TAFUA F.M. SEUMANTJTAFA, Claimant,
v.
TUIAVATELE
TAGATAOLEMANU ALOA TUPUA LE`I,
MOAALI`ITELE L.K. TU`UFULI, and
ELIU F. PAOPAO, Counterclaimants.
____________________
In re the Matai Title “GALEA`I”
of the
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
MT No. 06-98
May 12, 2000
[1] The traditional rule for judicial determination of hereditary rights mathematically measures candidates’ blood connection to a former titleholder.
[2] In determining best hereditary right, the “Sotoa rule” looks at the number of generations candidates are removed from the original holder, or at least from a common ancestral holder, of the title.
[3] A common, customary way of identifying clans among Samoan families is by looking at the children of the original titleholder.
Before
Counsel:
For Claimant Tafua F.M. Seumanutafa, Sala Samlu, L.P.
For
Counterclaimant Tuiavatele Alai`a Filifili M., Tautai A.F.
Faalevao[4ASR3d285]
For
Counterclaimant Tagataolemanu Aba Tupua Le`i, Asaua
Fuimaono
For
Countercbaimant Moaali`itele L.K. Tu`ufuli, Aba L.
Su`esu`e Lutu.
For
Counterclaimant Eliu F. Paopao, Arthur Ripley, Jr.
OPINION AND ORDER
The matai title “Galea`i” of the
Ten of the counterclaimants dropped out of contention
before trial, and their names have been deleted from the case caption. Counterclaimants Fa`amafi S. Utu Galea`i and
Filiupu Galea`i (“Filiupu”) did not file the required questionnaire. Both have now passed away. Counterclaimants Ieremia O. Galea`i, Le`o V.
Ma`o, Muaiao Mataese Tagaloa, Sala Mamea, Jr. (“Sala”), Siaosi L. Galea`i, Setu
P. Galea`i (“Setu”), and Luce Tiuali`i Viena withdrew their candidacies. Counterclaimant Otto Tavita V. Haleck
(“Otto”) filed the questionnaire shortly before trial but then also withdrew
his candidacy.
The remaining five candidates, Tafua and
counterclaimants Tuiavatele Alai`a Filiflli M. (“Tuiavatele”), Tagataclemanu
Aba Tupua Lei (“Tagataolemanu”), Moaali`itele L.K. Tu`ufuli (“Moaali`itele”),
and Eliu F. Paopao (“Paopao”) proceeded to trial. Trial began on February 14 and concluded on
February 23, 2000. The five remaining
candidates and their counsel were present throughout the trial.
Discussion
We adjudicate matai title successors based on
evaluation of the evidence in support of the four criteria mandated by A.S.C.A.
§ 1.0409. We will discuss each criterion
in the order of their statutory priority.
1. Best Hereditary Right
[1] The
traditional rule for judicial determination of hereditary rights mathematically
measures candidates’ blood connection to a former titleholder. See In re
Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 17 A.S.R.2d 75, 80 [4ASR3d286] (Land & Titles Div.
1990). Tafua maintained that he is the
great great grandson of Galea`i Ulutui, and by this relationship, he has a
1/16th right to the title under the traditional rule. Moaali`itele acknowledged that he has the
same relationship to Galea`i Ulutui.
Tuiavatele claimed that he is the great grandson of
Galea`i Lapi, also known as Galea`i Rapi or Makapi. Based on this connection, he would have a
1/8th right to the title under the traditional rule. Tagateolemanu declared
that he is the great grandson of Galea`i Vili.
Thus, his right to the title under the traditional rube would also be
based on a 1/8th connection to a titleholder.
Paopao stated that he is the great great great grandson of Galea`i Sega,
the same titleholder identified by Tafua and Moaali`itele. Thus, he has a 1/32nd right to the title
under the traditional rule.
[2] The
modern alternative rule looks at the number of generations candidates are
removed from the original holder, or at least from a common ancestral holder,
of the title. See In re Matai
Title “Sotoa”, 2 A.S.R.2d 15, 15 (Land & Titles Div.
1984). The Sotoa rule may provide
a fairer comparison of the relative strength of candidates’ blood
relationships, especially when one or more clans have not had a titleholder for
several generations. Application of the Sotoa
rule, however, depends on evidence that identifies the original or another
common ancestral titleholder and that traces blood relationships to this
titleholder.
Tafua, Moaali`itele, and Paopao agreed that the
original titleholder was Galea`i Lelologatele.
They also agreed that Galea`i Vaimagalo was Lelologatele’s son and was
next held the title. Tagataolemanu maintained that the first titleholder was
Galea`i Vaimagalo. Tuiavatele claimed
that Tuimanuatele first held the title and preceded Galea`i Vaimagalo and
Gabea`i Lelologatele, who in that order were his fifth and sixth “Galea`i”
titleholders.
Tafua and Moaali`itele traced their ancestry to
Vaimagalo through eight and to Lelologatele through nine generations.
