Sunday, February 7, 2016


Continued from Part 4

Since most people engage in only one real property transaction in their whole life (buying a house), it is understandable that most would also not understand the intricate details of real property laws and all the possible details impacting title to real property. 

For most, having a government issued piece of paper saying you own something should mean that you own the thing noted on the paper. This is not true. And Apuron et. al. took advantage of this lack of knowledge in attempting to further their cover up of what they actually did with the Yona property. 

Perhaps this little illustration will help to illustrate why a government issued piece of paper saying you own a thing doesn't always mean you own the thing: 
  • Let's say you sell your old car to a guy named Bob.
  • If you've ever sold a used car you know that you are required to sign your name on the back of the certificate of title where it says "Seller" or "Owner." 
  • You also are required to produce a bill of sale.
  • You produce the bill of sale.
  • You sign the back of the title.
  • Bob gives you the money.
  • Bob drives off in your old car. 
  • But is it his car?
  • Yes and no. 
  • As far as you and Bob are concerned, yes.
  • As far as the government is concerned, no.
  • Until Bob goes to the DMV and requests the transfer of ownership and a new copy of the certificate of title with his name on it, the title Bob has still has your name on it, and as far as the government is concerned, it is YOUR car. 
  • Bob gets in an accident.
  • The police see he is driving your car.
  • The police come to see you.
  • You produce the bill of sale - proof that you sold the car.
  • Phew! You're off the hook. 
  • It's not your fault that Bob never went to DMV to change the title. 
Thus, perhaps you can see now why a certificate of title means nothing. What matters is the other documents which impact the certificate of title. 

In the matter of ownership of a pre-owned car, this would include the seller's signature on the back of the title and the bill of sale. In the matter of ownership of a property, this would include any and all documents impacting the ownership, control, or use of the property.

And Guam law requires that the existence of these documents and their effect, be recorded in the memorials section of the certificate title.

Let's look at the certificate of title as published in the U Matuna on November 29, 2015, again:

As you can see, there are two memorials already recorded: 1) Notice of Non-Responsibility, and 2) Declaration of Easement. Neither of these changed the ownership of the property and the ownership remained Tomen Development, Inc. However, both impacted the use of the property so they had to be recorded in the memorials section of the certificate, and so they were. 

The Declaration of Deed Restriction, recorded by Apuron on November 22, 2011, also impacted the use of the property and was required to be recorded. It says:

As you can see by the language of the Declaration, there is NO QUESTION that the property "shall be dedicated to, and for the use of" RMS. 

Now, let's say I'm a cash buyer and I am interested in buying the property. All I know from the certificate of title as published in the U Matuna is that Archbishop Apuron is the owner and that there is an easement on the property. 

No problem. I go to the Archbishop and say "Archie, here's 40 Mil. I want to buy your hotel." Apuron, being hard up for cash, says "Deal!" We go to one of his neo-attorneys and "she" types up a Warranty Deed which we have signed, notarized, and recorded, and the property is mine, right?

Right. It IS mine.

But then I go to open up my pachinko parlor and this Pius guy shows up and says, "Hey, you can't do that." I say "Why not?" He says, "Because I have the piece of paper right here that says this property can never be used by anybody but the RMS, Inc."

I look at the paper and...WTH!

He's right. I may be the new owner but I can't do anything with the property except host a fake school run by a foul-smelling cleric. 

Of course I'd sue Archie for fraud, but maybe by that time he'd be long gone. Now what?

Do you see?

If all we had to go on was the certificate of title published on the front page of what is supposed to be a "Catholic" newspaper, then a completely fraudulent transaction could follow simply because the document upon which the transaction was based was fraudulent to begin with. 

Of course, most buyers aren't stupid enough to purchase a property without doing a preliminary title report - which would have uncovered the Declaration of Deed Restriction NOT recorded on the certificate of title. However, in an all cash transaction, it is possible to fraudulently transact the sale of a property or even the wrong property. 

As a real estate agent, I once saw this happen. The seller actually sold the buyer the neighbor's lot, not his. It wasn't discovered until the owner of the lot the buyer had though he bought began building a house on the lot the buyer thought was his. Talk about complicated...and EXPENSIVE!

There is also one more thing. And it is NOT a small thing. 

Apuron has spent the better part of two years and tons of money trying to prove that the property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. However, he forgot that on November 16, 2011, two weeks before he actually conveyed title to RMS via the Declaration of Deed Restriction, Apuron, after berating Richard Untalan for being too stupid to know what he was doing (LOL), clearly stated that he knew that he (Apuron) was assigning, transferring, and renaming the title to "another public juridic person" (the Church's way of saying "corporation"). 

Read the full letter here and then focus in on this paragraph:
The matter is clearly not “alienation,” but simply an assigning of the title of a property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. 
Apuron sinks himself by trying too hard. In trying to prove that he is not alienating the property, he openly admits that RMS is "another public juridic person." In other words, RMS is a public corporation SEPARATE from the Archdiocese of Agana - the very thing they have been saying is NOT the case for more than two years. 

Apuron's only argument to Untalan is NOT that RMS is still part of the Archdiocese of Agana, but that he is still in control of it: "subject to the same Ordinary."

This is why The Diana has never been able to produce a document showing that RMS is part of the Corporation Sole that is the Archdiocese of Agana. BECAUSE IT ISN'T. It is - as Apuron clearly states - "another public juridic person." 

On top of that, Apuron already knew that RMS was not "subject to the same Ordinary" because the notes from the agenda from the finance council meeting of September 7, 2011 clearly show that Apuron was warned by his legal counsel, Ed Terlaje, that he would relinquish control of the property if he went forward with the assignment:

Apuron went forward with the assignment and has been lying about it ever since. The publication of the false certificate of title in the U Matuna is just the latest installment.

More to come. MUCH MORE!

Thank you for your contributions to keep documentation and stories like this coming. 

Continued on Part 6

Recommendations by JungleWatch