HC TULIFUA TINI P. LAM YUEN,
Senior Matai of the Tulifua
Family for himself
and on behalf of the TULIFUA FAMILY, Plaintiff,
v.
TALAE TUITELE and HEIRS OF UAINE TUITELE,
TOM HO CHING,
and PATRICIA HO CHING, Defendants.
High
Court of
Land
and Titles Division
LT No. 10-93
July 13, 1998
Before
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, Afoa L. Su`esu`e Lutu
For
Defendants, Gata E. Gurr
[1] When land is properly registered according
to the law, the record owner holds title against all other claims of ownership,
and subsequent judicial inquiry into the validity of the title is precluded.
[2] In the absence of compelling proof to the contrary,
the court must conclude that the Registrar registers title to land when there
has been compliance with the title registration statutes.
[3] A title registration will be set aside only
when the evidence compels the conclusion that it was procured without the
mandated notices and other procedures or by fraud.
[4] The testimony of witnesses that they did not
hear the notice of an intended survey, or see posted notices of a proposed
title registration, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that public
officials complied with their statutory duties or the vesting of the title to
land by the official registration.
[5] A.S.C.A. § 37.0103(a) does not require the continuous presence of
all three notices of proposed land title registration, so long as the Registrar
waits the full 60 days before registering the title, especially when at least
one responsible member of the principal family adversely impacted is aware of
the proposed registration. [2ASR3d220]
[6] Plaintiff could not prove title was fraudulently
procured where title holder and his heirs after him openly claimed the land,
occupied and used the land virtually exclusively, and where no evidence of
deception existed.
[7]
Title registration is a procedural device which precludes others from attacking
the validity of the record owner’s title[;] it is not a mode of land
alienation.
[8] The constitutional policy of shielding
Samoans from alienation of their lands does not prevent the creation of forms
of land ownership other than communal land.
[9] A.S.C.A. § 3.0209(h)’s requirement that land and
title decisions be rendered within 60 days is without any sanctions and does
not nullify or otherwise penalize any party to a land or title action in which
the court issues a statutorily late decision.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR NEW TRIAL
This action
principally concerns the ownership of about 14.18 acres of land, known as “Nonuaimoa,” in the Village of Taputimu,
American Samoa (“the land[”]), claimed by plaintiff Tulifua
Tini P. Lam Yuan (“Tulifua”)
to be the Tulifua family’s communal land and by
defendants Talae Tuitele (“Talae”) and Heirs of Uaine Tuitele (“the heirs”) to be the individually owned land of
the heirs. On April 24, 1998, the court
held that the existing registration of the title to the land in the name of the
heirs was valid. The court also held
that the lease of a portion of the land by Talae to
defendants Tom Ho Ching and Patricia Ho Ching was invalid and shall not be registered by the
Territorial Registrar.
On May 4,
1998, Tulifua moved for reconsideration or new trial
on the issue of the validity of the registration of the title to the land. The motion was heard on June 4, 1998.
Discussion
Tulifua essentially urges
the court to grant his motion for four reasons. First, he maintains that the
registration is invalid because the required notice of the proposed
registration was not posted for 60 days at two public places in the village in
which or nearest to which the land is located.
Second, he claims that the registration was fraudulently procured. Third, he argues that the court has failed to
protect the Tulifua family from the unlawful
alienation of its communal land. Fourth,
he insists that the court’s decision is null and void, and without legal
effect, [2ASR3d221] because it was
not rendered within the mandated 60-day time frame.
1. Registration Notice
[1-3] When the process is conducted in accordance with
A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0101-.0103, the Territorial Registrar’s registration of land
records title in the applicant’s name which is good against the world; the
record owner then holds title protected against all other claims of ownership,
precluding later judicial inquiry into the validity of the title. Ifopo v. Siatu`u, 12 A.S.R.2d 24, 26
(Appellate Div. 1989); Vaimoana v. Tuitasi, 13 A.S.R.2d 76, 79 (Land
& Titles Div. 1989). In the
absence of compelling proof to the contrary, the court must conclude that the
Registrar registers title to land when there is compliance with the title
registration statutes. Ifopo at 28.
A title registration will be set aside only when the evidence compels
the conclusion that it was procured without the mandated notices and other
procedures or by fraud.
Tulifua places great
emphasis on his witness Maeva Pio
Maae, who lived in Taputimu
as an untitled person when the survey was conducted in 1971 and as the Tulifua talking chief Maae when
the land was registered in 1989. In
essence, Maeva Maae
testified that he did not hear any announcement or discussion about the
intended survey of the land at any village council meeting in 1971 and did not
see any notice of the proposed title registration posted in Taputimu
in 1989. Tulifua
also heavily relies on the patently defective “affidavit” of notice posting in
1989. This document was prepared on the
initial posting date rather than after the 60-day posting period, makes literal
reference to only one rather than two posting locations in Taputimu,
and is unsworn.
