Archbishop have claimed that the now cancelled certificates of title were "bogus", the Department of Land Management diligently acted to address the concerns over the memorialization. According to Monsignor David C. Quitigua, Vicar General, "The release of these new certificates did not change the ownership of the Seminary Property, but more accurately describe all the pertinent information recorded; the owner of the Seminary property is the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole; that has not changed since the day the property was acquired for the seminary.
More than 40 young men currently are enrolled in the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, and 3 young men are enrolled in the St. John Paul the Great Archdiocesan Seminary of Guam. All of our seminarians participate in academic courses provided by the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Theological Institute, which is affiliated with the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. This is the Pope's University. At the completion of studies, the degree conferred comes from the Lateran University. The program of studies and the Faculty have the Nihil Obstat of the Lateran University.
The majority of young men, if ordained, will be priests of the Archdiocese of Agana. Other dioceses such as the Dioceses of Kiribati, American Samoa, and Western Samoa are also sending their men to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary; their respective diocese fund the education of these men, and those men will return to their diocese upon completion of their studies.
Diana, what are you clueless as to what a DEED RESTRICTION means?
ReplyDelete"Deed restrictions impose rules that a property owner may want to place on how future owners may use the land or buildings.
In fact, the owner feels so strongly about a matter that a deed conveying title to the real estate actually spells out what those limitations are, sometimes binding not only the next owner but also every future owner to a set of limitations.
The most common application now in the U.S. is in newer subdivisions and condominium associations where often the deed refers to a long document called a master deed.
In some places the specifics of the deed are called the declarations or the "CC&Rs," which itemize what is allowed and what isn't permitted in the development.
Older subdivisions and individual properties also can contain a baffling array of deed restrictions ranging from common sense protections of a neighbor's rights to eccentric clauses prohibiting or requiring certain behaviors that future owners find most challenging"
If you google what a deed restriction is then maybe you'll see the other part of the certificate of title which says "in favor of"..
It surely DOESNT SAY the archdiocese of agana.
Dear Anonymous at 10:09 pm,
DeleteThe proper name is "DECLARATION" of Deed Restriction. It is a "Declaration", not a deed. Why? Because there never was an exchange of ownership. The owner remains the same person - the Archbishop.
The important thing is that the Archbishop is still the owner of the RMS property regardless of the Declaration of Deed Restriction. After all, the controversy has always been as to WHO owns the property. You can now rest assured that the owner is the Archbishop.
"After all, the controversy has always been as to WHO owns the property."
DeleteThat is not correct. The controversy has been about much more than that, including WHO effectively owns the property. The deed restriction is a way to transfer ownership effectively, while seemingly leaving ownership on the title unchanged. The effect of the Deed Restriction is the transfer of ownership. Thats why they did it after all - so that RMS has effective control of the property. There is no other reason for the deed to have been applied, is there?
Dear Anonymous at 10:34 pm,
DeleteYour comment is a contradiction and therefore does not make any common sense. Your first sentence disagree with my statement about the controversy as to who owns the property. Then your second sentence says the opposite in that the controversy is about who effectively owns the property. Who owns or who EFFECTIVELY owns the property means the same thing. The person who LEGALLY owns the property is the same person who EFFECTIVELY owns the property.
Then you say that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is a "way" to transfer" property while leaving the ownership on the title unchanged. This kind of thinking borders on the "insanity." One cannot "transfer" property to another entity while claiming "ownership" on the same certificate of title. Either it is a transfer or not.
Here is my take on this thing. The office of the Attorney General had the opportunity to review all pertinent documents, which the Bronze Attorney did not have. The Bronze attorney only had a declaration to fall back on, while Kristine Finney had much more documents provided to her by the Archdiocese. Therefore, I would go with what the Office of the Attorney General says as to who is the legal owner. Nevertheless, if you are still in doubt, you are free to take the Archbishop to court.
" The person who LEGALLY owns the property is the same person who EFFECTIVELY owns the property. "
DeleteWell, I can see your problem.
