Two properties registered in the name of Vice President Sara Duterte’s husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, became the focus of proceedings before the Senate impeachment court after government land registrars testified that the properties did not directly match entries in Duterte’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).
The House prosecution presented documents on October 1 involving a P6-million property in Matina, Davao City, acquired by Carpio in 2024, and a second property in the Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte, acquired in 2018 for about P3.45 million. The properties were presented as evidence under the impeachment article alleging issues involving Duterte’s disclosure of assets and net worth.
Davao City Register of Deeds IV Kathy Florence Baldonado testified that the Matina property covers 379 square meters and was purchased by Carpio for P6 million on July 2, 2024. The property was later mortgaged by Carpio and Duterte to Philippine Savings Bank for P8 million on August 27, 2024.
When Baldonado compared the property documents with Duterte’s 2025 SALN, she said she could not find an entry that directly matched the property’s purchase price, location and mode of acquisition. The property documents identified the transaction as a deed of sale, while the SALN entry cited by the defense described an acquisition through construction.
Senate impeachment court Presiding Officer Francis Escudero also said he had reviewed Duterte’s 2025 SALN and did not find the Matina property specifically listed among the declared real properties. The SALNs had already been authenticated and marked as evidence in the proceedings.
The defense, however, disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the records. Lawyer Lindon Bacquel argued that the Matina property could correspond to a property already declared in Duterte’s SALN because Matina Crossing is also known as Barangay 74-A, which appears in the document.
Bacquel also pointed to a P10-million residential lot listed in Duterte’s 2025 SALN and noted that its assessed value matched the assessed value associated with the Matina property. Baldonado acknowledged the matching assessed value but said determining whether the two records referred to the same property was outside her authority as a register of deeds.
The property’s tax declaration listed a land market value of about P1.86 million and a building market value of about P6.99 million, for a combined market value of roughly P8.86 million. The defense cited these details as part of its argument that the property may already have been reflected in Duterte’s declarations.
The prosecution also presented records concerning a second property in Samal. Acting Samal Register of Deeds III Marco Pineda testified that the property was acquired through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 15, 2018, for P3,453,849 and remains registered under Carpio’s name.
Pineda compared the property information with Duterte’s 2019 SALN and testified that he could not find an entry that perfectly matched the property based on the acquisition year, location and value. He likewise clarified that his role was limited to comparing the documents and that he was not making a legal determination that Duterte had failed to declare the property.
The testimony became part of the prosecution’s presentation under Article II of the impeachment case. That article includes allegations concerning Duterte’s disclosure of assets, liabilities and net worth, as well as alleged unexplained wealth and business interests.
The issue of the two properties comes as the impeachment court examines financial records involving Duterte and Carpio. The prosecution has also sought to present information from the Anti-Money Laundering Council concerning covered and suspicious transactions associated with the couple.
The AMLC presentation was postponed after the defense requested additional time to review the documents. Defense lawyers said they had received the materials only shortly before the scheduled testimony and needed time to examine a large volume of records.
The prosecution has alleged that billions of pesos in covered and suspicious transactions were recorded under the names of Duterte and Carpio. Those financial records are separate from the property documents presented by the land registrars and remain part of the broader evidence being considered by the impeachment court.
The testimony from the registrars does not by itself establish whether Duterte violated the SALN law or committed an impeachable offense. The witnesses mainly established what appears in land titles, deeds and SALNs and whether the property details directly correspond to entries in those documents.
The defense maintains that the properties cited by the prosecution were reflected in Duterte’s SALNs, while the prosecution argues that the documents presented during the hearing do not directly match the properties in the declarations. The competing interpretations remain part of the impeachment proceedings.
The Senate impeachment court is expected to continue examining documentary and financial evidence as the trial proceeds, with the disputed property records forming part of the prosecution’s case concerning Duterte’s SALN disclosures.
