Fishy | Inquirer Opinion

If you have problem’s understanding why Anthony Tiu’s claims are fishy then please read Mrs. Monsod’s article.

Well, what new things did we learn from Wednesday’s hearing?

The most important, to me, was that Anthony did not yet own—not by a long shot, anyway—“Hacienda Binay.” The owner of the property he is not. Anyone who pays some P11 million for a P450-million property, and naturally has no TCT to show proof of ownership, cannot be called an owner. And Anthony admitted it in the Senate. So why make ownership claims?

But here’s what else was fishy to me (from listening to the hearing, as the documents are not available to me):

1. Anthony says he paid P11 million in two yearly installments starting in 2011 or 2012, but nothing in his financial statements shows that he paid that amount (at least as shown during the hearing).

2. No other installments were paid since then, because he said the seller, Laureano Gregorio, had to first show that the property was indeed his (Gregorio’s), and only then would he pay the rest, also presumably in installments.

3. But he has had full use of the property since he paid the installments (usufruct) even if he doesn’t own it. Which means Gregorio gets nothing from it.

Only consider, Reader, from the point of view of the seller Gregorio. He lets go of a P450-million property (with a standing orchard of 3,000 mango trees, plus at least a house with a pool area and another house with an English-style garden, and arguably a piggery and a fighting-cock farm) for the full use of someone who has paid only P11 million. Now, if that were a normal transaction, he would have P450 million in his pocket, from which, assuming he puts it in a bank and gets a minimum of 2 percent for it, he should have been earning P9 million a year. But I am told that nowadays, with a judicious choice of financial assets to invest in, he could be getting more like 6 percent, or P27 million a year. So the opportunity cost of this deal with Anthony Tiu ranges from P9 million to P27 million a year. In the three years since he made this deal, therefore, he has already lost anywhere from P16 million to P70 million (subtract P11 million from P9 million x 3 and P27 million x 3).

Why would he consent to a deal so onerous to him? Three choices: (a) Gregorio is dumb; (b) Gregorio took a shine to Anthony Tiu and decided to give this promising young man a golden opportunity of a lifetime; and (c) the whole transaction was done to save Binay’s skin: a false seller who never intends to come up with proof of ownership of the land until Binay steps down from his promised land, a false buyer who will not touch the Binay property, but rather protect it for Binay.

via Fishy | Inquirer Opinion.