This is simply untrue. If I own a car, but sign a contract saying that you can have total use of it forever, and can do whatever you like with it, my name on the registration papers means nothing, does it. Even though I legally own the car, the restriction I place on it means that you effectively own it.
See how a transfer of ownership (and control) can occur without a change in the strict legal sense.
But in the case of the RMS property, it is even more than that, because the legal terms used in the deed restrition are equivalent to an outright transfer.
You say that the office of the Attorney General had access to "all pertinent documents" and that that makes all the difference.
So, what are these "pertinent documents" provided by the Archdiocese? Can you elaborate at all?
If there are other documents that would convince someone of the ownership of the property, don't you think its scandalous to keep them secret?
Dear Anonymous at 12:09 am,
DeletePlease get real. No one buys a car and gives control of the car to someone else, knowing full well that they are still liable if the car was involved in an accident or used as a crime.
The Archbishop has already proven that he owns the RMS property. So get over it. God won the victory for the Archdiocese of Agana.
The CT proves that the property is in favor of RMS....but if you continue to believe that the Archdiocese owns the property, then the new Archbishop can cancel the deed restriction without a need to get approval from the board of RMS, the guarantors and the Vatican. This was all done completely without approval from Rome and the finance council, so it can be completely reserved without Rome and other approvals. The seminarians can move to another building owned by the archdiocese....so really they don't need to be there. We only need to get a new Archbishop....four more years to go....we can wait.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:29 pm,
DeleteThat is not what the CT reads. It reads, "This is to certify that the Archbishop of Agana, corporation sole is the owner of the property." The Archbishop never needed an approval from Rome or the Finance Council because it was never an "alienation." It only becomes an alienation if the owner is NOT the Archbishop, which is not the case.
Anonymous, what makes you think that the new Archbishop will even sell the RMS property and put the seminarians somewhere else? Do you not see that even after trying for three years to remove Archbishop Apuron, you were unsuccessful. So, what makes you think that Rome will follow you when they have been silent to your cause for three years?
Who said anything about selling the property? The point is that the seminary can exist without them being at Yona property. I think you have missed the point...we have already proved the point to Rome...exposing the problems of this archdiocese. In fact, this blog has helped to promote the exposure....thanks for helping our cause.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:44 am,
DeleteYour comment already shows that you do not want the property to be a seminary; therefore, the only good you can get out of it is either to sell it or turn it into a business venture (such as a casino maybe).
The article states that " the proper way to proceed with this memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title Nos. 135922, 135923, 135924 and 135925, which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title."
ReplyDeleteBut I have just seen that the cancelled Certificates actually did have the Declaration listed on them. Is this another error or just another attempt to deceive?
Dear Anonymous at 12:12 am,
DeleteIt is over! The NEW Certificates of Titles is supported by the Department of Land Management in collaboration with the Office of the Attorney General.
Timmy Timmy Timmy Timmy Timmy ?????? NO CASINO, STOP NOW......
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call it the turning point, Diana?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:08 am,
DeleteI call it the "turning point" because after three years of conflict, this is the point where many confused Catholics who did not know what to make of the controversy will finally realize that the Archbishop was telling the truth all along. Why? Because this time it was two secular government agencies that determined that the RMS property is owned by the Archbishop of Agana. All praise and glory goes to God. The Archdiocese did not have to do anything for it was God Himself who won this battle for the Archdiocese.
The jungle, on the other hand, has already shown that it opposes ALL those who disagrees with them, including its own members who have questioned them.
Diana, Tim Rohr told you with no uncertain terms that the ownership is exactly what is in question. Even more, it is not in question at all, because the deed restriction is an effectual transfer of property(!!), factual transfer of ownership to a foreign entity, see at fee simple conveyance.
