'TIU-pe' a story of lack of proof

'TIU-pe' a story of lack of proof

Antonio L. Tiu testifying in the Senate hearing on Hacienda Binay

ANTONIO TIU, a man accused as a dummy of Vice-President Jejomar Bina, failed to prove that he is actually the owner of the infamous "Hacienda Binay."  

This is because his evidence consisting of the "agreement" of "usufruct" or "lease" over that big tract of land cannot be sufficient to prove what the document claims.  The reason for insufficiency is lack of notarization by an independent notary public.  When read, the agreement is vague whether it was being sold by Laureano Gregorio Jr. to Tiu.

Because we who are also in notary public duties are required to submit the documents we notarized to the RTC that issued the power to notarize, we notary public cannot fake the documents' DATE of notarization and DATE of signing, 

While we notary public cannot guarantee that the persons so named as signatories were indeed the true persons so named, we require persons asking our notarization to show their valid IDs.

As notary public, we notarize documents without any attestation or certification that indeed the contents of the documents are true.

So that in the final analysis, the only details that are guaranteed as almost true in every notarized document are the DATE of signing, the DATE of notarization and the PLACING OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE. 

I say "almost true" because there are still leaks.

Now, applying these principles working behind the notarization, let us ask what would be the legal implications of the "agreement" between Laureano Gregorio Jr. and Antonio Tiu.

With this document not notarized, there are a host of possibilities:

(a) The document was done on the date stated therein as the date of signing:

(b) The document was done only on or about the day when it was shown to third parties;

(c) The contents of the documents are true;

(d) The contents of the documents are not true:

(e) The persons named as signatories are persons who exist;

(f) The persons named as signatories are fictitious;

(g) The signatures of persons named are true signatures of those persons so named: and

(h) The signatures of persons named are not true signatures of those persons so named.

IN OTHER WORDS, or logically, that document alone CANNOT PROVE THE TRUTH OF WHAT IT SAYS, particularly on the date of signing, date of making, name of signatories, the signatures therein, and the statements of facts therein.

ERGO, while Antonio Tiu may be saying the truth, HE FAILED TO PROVE WHAT HE CLAIMS BECAUSE HIS EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT.

If we couple this document with the claim of Antonio L.Tiu that he already gave at least P11 million of the P400 million contract price and the admission of Antonio L. Tiu that the certificates of titles have not yet been given by Gregorio to Antonio L. Tiu, it becomes more doubtful to believe in the claim of  Antonio L. Tiu that it was to him that this Batangas property was being sold on installment basis.

A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS HEREUNDER POSTED: