TWO properties in the Davao Region registered in the name of Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, have no exact corresponding entries in Duterte’s 2025 statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), Land Registration Authority officials testified before the Senate impeachment court on Thursday.
Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado and Island Garden City of Samal Deputy Register of Deeds III Marco Pineda took the witness stand on the 32nd day of the impeachment trial to present land records involving properties registered in Carpio’s name.
The House prosecution presented the witnesses as part of its case under Article II of the impeachment complaint, which involves allegations concerning unexplained wealth.
During direct examination by House prosecutor Rep. Keith Flores, Baldonado testified on records showing that Carpio acquired a 379-square-meter parcel of land in Juna Subdivision, Matina Crossing, Talomo, Davao City, for P6 million on July 2, 2024.
A real estate mortgage worth P8 million was subsequently executed in August 2024 in favor of Philippine Savings Bank, with Carpio and Duterte named in the document.
Asked whether the property was reflected in Duterte’s 2025 SALN, Baldonado said she found no corresponding entry based on the property’s price, location and mode of acquisition.
“Based on the record I have, there is nothing in 2025 [SALN] — there is no match in the price and the location, and the mode of acquisition is stated in 2025 as construction and here in our document it is deed of sale,” Baldonado told the court.
Presiding Officer Francis Escudero said he had also reviewed Duterte’s 2025 and previous SALNs and did not find the specific property among the real properties declared by the vice president.
“We did not find this particular property as one of the real properties declared because we checked it against all of the declarations of the vice president,” Escudero said.
The defense disputed the suggestion that the Matina property was omitted from Duterte’s SALN.
Defense counsel Lindon Bacquel argued that the property’s location could correspond to an address identified differently in Duterte’s declaration.
“The court must take mandatory judicial notice of the geographical divisions in the Philippines that Matina Crossing is also known as Brgy. 74A, which is declared in the SALN,” Bacquel said.
Escudero said the issue could be addressed during cross-examination.
He later clarified that the property could not be specifically matched to the SALN because the geographical descriptions in the declaration were “too generic.” Escudero also pointed to other property entries in Duterte’s SALN. He noted that one parcel in 76A, Davao City, was listed at P10 million, while another property in Dumoy, Davao City, was listed at P2 million.
Neither amount, he said, corresponded to the P6-million purchase price of the Matina property in the land records.
The prosecution also presented Pineda to testify about a property allegedly acquired by Carpio in the Island Garden City of Samal.
Pineda testified that registry records show Carpio acquired a 751-square-meter parcel in Barangay Matanos, Samal, on March 15, 2018, for P3,453,849.
After comparing the property records with Duterte’s SALN, Pineda said there was no exact corresponding entry.
“Nothing in this SALN perfectly matches the DOAS (Deed of Absolute Sale),” Pineda told the court.
Escudero referred to Duterte’s 2019 SALN, which listed two land purchases in Barangay Aundanao, Island Garden City of Samal, with declared acquisition amounts of P2 million and P1 million.
Pineda said the entries did not match the deed of sale for the property in his records.
While the amounts were relatively close to the P3.45-million purchase price, Pineda said the title covered one parcel, while the SALN contained two separate declarations.
In his interjection, Senator-Judge Erwin Tulfo asked whether an automated registry search could return “no matching record” when a public official declares property using a broad geographical location rather than a specific barangay.
Pineda confirmed that listing only general area names or developer projects without exact location details could result in “no match” under the registry’s automated search system.
Tulfo also asked whether SALN rules require public officials to identify specific barangay, streets and lot numbers when declaring real property.
He further asked whether the Register of Deeds had records showing that public funds were used by Duterte or Carpio to acquire the properties and whether the office had documents detailing the property regime between the spouses.
Senator-Judge Joel Villanueva asked Baldonado whether Duterte’s name appearing in a property document indicated any ownership or financial interest in property registered to Carpio.
Villanueva cited a Supreme Court ruling involving the phrase “married to,” which he said does not, by itself, establish co-ownership or prove that property belongs to the conjugal community.
“From a registry standpoint, does the phrase ‘married to’ by itself establish that properties are jointly owned by both parties?” Villanueva asked.
Baldonado said the phrase “married to Sara Z. Duterte-Carpio” merely reflected Carpio’s civil status and did not establish co-ownership.
She also confirmed that Duterte did not sign the Deed of Absolute Sale or appear in the document as having paid any portion of the purchase price.
Villanueva asked whether Registry of Deeds records could establish who actually paid for the property and where the purchase funds came from.
Baldonado said they could not, explaining that the registry’s records are based on the Deed of Conveyance or Deed of Absolute Sale.
Villanueva said the court would therefore need to examine bank records, sellers’ records and loan disbursement records to determine the source and movement of the funds, and whether the property falls within the issues covered by Article II.
Senator-Judge Sherwin Gatchalian questioned the 2024 transfer of the title to Carpio, including the exact property address and how “Barangay Matina Crossing” was established as the official address.
He also asked how the court could definitively match the property described in the transfer certificate of title (TCT) with the property identified in the tax declaration.
Escudero then clarified that tax mapping and tax declarations are under the custody of the City Assessor’s Office, rather than the Register of Deeds, and directed the defense to submit the official tax map to the court.
Gatchalian also pointed to geographical inconsistencies, asking whether the property declared in the SALN as being in Barangay San Isidro was the same property identified in the TCT as being in Barangay Matanos.
He also questioned the difference between the acquisition cost declared in the SALN and the property’s actual purchase price.
Escudero asked the witness to clarify whether a TCT contains a complete physical address or primarily a technical description of the property.
The presiding officer also examined the acquisition timeline, noting that one property was bought in 2013 but appeared in Duterte’s SALNs as an “installment” in 2015, a “deferred installment” in 2016 and 2017, and finally as a “sale” in 2018.
He clarified with the witness that the Register of Deeds processes title transfers only after a Deed of Absolute Sale has been executed.
The testimony focused on whether properties registered in Carpio’s name can be matched to properties declared by Duterte in her SALNs, and whether Registry of Deeds records alone can establish ownership, the source of payment or the financial relationship between the spouses.
