Ayala Land official testifies on CJ's condo
Prosecution, defense, court debate when Corona should have declared condo ownership
MANILA, Philippines - When should Chief Justice Renato Corona have declared ownership of a multimillion-peso condominium unit in Makati City?
This was the question left hanging at the end of Wednesday's impeachment trial after lawyers on both sides gave differing opinions on when Corona should have declared ownership of a P3.5-million condominium unit at The Columns, Ayala Avenue.
Private prosecutor Winston Ginez argued that Corona should have declared ownership of the unit in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) after fully paying for the unit and after the deeds of sale and certificate authorizing registration of the sale were issued in 2004.
On the other hand, defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas said Corona should declare ownership of the property in his SALN only upon acceptance of the unit since "it is a statement made under oath by the declarant."
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ordered both panels to submit memoranda to explain their positions and convince the court which side is correct.
During Wednesday's hearing, witness Nerissa H. Josef, representative of Ayala Land-owned Community Innovations, Inc, admitted that Corona and his wife had fully paid for a 48-square-meter unit at the Columns worth P3.5 million on March 8, 2004.
She said a deed of sale for The Columns condo unit was issued on October 1, 2004.
Prosecutors have pointed out that Corona did not declare ownership of the unit in his SALNs until December 2010. This, despite the issuance of a certificate authorizing registration issued on Nov. 3, 2004.
Defense lawyers, however, noted that the unit was delivered and accepted only as of June 7, 2008 based on Ayala Land's own records. This is after the company issued a letter advising Mrs. Corona that the unit is deemed "delivered and accepted" on that date.
Under cross-examination, Josef admitted that there is no record of Mrs. Corona signing an acceptance form for the unit, nor any record of the actual turnover of the unit.
She also admitted that Ayala Land usually inspects the condo unit before turning it over to the buyer.
Asked by Sen. Franklin Drilon when the Coronas actually took over the unit, she said: "As far as I know, they are already in possession of the unit. It is in 2008. I do not have the exact date."
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
paid in full, receipted and in the buyer's name...it is common..
When a property is paid in full, receipted and in the buyer's name...it is common sense no need to be argued...it is the property of the buyer!
If corona's name appeared in the certificate of title hindi na kailangan and debate d'yan...sa kanya ito...kasi bago pa mailagay sa pangalan ng isang tao ang certificate of title dapat bayad na lahat at gabundok na mataas ang process sa pagtransfer ng pangalan at it takes a lot of time...hindi basta-basta ang magpatransfer ng title!
So if the certificate of title is in the name of the corona's sa kanila ito...huwag na tayo magpauto! Lahat na answer ng defense...palusot lang 'yan at siyempre pa lies...lies...lies and more lies!!
It should be the other way around
I think the property should be with the developer until it was fully paid by the lessor. Just like in loaning a brand new car, original OR and CR is with the bank until the client settled the amount to be financed.
In my opinion this time the Defense panel is right with their claims.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense wants the proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. The answers to the following three questions will be the proof in this matter. 1st question: Does an asset worth 3.5 million exist? 2nd question: Does it matter if the asset is in the form of cash or condo? 3rd question: Since the condo in question was paid in 2003, why is the 3.3 million pesos (cash or condo) from 2004 to 2009 not in the SALN of the Coronas?
Keyword: ASSETS
We are talking about ASSETS; meaning any economical value that includes cash and any properties or valuable that can be converted to cash.
If a deed of sale was issued in 2004 under your name, this alone can be considered an asset; that proves you have a property that has actual cash value that you can cash at anytime.
Keyword: ASSETS
We are talking about ASSETS; meaning any economical value that includes cash and any properties or valuable that can be converted to cash.
If a deed of sale was issued in 2004 under your name, this alone can be considered an asset; that proves you have a property that has actual cash value that you can cash at anytime.
Unbelievable Alibi
On the other hand, defense lawyer Serafin Cuevas said Corona should declare ownership of the property in his SALN only upon acceptance of the unit since "it is a statement made under oath by the declarant."
Defense lawyers, however, noted that the unit was delivered and accepted only as of June 7, 2008 based on Ayala Land's own records. This is after the company issued a letter advising Mrs. Corona that the unit is deemed "delivered and accepted" on that date.
===========
If you don't declare it in SALN, then how do you account the P 3.5M Cash that Corona had paid? These lawyers should know it should be accounted somehow in SALN, for example they may account it as "Property pending for acceptance - 3.5M" or account it as Deposits for Property pending for acceptance.
But to say not to declare it totally in SALN just because of pending acceptance, it is quite simple to interpret that someone is hiding something. Corona did not donate the money, and it remains with value and 100% recoverable. They are all lawyers, I'm sure they know their rights.
I don't know if there are intelligent senators-judges who will believe in their alibi for not declaring it. You don't need to be a CPA just to know it should still be accounted in SALN even with pending acceptance. All they need to do is disclose beside the property that it is still pending for acceptance, else put is as receivable or deposit in SALN.