ULUFALEILUPE SAFUE, Plaintiff,
v.
UIAGALELEI
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
LT No. 31-91
LT No. 46-92
LT No. 17-94
LT No. 17-95
June 4, 1998
[1]
Traditional boundary markers can be used to corroborate boundary lines.
[2] Continuing
open use and occupation of a disputed area can be used to support a land claim.
[3] Land
disputes are decided by a preponderance of the evidence.
Before WARD, Acting
Associate Justice, TUAOLO, Associate Judge, and PESE, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Gata Gurr, Esq.
For Defendant, Charles V. Alalilima, Esq.
OPINION AND
ORDER
Procedural History
These consolidated cases were brought, by and large,
to quiet title in certain communal lands in the
The first of the four cases consolidated here is LT.
No. 31-91 (wherein Ulufaleilupe attempted to register
approximately one-half of an acre of land adjacent to the Leone-Pavaiai main highway and bisected by the road leading to
the Futiga landfill). Uiagalelei
duly objected to this proposed land registration. This parcel, or more precisely, that
half of this parcel on the eastern side of the landfill road, was the subject
property in the previous eviction case brought by Uiagalelei
against members of the Ulufale family who constructed
a residence thereon during the early 1990s (LT. No. 59-90 & AP. No. 15-92).
The second of the consolidated cases is LT. No. 45-92,
a case brought by Ulufaleilupe against Uiagalelei for injunctive relief against the latter’s
actions of bulldozing land claimed by the former.
The third of the consolidated cases is LT. No. 17-94 in which Uiagalelei et al objected to a proposed
registration of approximately 10 acres of communal land known as “Lepapa, by Ulufaleilupe.
The fourth and final consolidated cases is LT. No. 17-95 in which Ulufaleilupe objected to the proposed registration of
approximately 10 acres of communal land known as “Vaipapa,
Leififaapae, Lalogatae, and
Fonomaitu,” by Uiagalelei. All cases were
consolidated for trial.
After several continuances granted to the Ulufale
family due to the intervening death of their senior matai,
this matter proceeded to trial on May 19, 1998, with a continuing vacancy in
that office. The parties previously stipulated that the crops planted or
growing on the disputed, overlapping areas of communal land would be awarded to
the prevailing party. The Court heard testimony, admitted various exhibits into
evidence, and after 2 ˝ days of trial, recessed to view the subject lands and
directed counsel to submit closing arguments in writing, which were duly filed.
Findings of Fact
During the several pre-trial hearings on motions filed by counsel, the
Court indicated that those areas of each respective survey situated outside of
any overlapping claims did not appear at issue in these controversies since
only the two parties before the Court had objected to the proposed land
registrations — no other families had flied any such objections. It became
apparent, however, from counsel’s opening statements that these three
overlapping surveys did not represent the sum total of lands claimed in Futiga by
these respective families.
This decision will, therefore,
address the overlapping areas
and all extensions beyond those areas. We are persuaded
from the arguments of counsel
and the testimony presented that no, or
at most harmless, error occurred [2ASR3d214] at trial as a result of the
earlier pronouncement by the Court.
For purposes of this section
the Court will rely upon Exhibit 3, a composite map showing both of the 10
acre parcels claimed by the
respective families, and reference our remarks to the survey boundaries and monuments appearing thereon. We will leave for later discussion
the one-half acre parcel at issue in LT. No. 31.
Testimony for the Ulufale family with respect
to their claimed 10 acre parcel was primarily given by Ms. A`asa,
a 58 year old resident of Futiga and a member of the Ulufale family. She testified that the contested
overlapping portions of the surveys, (3.83 acres-Exhibit 3), were Ulufale land and her family had grown crops on the land
without objection from the Uiagalelei family for
years. Even
though the Ulufale family had no houses within the
area of dispute, the Uiagalelei family dwellings
located there were built with Ulufale`s permission
after the hurricane of 1996. On cross-examination she admitted that the name “Lepapa” means solid rock, but in the contested area there
was good soil for growing crops. Further, she admitted to being served with a
restraining order during the burial of her late brother near her home in April
1994. That
grave appears on Exhibit 3 slightly inside the southern boundary of the Uiagalelei survey in the southwest corner. No other Ulufale
family members are buried in that location or on the disputed area of land. Mrs. A`asa, although forthright in her recollection of events,
did become somewhat confused when asked by counsel to locate specific areas,
such as the communal pigsty, using Exhibit 3.