[4] The testimony
of witnesses that they did not hear the notice of an intended survey, required
by A.S.C.A. § 37.0102(c), or see posted notices of a proposed title
registration, required by A.S.C.A. § 37.0103(a), is not sufficient to overcome
the presumption that public officials complied with their statutory duties or
the vesting of the title to land by the official registration. See Meafu v. Taliu, 13
A.S.R.2d 13, 17-18 (Land & Titles Div. 1989). The certificate of record in this case by the
surveyor and pulenu`u
that oral notice of the intended survey was given at a meeting of the village
chiefs is regular. A properly completed
affidavit of posting was not a required method of proving the posting when this
registration process was initiated. Tulifua
disregards or discounts the direct testimony of Uatisone
Tauanuu, which we found and still find credible, that
he posted the notice at two specific locations in Taputimu.[1] [2ASR3d222]
Tulifua does raise a
questionable legal point. The evidence
clearly showed that about one week after the posting of the notice of proposed
registration, Au Maae, who was the pulenu`u in 1971,
took down the notice posted adjacent to the land and brought it to the
Territorial Registrar’s Office. Pelema Kolise, the Registrar then
in office, told Au Maae to submit in writing any
objection he had to the registration within the 60-day posting period. Neither Au Maae,
who is also a member of the Tulifua family, nor any
other member of the family filed an objection. Pelema
Kolise instructed Uattsone Tauanuu to replace the notice, but this was not done. However, the Registrar’s contemporaneous
practice was apparently to let the posting period run for at least 60 days
before titles were registered, with or without routine checks on continuous
existence of the posted notices.
[5] Literally
read, A.S.C.A. § 37.0103(a) contemplates the notices at the courthouse and two
places in the appropriate village would remain constantly in place throughout
the 60-day period. Uatisone Tauanuu
testified to the ongoing practical problems of maintaining the posted notices
in the villages where the notices can be easily removed by persons or destroyed
by weather. Thus, we hold that
37.0103(a) does not require the continuous presence of all three notices, so
long as the Registrar waits the full 60 days before registering the title,
especially when, as in this case, at least one responsible member of the
principal family adversely impacted is aware of the proposed registration.
2. Fraudulent Procurement
On this issue, Tulifua
essentially relies on his history of the land. He claims that the land is the Tulifua family’s communal land by reason of original
occupancy and use. The Tulifua matai
title is attached to Taputimu, where the land is
located. The Tuitele
matai title is associated with the
[6] Tulifua mistakenly states
that we erroneously found the land to be the heirs’ individually owned land
before the 1989 title registration. If original registration was the contest in
this case, we would necessarily be required to determine whether the land was
the Tulifua family’s communal land or was the heirs’
individually-owned land owned before we could order registration of the
title. However, in this case, we did not
make any finding in the pre-registration title.
The importance of the histories of the land presented by Tulifua and Talae lies in the unrefuted evidence that Uaine Tuitele and the heirs after him openly claimed the land,
coupled with virtually exclusive occupancy and use of the land, since
1929. The only significant exception to
this exclusivity was in 1968 when Tulifua’s brother
built a house on the land and then removed it upon Talae’s
objection.
Uaine Tuitele and the heirs did not deceive other members of the
extended Tulifua family. Those other members were
aware of the position taken by Uaine Tuitele and the heirs on the ownership of the land and
failed to object either before or during the title registration process in
1989. We are not persuaded to reverse
or, except as expanded in this discussion, otherwise add to our ultimate, initial
finding that Talae and the heirs did not commit fraud
when Talae offered the land for registration as the
heirs’ individually owned land.
3. Unlawful Alienation
Tulifua chastises the
court for failing in its duty to uphold the constitutional policy of shielding
Samoans from alienation of their lands. See
Am.
[7] Unlike the Legislature, Tulifua
does not clearly distinguish the substantive and procedural restrictions
applicable to land title registrations in A.S.C.A. ch.
37.01 and those applicable to land alienation and registrations of deeds or
other supporting documents in A.S.C.A. ch. 37.02.
“‘Alienation’ means the sale, gift, exchange, or any other method of disposal
of property.” A.S.C.A. § 37.0201(a).
Title registration is a procedural device giving rise to a form of estoppel precluding others from ever again attacking the
validity of the record owner’s title. Vaimoana,
13 A.S.R.2d at 79. Title
registration is not a mode of land alienation.
[8] Even if
title registration is broadly construed to be a means of alienation, the
constitutional policy statement does not prevent the creation of forms of land
ownership other than communal land, and equally entitles the Samoan owners of
individually owned lands and family communal lands to protection against the loss
of their land. See Alai`asa v. Fanene, LT No. 12-90, Order Granting
or Deferring Motions to Dismiss at 17 (Land & Titles Div. August 5, 1997).
4. Untimely Decision
[9] We do
not take lightly the direction of A.S.C.A. § 3.0209(h) to render land and title
decisions within 60 days. However, it is
far more important for the court to carefully deliberate on these
decisions. We will not be hurried to
meet an artificial deadline. Moreover,
the statutory requirement is aimed at the court and is without any sanctions. It does not, and should not, nullify or
otherwise penalize any party to a land or title action in which the court
issues a statutorily late decision.
Order
Tulifua’s
motion for reconsideration or new trial is denied.
It is so Ordered.
**********
[1] Tulifua was allowed, over
objection, to cross-examine Tauanuu on the reason for
his resignation from his position at the Territorial Registrar’s Office. The
innuendo planted was that Tauanuu had engaged in some
scheme of wrongdoing pertaining to title registrations. However, whether the
objective was to establish planned misconduct somehow related to the posting in
this case or to impeach Tauanuu’s character for
truthfulness, Tulifua utterly failed to make the
relevant connection.
Similarly, Tulifua now suggests in his memorandum supporting the
present motion, wholly and improperly without any evidentiary basis, that the
Territorial Registrar in 1989, Pelema Kolise, who also testified in this case, was likewise
guilty of registration misdeeds.
[2] According to the Territorial Registrar’s official
record of Taputimu matai,
Tulifua Sianini co-held
the title with Tulifua Penitila
in 1906. Thus, both sa`o shared in
these responsibilities during their joint tenure.