MATAI TITLE DISPUTES

The Territorial Registrar's records on land and matai-title registrations are, without contrary evidence, presumed to be accurate. In re Matai Title Seva'aetasi, 19 A.S.R.2d 133.

The Territorial Registrar's discretion to rule on the legal sufficiency of a claim to a matai title is minimal. The Registrar's authority is, essentially, limited to a determination that information in the claimant's petition is "valid," A.S.C.A. § 1.0405(c); see also Id. at § 1.0407(c), and that the "claim, certificate, and petition are in proper form. In Re Matai Title “Leniu”, 29 A.S.R.2d 126.

Matai titles are regulated by law. A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0401-1.0414. The territorial registrar maintains the title register, A.S.C.A. § 1.0401, and may register successors to vacant titles only after a specific administrative process, A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0405-1.0408, 1.0410. The court must resolve disputed claims that remain unresolved by the administrative process. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

The territorial registrar is prohibited from accepting counterclaims for the title or objections to the offer following the sixtieth day after the registrar posts notice of the original offeree's claim. A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(a). In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(a) does not permit a substitute candidate after the sixtieth day under all circumstances, including a candidate's death. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

The death of one matai title candidate does not automatically entitle the solely remaining candidate to the title by default. A fair and reasonable opportunity must be given to the contentious elements within the family, or those who supported the deceased candidate, to promote their title candidates and to the family to resolve their internal differences. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

§ 2 Land & Titles Division Procedures

Where objector merely protests candidate’s registration for title, objector’s intervention in the action will not cause objector to become candidate. Utu v. Tu’itu’i, 2 A.S.R. 184.

Where objector to applicant to be registered as matai title holder is not eligible at time he objects, which must be within thirty days after filing of application, then he cannot become matai title holder, even though he would have become eligible by time of hearing by virtue of his having resided in American Samoa for five years preceding, and right to hold matai title vests in applicant upon expiration of thirty days after his application if he is eligible and if there are no other eligible applicants at that time. Stevens v. Tee, 2 A.S.R. 627.

After time for objecting to matai title registration has run, one person cannot substitute his objection for that of timely objector who has withdrawn claim. In re Matai Title Lutali, 4 A.S.R. 10.

Person not party to matai title determination at tile order of dismissal entered, lacks standing to later seek relief from order of dismissal. F. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (CAS 6.0608.) In re Matai Title Lutali, 4 A.S.R. 10.

Where prospective matai title holder applies to court for determination as matai, and two objectors intervene, three persons become candidate for title. (CAS 6.0106.) Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Using matai title without being registered as holder is criminal offense. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

Law provides penalties for persons using matai title without having registered it. (CAS 6.0109.) Mailo v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757.

Matai title not registered before November 1, 1932 should not be considered for registration since law requires that all matai titles be registered (CAS 6.0102; CAS 6.0103.) Mailo v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757.

Statute prescribing participation in matai title dispute of one law-trained judge, as well as four associate judges who are not lawyers but who are chosen for their familiarity with Samoan custom, did not require that the law-trained judge be present during all deliberations of the associate judges. A.S.C.A. § 3.0240. In re Matai Title La'apui, 4 A.S.R.2d 7.

Court is called upon to evaluate a claimant to a contested matai title under statutory criteria only when the family cannot, in its customary manner of selecting a matai, reach agreement over who should hold the title. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.

Proposed registration of matai title can be contested even by someone who does not himself claim the title, and court need not bestow a vacant title merely because only one candidate wishes to hold it. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.

Territorial statutes concerning matai titles and other customary matters represent the best efforts of the legislature to incorporate custom into written law and to provide procedures for its preservation and enforcement. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 6 A.S.R.2d 91.

Court deciding matai title disputes is not required to consider the views of the village, county or district councils except to the extent that they are evidence of facts that are relevant to issues properly before the court. A.S.C.A. § l.0401 et seq. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 8 A.S.R.2d 10.

In matai title dispute, recognition or non-recognition of matai by village, district, and county councils were properly before the court only insofar as might be relevant to whether the matai had wilfully failed to comply with customary requirements and formalities for acceptance and recognition by the village. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 8 A.S.R.2d 10.

Village, county, and district councils have no power to veto a court decision, rendered after trial in accordance with statutory procedure, that a particular person is entitled to hold a matai title. A.S.C.A. § 1.0401 et seq. In re Matai Title Sotoa, 8 A.S.R.2d 10.