The second witness testifying about the Ulufale
survey of the 10 acres was Salele`a Tuiolemotu who admitted to being an unlicensed surveyor who
did work for licensed surveyors and who was the “surveyor” of the Ulufale parcel. No previous survey of this property existed. He also
acknowledged that his starting point in the north east corner of the survey was
directed by the late Ulufale Safue
who instructed him to divide the church in two. No monument was found for that point
of beginning, although to the east, there were a row of coconuts and a hedge
close to the houses located there. As to the balance of the survey, no
monuments were found or used, he simply plotted the
metes and bounds as directed by the Ulufale people
accompanying him.
As to the Uiagalelei
testimony, the testimony was given by Uiagalelei
Iona, the present senior matai of that family, age 53. His testimony concerning
the land includes his personal involvement in previous litigation with the Ulufale family and includes his recollection of what his
late father, the previous senior matai of the family, showed and told him about the land. His testimony was
that the point of beginning for his survey was a coconut tree on the north side
of the highway from which [2ASR3d215]
the survey then proceeded south along a defined hedge then up a ridge and along
the crown of that ridge as marked by a row of coconut trees and stopping at a
stone wall, the remaining southern boundary of the old communal pig sty. The survey then proceeded westerly along that rock fence until its end then
northerly in an arc around Mrs. A`asa’s family homes,
then westerly to the landfill road. From there the survey proceeds northerly
along the landfill road to the main highway then east to the point of beginning. He testified that
the point of beginning, the coconut tree, had been agreed upon between the two
families at the conclusion of the previous land case over the grave site on the
north side of the highway.
Further, he testified that the area claimed contained, until
recently, only his family’s crops, residence and graves. Further, that the pig sty area was
mostly on his family’s lands although it did formerly extend to the east onto Ulufale lands. The houses of his family on the
disputed area of land were built with his father’s approval and duly approved
by the village pulenu`u,
who was a member of the Ulufale family.
Uiagalelei Iona also testified that the church site had been
selected by his father well with the family’s lands and the then Ulufale senior matai was of a different denomination and did not
provide any land for the church. Although evasive at times, his testimony was
by and large credible as to boundary monuments and historic as well as recent
use and control of the disputed area.
Discussion
[1] When
reviewing the property the Court found that the monuments, family houses,
graves, pig sty wall and other traditional boundary
markers corroborated the testimony of Uiagalelei.
There is a
clearly defined boundary of coconut trees, hedges, and walls east of the church
at the survey line submitted by Uiagalelei. The ridge line is
also defined by coconuts and that north-south boundary line ends at the pig sty
rock wall, then turns and runs west the full course of that wall to a point
where the wall begins to curve northerly. Although the arc around Mrs. A`asa’s houses is less defined, there is no indication, by
houses or graves, (other than the recent 1994 grave of Mrs. A`asa’s
brother), that the area northerly of this survey has been cultivated or used by
anyone other than the Uiagalelei family.
The Ulufale survey does not
rely upon any ascertainable monuments. It includes houses and graves of the Uiagalelei family, and, as per the direction of the
previous Ulufale senior matai,
it bisects the church.
Nor does it appear that the Ulufale
survey was conducted, as required by law, by a licensed surveyor. [2ASR3d216]
[2-3] The continuing
open use and occupation of the disputed area by the Uiagalelei
family, the rather fertile low lying
ground which could not
conceivably bear description as “stony
ground,” and the aged, visible monuments conforming to the Uiagalelei survey lead us to
the conclusion that the Uiagalelei survey of this
10 are parcel accurately reflects communal land owned by that family, by a clear preponderance
of the evidence.
Nothing prevents the Ulufale
family from registering all lands claimed by their survey east of the clearly defined (north-south)
eastern boundary of the Uiagalelei property, but any
lands claimed west of that line have
not, by a preponderance of the
evidence presented, been proven
to be owned by the Ulufale family. Of course this
may require a re-survey by a licensed surveyor prior to any such
registration.
To clarify, we deny the Ulufale`s
claim for injunctive relief and
crop damages under LT. 46-92. The area bulldozed
is immediately south of Uiagalelei Iona’s residence and to the central northerly
part of the disputed area, which we have held is Uiagalelei family land.
Further, as to LT. No. 17-94, the Ulufale family may
register, (assuming full compliance
with surveyor verification),
only that part of their proposed survey east of the Uiagalelei survey’s eastern boundary
running north to south.
Finally, as to LT. No. 17-95, the Uiagalelei survey of approximately 10 acres, shall
be duly registered based upon our decision
herein. As per previous agreement
of counsel all crops growing on
this parcel are declared to be owned
by the Uiagalelei
family, the prevailing party in this
dispute.