Tuiavatele, Tagataolemanu, and Paopao did not, however, trace their lineages
beyond the ancestral titleholder nearest to each of them. Moreover, Tuiavatele did not consider either
Lelologatele or Vaimagalo to be the original titleholder, and the other four
candidates did not recognize Tuimanutele as a titleholder. Thus, as a practical matter, we cannot apply
the Sotoa rule in this case.
We take note, at this point, that Paopao listed only
the two most recent “Galea`i” titleholders in his original questionnaire and
provided a more complete list, except for leaving the third, fourth, and fifth
holders blank, only in an amended questionnaire that was basically the same
list [4ASR3d287] provided earlier by
Tafua in his first questionnaire.
Similarly, Tagataolemanu provided a list of only the five most recent
“Galea`i” titleholders, and named none of the seven and eight titleholders
respectively listed by Tafua and Moaali`itele between Galea`i Vaimagalo and
Galea`i Vili. Tuiavatele not only listed
persons as his first four titleholders and his seventh titleholder not
mentioned by any other candidate, but he also omitted four titleholders listed
by Tafua and Moaali`itele between Galea`i Lifa and Galea`i Makapi (Galea`i Lapi
or Rapi according to Tuiavatele). These
factors raise considerable doubts about the knowledge of family history shown
by Tuiavatele, Tagataolemanu, and Paopao and the depth of their research on
this subject.
Resorting to literal application of the traditional
rule, Tulavatele and Tagataolemanu have, at 1/8th each, the closest blood
connection to a previous “Gabea`i” titleholder.
Tafua and Moaali`itele are tied next with a 1/16th relationship. Paopao has a 1/32nd relationship. On this basis, both Tuiavatele and
Tagataolemanu rank first with the best hereditary right to the title, Tafua and
Moaali`itele come in second best, and Paopao is last.
We are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence,
however, that while Tafua and Moaa1i`itele established their hereditary rights
to the “Galea`i” title with clear and convincing information, Tuiavatele,
Tagataolemanu, and Paopao failed to satisfactorily show their respective asserted
hereditary rights to the title because of their vague, incomplete, and
uncertain knowledge concerning their family history. We therefore hold that Tafua and
Moaali`itele, with their equal hereditary rights to the
“Galea`i” title, prevail together over the other three
candidates on the criterion of best hereditary right.
2. Wish of the Majority or Plurality of the Family
Clans
[2] All
candidates agreed that the Galea`i family has two clans, one called Tutu and
the other Pulenu`utu. The candidates disagreed
on the identity of the original titleholder and, therefore, on the identity of
the first titleholder’s children, a common customary basis for clan identity
among Samoan families. Clan membership
in the Galea`i family, however, is not based on descendence from the original
titleholder’s children. The origin of
the two Galea`i clans is not clear from the evidence, but it is clear that for
a very bong time, if not time immemorial, the family has had only the Tutu and
Pulenu`utu clans. Thus, a candidate must have the support of both clans to
prevail on this criterion.
Clearly, each of the five remaining candidates has
support among individual members of both family clans to be the next holder of [4ASR3d288] the “Galea`i” title. It is also clear that each clan met
separately on various occasions to discuss the clan’s choice for the successor
to the title. The Pulenu`utu clan was
apparently inclined to endorse either Moaali`itele or Otto, one of the
withdrawn candidates. The Tutu clan
apparently prepared to support Setu, who has also now withdrawn and is the last
titleholder Galea`i Peni Poumele’s son.
Beginning after the first anniversary of Galea`i Peni Poumele’s death,
both clans met as an extended family on four occasions to discuss the matter of
and select the next “Galea`i” titleholder.
The four meetings were held at the Tutu clan’s traditional guesthouse in
Fitiuta, two before and two after Tafua filed his claim to the title with the
Territorial Registrar on April 21, 1995.
The first meeting took place in October 1993, the second in January
1994, the third in 1995 shortly after Tafua claimed the title, and the fourth
on October 25, 1997.
The holder of matai title “Filiupu” in the Galea`i
family is the traditional fetalaiga samatua to the “Galea`i” title responsible
for calling the extended Galea`i family’s meetings to select a successor
“Galea`i” titleholder. However, Filiupu
lived off-island at the time of the first three meetings. As a result, Tafua, after consulting with
Moaali`itele and other family matai, issued the notices of the first two
meetings. It is not entirely clear from
the evidence who issued the notice of the third meeting. However, Filiupu issued the notice of the
fourth meeting. The notices were
disseminated by radio broadcasts and word of mouth.
Tafua attended the first three extended family
meetings. He was not present but had
supporters at the last meeting. Tuiavatele and Tagataolemanu did not attend any
of the four meetings, but they had supporters at these meetings. Moaali`itele was present at all four
meetings. Paopao attended only the third
meeting. However, he too had supporters
at the fourth meeting.