DeleteSenator Klitzkie found out that you restored the foreign ownership of the seminary without proper authorization from the court. Only interested parties could have initiated the correction. This is against Guam public law and puts all records in danger at the Land Management. Try to grasp that this is much bigger than you think. It is a corruption scheme caught in action. Like a dirty hand in the cookie jar. Do you get it?
The nook is getting tighter as you foolishly pull the rope around your own neck. Some people will end up receiving jail time while you are bragging over and over again that the title certification was restored to its original form, all favor or ownership is due to the foreign entity.
What are you so proud of, Diana?
People that have been taken for a ride now realize....turning point..that there is no one steering the ship they eagerly board for a cruise. Some one took their money...their trust and abandoned ship.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:24 pm,
DeleteYou stated: "Senator Klitzkie found out that you restored the foreign ownership of the seminary without proper authorization from the court."
We did no such thing. It was the Department of Land Management who saw it proper to cancel the old certificates and issued new ones as directed by the Assistant Attorney General. Anonymous, no one here ever bragged about Tim or Kliztkie going to jail. It was Tim and Klitzkie who got all excited hoping that Monsignor David and the Archbishop would go to jail. You were warned that the more you exault yourself and relish in the misfortune of other people, you will fall.
The jungle complained that the certificates of titles were wrong because it did not have the Declaration of Deed Restriction in the memorial. Well, now that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is in the memorial....what now is the problem?? You are still complaining???
Following the LAW. It is very simple
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:21 pm,
DeleteThe law was followed. The courts exist only to settle disputes. There was no dispute between the Archdiocese of Agana and the Department of Land Management. Both agree that a correction should be made. You do not need a judge, lawyer, and jury to decide on something where there is no dispute.
"You do not need a judge, lawyer, and jury to decide on something where there is no dispute. "
DeleteUnless its mandated by the alws and regulations. If it is set down that the matter is to be resolved in court, even if there is no "dispute", then it ought to be resolved in court.
Dear Anonymous at 6:39 pm,
DeleteIn a democratic society, the courts exist to settle disputes and to interpret the law. The laws and regulations says what it says according to how the court (or in this case, the Office of the Attorney General) interpret it to be. You have no authority to interpret laws.
Diana
ReplyDeleteThe declaration of deed is exactly what the jungle wanted to point out that is that the property will be used by RMS forever. However the Archbishop clearly wanted to keep that secret until it was questioned.
Dear Anonymous at 7:22 am,
DeleteI am sorry that you are upset because you are unable to sell the RMS property as a result of the Declaration of Deed Restriction. But look at the bright side.......Guam no longer needs to borrow priests from the Philippines.
Not much truth about borrowing priest from the Philippines. Till this day there are a hand full of priest on loan from the Philippines Yigo, Inarajan, Piti, the list goes on. Yet more than half of the RMS priest ordained on GUam can't be accounted for.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 8:13 am,
DeleteAs a result of the seminaries on Guam, we have more priests in our diocese that we can send some of them out to evangelize for the Universal Church. :-)
Diana, you should make it very clear, that NCW has no business with any internal dealing at the Division of Land Management.
DeleteIf there was or wasn't any mishandling of the certificate of title or its correction process, it is an internal matter of the DLM and the local government. The NCW has nothing to do with that, either way it turns out to be. Those who claim otherwise are liars.
Dear Anonymous at 5:26 pm,
DeleteIn the first place, what make you even think that we had any business with DLM? Where did you get that insane idea?
Those individuals who want to collectively blame and charge the Neocatechumenal Way for the internal business of the DLM must be firmly refuted. There is no such thing as collective responsibility for whatever is done in some government office. Collective responsibility and collective blame is always false, without any exception!
ReplyDeleteIt is like you cannot blame the family of Rohr for his hateful actions and propaganda. There is no collective guilt, it is only Rohr who is culpable for his dealing and not his family. The same way it is only former senator Klitzkie who want to link DLM internal business with the NCW. He is the only person who is responsible for this effort and not his family. There is no collective responsibility and collective culpability. Everyone has to stand for his or her own action.