II
We are left with LT. No. 3 1-91 to which we now return. Counsel for the
Ulufale family has repeatedly moved this Court to
find for his clients based upon res judicata,
(the previous failure of the Uiagalelei family to
prevail in an eviction action concerning a portion of that disputed property in
LT. No. 59-90 and App. No. 15-92). As the Appellate Division clearly stated
however, that action did not decide title to the property. This case, filed early in 1991 was not
consolidated with LT. 59-90 before
it was decided in July 1992, for reasons best known to the parties. As clearly stated
by the Appellate Division, however, title to the land was not decided in LT. No. 59-90. This issue of title
to this property remains unresolved and must be addressed here. [2ASR3d217]
Findings of Facts
Each side presented only one witness as to the parcel in LT. No. 31-91.
For the Ulufale family, Fuimaono
Fili Faasuamalie testified
he was 66 years old and had resided in Futiga his
whole life except for off-island military service from 1954-1970. He described the
land as “Lepapa,” a portion of the Ulufale communal land. He stated both he and his father had
worked this land early in his life and in 1947 built a fale on the western half of this
property which was still there when he left island in 1954. When he returned in 1970 the fale was not
there, but in its place was a palagi style house.
Later, he constructed a house on the eastern portion of this parcel which was the subject
matter of the dispute in LT. No. 59-90. He also stated that no previous
Uiagalelei had
ever objected to his sisters
living on the western portion of this property. Previously the eastern portion had been used as a site for a fale for the village aumaga.
On cross-examination this witness
stated that this parcel is surrounded by Uiagalelei land, house, and stores. He also
acknowledged that a certain Tuft was
married into the Ulufale family and her oldest sister Fau, from a previous relationship of her mother, Maga, was related
to the Uiagalelei
family.
As to Uiagalelei
Iona’s testimony, he stated the parcel of land was historically Uiagalelei family land and that his father’s sister, Fau, had been
assigned the western portion by his
father for a residence.
She built a samoan fale there around 1953 and
finally a more permanent structure before moving to another village with her husband. Fau’s
half-sister and her mother, Maga, remained on the land in the house and the half-sister, Tuft, married a certain Tietie, the brother of the Ulufale
witness in this matter, and this
was how the Ulufale
family came to live on the land.
Uiagalelei stated that the use by Fau’s relatives of the western portion of this property (the west side of the bisecting landfill road) has not been disturbed because she was a sister to his father, but
the recent building of a house by Faasuamalie on the eastern
portion of the property far
exceeded the previous assignment
to Fau.
Discussion
The testimony offered herein is similar to the previous testimony
offered by the parties in LT. No. 59-90. That Court decided that it would be
highly unusual for a senior matai to allow persons rendering service to another family’s
senior matai
to reside on their communal lands. Therefore that Court held that the entire
parcel was the land “Lepapa” belonging to the Ulufale family. [2ASR3d218]
As we have decided earlier, however, the Ulufale
communal land known as “Lepapa” does not extend to
this area. This
parcel of land is totally surrounded by Uiagalalelei
land and buildings. We
find that although it might be unusual to see members of the Ulufale family live on Uiagalalei
lands while they continued to render services to the Ulufale
senior matai,
it is far more unusual to find a small island of Ulufale
communal land, with the same name as the bulk of Ulufale
lands well to the east of this parcel, within a sea of Uiagalalelei
land and houses. The
most plausible explanation for this agreeably unusual occurrence is that the Ulufale family came to the land with the permission of the Uiagalalelei family, through Fau,
the aunt of the present Uiagalalei. By a preponderance of the evidence, we
find that the Uiagalelei family prevails as to the
title to the eastern portion of this particular one-half acre parcel which is
included in the 10 acre parcel of Uiagalelei land
decided above.
Conclusion
With respect to LT. No. 31-91, we hold that the proposed registration
of the one-half acre parcel of the land claimed by the Ulufale
family as the land “Lepapa” be denied. Such portion of
this disputed property as lies within the 10 acre survey of Uiagalalei
land, (that portion east of the landfill road), shall be included in that
registration. Uiagalelei has not filed any survey
embracing the western portion of this parcel and has indicated that the present
use and occupancy of that portion by the Ulufale
family members may continue. We leave that matter for later resolution between
the parties, which we may hope could be conducted in other than a courtroom
setting.
With respect to the residence of Faasuamalie
constructed on the eastern side of the road upon a portion of Uiagalelei land, we find this structure to be the property
of Faasuamalie. The parties may either negotiate a
lease, purchase, or rendering of services arrangement to prevent a forfeiture
of this residence. Should
the parties be unable to resolve this matter through good faith negotiations
and compromise, either party may petition this Court for such relief as is
proper and just under the circumstances.
So Ordered, Adjudged and
Decreed.
**********