The ultimate decision at the first two meeting was to
put the selection of the next “Galea`i” titleholder over for discussion and
decision at a later meeting. The
participants, representing both clans, discussed the purpose of the meeting,
but no one was nominated for the title at either meeting. At the third meeting, the Tutu clan’s
representative matai nominated Setu, the last titleholder’s son. However, the Pulenu`utu clan still did not
put forward a candidate, and once again the selection was reserved for another
meeting.
At the fourth meeting, on October 25, 1997, both
Moaali`itele and Otto were nominated by Pulenu`utu clan members. All of the present and former candidates were
either present or represented by supporters. Numerous attendees spoke. Former candidate Sala then withdrew and supported
Moaali`itele. Except for Setu, the other
six former candidates, all present at this meeting, also withdrew in
Moaali`itele’s favor. Setu’s [4ASR3d289] sister, on his behalf,
withdrew his candidacy. The Pubenu`utu
clan’s representative matai then asserted his clan’s decision to support
Moaali`itele rather than Otto. This set
the stage for the traditional ava cup ceremony denoting the next
titleholder’s selection. Filiupu
notified the Fitiuta village council of the decision at this meeting, and after
the council assembled, those present administered the ava cup to
Moaali`itele.
The presently remaining candidates, other than
Moaali`itele, were not at the fourth meeting and hence did not personally
participate in the decision on October 25, 1997 to select Moaali`itele. Accordingly, they have exercised their right
to persist in their respective candidacies. However, we find that by consensus
at a properly constituted family meeting, the two clans of the extended Galea`i
family, Tutu and Pulenu`utu, selected Moaali`itele to be next holder of the
“Galea`i” title. Therefore, we conclude that Moaali`itele prevails over Tafua,
Tuiavatele, Tagataolemanu, and Paopao on this criteria.
3. Forcefulness, Character and Personality,
and Knowledge of Samoan Customs
Each of the five candidates received his elementary
school education in
Tafua has pursued a successful career as an educator,
administrator, and small businessman. He
is presently a special assistant to the Governor assigned to manage the Country
Club at the public golf course operated by the American Samoa Government
(“ASG”). Tuiavatele was a professional
boxer earlier in his life and has held various jobs encompassing included
administrative experience, as well as owning small businesses. Tagataolemanu retired after a military career
and has remained active in both the private and public sectors. He is presently employed in ASG’s Tax
Office. Moaali`itele also has had
military, teaching and business experience, along with a lengthy public safety
career, which included holding the position of ASG’s Commissioner of Public
Safety. For the past several years, he
has been a Senator in and is now the President Pro Tem of the Senate of the
Legislature of American Samoa. Paopao was
also a teacher, was an auditor for a private firm, operates a small business,
and has had a lengthy career in ASG administrative positions. He is presently ASG’s Director of
Administrative Services. Each of the
candidates has had and continues [4ASR3d290]
to have a distinguished career.[1]
Tafua, Moaali`itele, and Paopao, especially, have been
active on various ASG boards and commissions, and have undertaken important
special assignments and activities for ASG’s benefit from time to time. Each of the candidates resides in a village
on the
Even though each candidate holds a matai title in a
family other than the Galea`i family, each also partakes in the Galea`i
family’s affairs. Since Tafua and
Moaali`itele hold titles in the Moaali`itele family of Fitiuta, interacting
with the Galea`i family in Fitiuta affairs, they are probably somewhat more
regularly active in the Galea`i family’s affairs. This may explain their more complete and
certain knowledge of the family’s history.
In any event, because of a lifetime of cultural involvement, each
candidate is well-versed in Samoan customs.
In terms of the third criterion, we find that all of the candidates possess the characteristics of a good family leader. However, based on demeanor as well as testimony, we further find that Moaali`itele is more forceful than the other four candidates. We hold that Moaali`itele has the advantage and, accordingly, prevails over the other four candidates on the criterion of forcefulness, character, personality, and knowledge of Samoan customs.
4. Value to Family, Village and Country
Based
on their respective personal histories, we find that all of the candidates have
admirably served the Galea`i family,
Conclusion
Tafua and Moaali`itele are equally entitled by hereditary
right to the “Galea`i” title and prevail over Tuiavatele, Tagataolemanu, and
Paopao on this highest priority criterion for judicial selection of a successor
titleholder. Moaali`itele prevails over
Tafua and the other three candidates on the other three criteria: majority clan
wish; leadership qualities and knowledge of Samoan custom; and prospective
service value. We therefore will award
the “Galea`i” title to Moaali`itele.
Order
The “Galea`i” title is awarded to Moaali`itele L.K.
Tu`ufuli. The Territorial Registrar
shall register the “Galea`i” title in Moaali`itele’s name, provided that he has
resigned from and is not holding any other registered title.
It is so ordered.
**********
[1] Evidence involving possible violations of laws, though not prosecuted to date, was submitted during, the course of the trial. We considered this evidence, but only as unproven allegations, in analyzing and reaching our findings and conclusions on the third and fourth criteria.