ARTHUR RIPLEY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
High Court of
Land and Titles Division
MT No. 02-99
November 1, 2000
[1] Without evidence to the contrary, the Court must
presume that the Territorial Registrar’s records are accurate.
[2] A.S.C.A. § 1.0401, which mandates that that matai
titles not registered before January 1, 1969 cannot thereafter be registered
does not violate the constitutional policy set forth in Am.
[3] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
Court must regard the plain wording of the statute as conclusive.
[4] A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 does not apply only to
newly-created titles.
[5] The Court cannot read an implication into a
statute that it does not warrant.
Before RICHMOND, Chief Justice, TUA`OLO, Chief
Associate Judge, LOGOAI, Associate Judge, ATIULAGI, Associate Judge, and
SAGAPOLUTELE, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiff, Arthur Ripley, Jr.
For Defendant, Gwen F. Tauiliili-Langkilde, Assistant Attorney General
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Arthur Ripley Jr. (“Ripley”) wishes to
succeed to the matai title “Fepulea`i” of the
Discussion
A. The
“Fepulea`i” Title Existed before 1969
Ripley has proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that the “Fepulea`i” title was in existence in the Territory early in the 20th
century. In Fepuliai v. Faumuina and
Lealataua County, 1 A.S.R. 174, 175 (1908), this Court referred to the
title when it vested title to land in “Faumuina and the Lausoalii (a body of
‘matais’ of which Fepuliai is a member).”
Two cases concerned challenges to registration of the title: Faumuina,
Toi`a, Utu, Fuaata, Letuli, Sevaaetasi & Solomona v. Sagatu
& Pusa, No. 16-1917 (1918), and Salave`a N. and Posu v. Pusa
and Solomona, No. 18-1917 (1918).[1]
B. The
“Fepulea`i” Title Was Not Previously Registered
[1] None of
these cases, however, explicitly establish that the “Fepulea`i” title was ever
registered in the matai title register.
The records in the two cases involving actual registration of the title
merely indicate that the disputes were reconciled and the complaints were
withdrawn in September of 1918. Ripley
asserts that, the complaints having been withdrawn, the original claimant
Pusa’s application necessarily went forward and resulted in his registered
succession to the title. The problem
with this argument is that we cannot be certain that the title was indeed
registered following the court actions.
It is logical that, having litigated the issue, the family installed a
titleholder following the court actions.
On the other hand, perhaps the family resolved to leave the title
vacant. In any event, without evidence
to the contrary, we must presume the Territorial Registrar’s records to be
accurate. Seva`atasi
v. Pago Pago Village Council, 19 A.S.R.2d 133, 135-136 (Land
& Titles Div. 1991). We accordingly
hold that Ripley has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the “Fepulea`i” title was registered before, at the time of, or after any of
the court actions described above.[4ASR3d333]
C. A.S.C.A.
§ 1.0401 Prohibits Registration
Having concluded that the title was not registered
earlier in the century, we must then examine the effects of A.S.C.A. §
1.0401. The statute clearly mandates
that matai titles had to be registered by January 1, 1969. Matai title registration closed on that date,
after which titles not registered could not be registered. The “Fepulea`i” title was not registered by
this date, and therefore, under the plain terms of the statute, no one can
presently register as the successor to the title.
The issue before us was raised and decided in Mailo
v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757, 759-60 (Trial Div. 1967). However, the title involved in Mailo was
a newly created title that was not only unregistered but also had never been
used before.
This constitutional protective policy may at first
seem to be at odds with the A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 statutory time limit prohibiting
later registration of a recognized title of venerable and traditional
importance that was not registered by the prescribed deadline. Yet allowing the registration of titles at
this late date, however valid, might also result in the derogation, rather than
preservation, of this particularly significant aspect of the Samoan way of
life. Judicial creation of a tacit
exception into the statute, without appropriate statutory criteria to establish
and account for legitimate exceptions to the 1969 title registration deadline,
would invite false claims and interject subjective judicial evaluations into
the decision.
[2-5] The
Legislature has spoken with a statute that clearly promotes the constitutional
policy of protecting the Samoan way of life and provides an objective standard
in application. The possibility of
occasional adverse impact in situations like the present one is not sufficient
to render A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 constitutionally invalid. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we must regard the plain wording of the statute as conclusive. Kaiser Aluminum v. Bonjorno, 494
Order
We declare that A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 prohibits the
Territorial Registrar from registering Ripley as successor to the “Fepulea`i”
title. Based on this declaration,
summary judgment is awarded to ASG.
[1] See also Tia v. Faumuina, 1 A.S.R. 201 (Trial Div. 1909); In re Matai Title “Leoso”, 1 A.S.R. 560 (Trial Div. 1937); Tautoo v. Tua`a, 15 A.S.R.2d 10 (Land & Titles Div. 1990).
[2] None of the predecessor statutes made any distinction
between old and new titles. See Codification
of the Regulations for the Government of American Samoa § 45.1 (1917) (October
31, 1906, deadline); Code of American Samoa § 927 (1949) (November 1932 deadline);
Rev. Code of