He needed to show that he did not alienate the property because alienation of property of that value requires the consent of both the diocesan finance council and the college of consultors. In fact, Archbishop Balvo, who at the time was the Apostolic Delegate, wrote Apuron on March 7, 2012, reminding him of this:
Regarding the matter at hand, as indicated in the various paragraphs of Canon 1292, to carry out acts of alienation, consent is required not only from the diocesan finance council but also of the college of consultors. If these do not give their consent, the diocesan bishop is not free to do as he pleases.
According to Canon 1295, the consent of the same bodies is required in any transaction which can worse the patrimonial condition of the diocese.
In addition, as per Canon 1292: "The permission of the Holy See also is required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum sum." The "maximum sum" as set by the Episcopal Conference is Two Million Dollars, and of course the Yona property is worth far more than that.
Thus, if it is proven that the Deed of Restriction on the Yona property, filed by Apuron on November 22, 2011, does in fact alienate the property from the Archdiocese of Agana, then Apuron has violated church law by failing to obtain the consent of the finance council, the college of consultors, and most of all, the Holy See.
If in fact he did that then Canon 1296 prescribes the consequences:
Can. 1296 When alienation has taken place without-the prescribed canonical formalities, but is valid in civil law, the competent authority must carefully weigh all the circumstances and decide whether, and if so what, action is to be taken, namely personal or real, by whom and against whom, to vindicate the rights of the Church.
In short, since the suspect violator is the bishop himself, the competent authority is now Rome, and church law requires Rome to decide "whether, and if so, what action is to be taken...to vindicate the rights of the Church."
Before Rome can take action, however, it must be determined at the civil level whether or not alienation actually occurred. Thus, Apuron is attempting to dissuade us and Rome that it did not occur. However, the firm he hired is not licensed to render a legal opinion on a Guam transaction. So the story in the U Matuna was another attempt to play us for fools, and Rome too.
However, we will NOT be played for fools. The CCOG has hired its own Guam attorney, a specialist in real estate transactions, to render a valid opinion. More on that later, but this is why the chancery would not let him take any notes from the Denver opinion and has since hid it away from public view.
There's another angle to this that must be considered. The real issue, as Archbishop Balvo stated, is whether or not the Deed of Restriction "worsens the patrimonial condition of the diocese." This is Rome's real concern because Rome recognizes that the patrimony of a diocese is not a bishop's personal property but property to be held in trust and used for the benefit of the entire diocese.
Whether or not Apuron's deeding away control of the Yona property to a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana worsened "the patrimony of the diocese" could easily be determined by simply asking whether or not the Yona property appears on the balance sheet of the Archdiocese of Agana, which is probably why Apuron refuses to post the financials of the archdiocese.
Apuron has already admitted that it does not, arguing only that he is still in control of the property and that his name is on the title. However, one doesn't have to be involved in a million dollar transaction to know that if you assign property for use by another entity, no lending institution is going to count it amongst your assets.