Former House Speaker Martin Romualdez transferred ownership of a Massachusetts property valued at around P130 million (US$2.24 million) to a Delaware-registered corporation for just $1 on July 29, 2025, according to official U.S. property records.
The estate, located in Dover, Massachusetts, has been owned by Romualdez since 1988 and was originally purchased for $650,000. The transfer was executed through a quitclaim deed, a standard U.S. legal procedure that allows property ownership to be reassigned with minimal formality.
The property was transferred to AMMY Inc., a corporation registered in Delaware in June 2024. Public records show that its president, Antonio “Tony” Marfori, is a close associate of Romualdez — a fraternity brother and board member in several of Romualdez’s Philippine companies.
Romualdez defended the transaction, describing it as an administrative move rather than a sale. “The transfer was made for administrative purposes only,” he said in a statement. “This is a normal and lawful step to align property ownership under entities that I manage. There is no concealment or irregularity involved.”
However, U.S. legal experts warn that while such transactions are technically legal, they can attract scrutiny if intended to obscure ownership or evade liabilities. A lawyer familiar with property law explained that these can fall under “fraudulent conveyance” — a legal term for transactions meant to hide assets from creditors, investigators, or potential court orders. It’s not the act itself that’s unlawful, but the motive behind it.
People often use $1 transfers to streamline estate planning, consolidate corporate assets, or simplify inheritance procedures. These transfers are legal when properly disclosed and recorded. But when they occur ahead of financial probes or political controversy, they can appear as efforts to protect assets from investigation or accountability.
In Romualdez’s case, the timing of the transfer—just months before the escalation of corruption inquiries involving flood control infrastructure projects—has drawn scrutiny. Legal analysts note that while the move may comply with U.S. property law, the circumstances surrounding it raise legitimate questions about intent. As political pressure mounts, the $1 transfer remains under public watch—seen by some as a technicality, but by others as a deliberate maneuver to shield high-value assets from potential liability.