Where certificate of irreconcilable dispute from Secretary of Samoan Affairs was issued upon misinformation given by a party to the dispute, proceedings in Land & Titles Division would be stayed pending certification by the Secretary of compliance with statutory procedures for attempted resolution. A.S.C.A § 43.0302. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele (Mem.), 12 A.S.R.2d 8.

Objection to a matai title claim was not filed within the sixty days required by statute where the timely original objection was filed and withdrawn by relatives without objector's knowledge and his motion to intervene in the case was not filed until eight years later. A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(a). In re Matai Title Liua, 15 A.S.R.2d 80.

If a majority of the four associate judges make a decision the justice need not participate in the four associate judges' deliberations. In re Matai Title Tualolo, 28 A.S.R.2d 137.

The 60 day time period for filing objections to a claim of matai title, as required by A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(a), runs from the time the Territorial Registrar is satisfied that the claim is in proper form. In Re Matai Title “Leniu”, 29 A.S.R.2d 126.

A.S.C.A. § 1.0407(d) only applies to a family with fewer than 25 qualified members. In Re Matai Title “I`aulualo” of the Village of Afono, 29 A.S.R.2d 128.

A.S.C.A. § 1.0407 has no provision for the transfer of signatures. In Re Matai Title “I`aulualo” of the Village of Afono, 29 A.S.R.2d 128.

A.S.C.A. § 1.0407 functions like a jurisdictional limit on the Land and Titles Division. If a candidate does not submit a petition with 25 signatures, the court simply cannot consider his claim. In Re Matai Title “I`aulualo” of the Village of Afono, 29 A.S.R.2d 128.

§ 3 Appellate Review

Appellate court will not reverse trial court's finding with regard to hereditary right of candidates for matai title where judgment is supported by substantial evidence. In re Matai Title Togiola, 3 A.S.R.2d 127.

Trial court holding that no candidate prevailed on issue of best hereditary right was not substantial error justifying reversal by appellate court, where (1) trial court found that there were "minute distinctions" among candidates' blood relationship to original titleholder, and (2) candidate who prevailed at trial would clearly have had the best hereditary right under traditional rule that hereditary right to title depends on blood relationship to any holder of the title. In re Matai Title Le'iato, 3 A.S.R.2d 133.

In the absence of evidence of contrary Samoan custom, appellate court would not reverse trial court judgment that candidate for matai title could cumulate two separate claims to ancestry from original titleholder in determining the degree of his blood relationship to titleholder. In re Matai Title La'apui, 4 A.S.R.2d 7.

Trial court judgment refusing to remove matai would not be overturned on appeal, but would be modified to enjoin the matai to exercise the leadership qualities with which the court credited him when it found him best qualified to hold the title under statutory criteria of "forcefulness, character, and personality," and "value to the family, village, and country." In re Matai Title Sotoa, 6 A.S.R.2d 91.

Where trial court, in deciding that a trusteeship devolved upon the appellee in his capacity as a successor in matai title to the original trustee, had failed to consider a plausible argument raised at trial to the effect that the trusteeship should instead have devolved upon the original trustee's successors in the office of district governor, but the appellee had recently assumed the office of district governor, the question whether the trusteeship devolved upon the holders of the office of district governor of the matai title was moot in the context of the case and remand to trial court was inappropriate. Mose v. Tufele, 12 A.S.R.2d 31.

In most matai title cases the balance of hardships will militate strongly in favor of granting a stay pending appeal, as the only hardship on the prevailing party is that he must wait a year or so to register the title; on the other hand, if the prevailing party quickly registers the title, holds the traditional installation ceremonies, but has his right to hold the title reversed on appeal, the consequences for the whole family could be disastrous. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 71.

Even though the Appellate Division has rarely, if ever, reversed a judgment of the Land and Titles Division in a matai-title case, the "balance of hardships" will generally weigh heavily in favor of granting a stay. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 71.

In reviewing a decision of the Land and Titles Division or the Trial Division, the Appellate Division utilizes a "clear error" standard. This standard of review applies to the lower court's evaluation of witnesses' credibility. Paolo v. Utu, 26 A.S.R.2d 18.

§ 4 Traditional Determination of Matai

§4(1) General Provisions

Historically, only recognized heads of families could elect holder of “matai” title. Aumavae v. Moefaauo, 1 A.S.R. 38.

Holder of “matai” title has the right to nominate his successor and the family has the right of confirmation. Matautia v. Tautunu, 1 A.S.R. 226.

“Matai” has right to express his wish as to successor and, in choosing successor, family must give such wish due consideration. Tupua v. Aumavae, 1 A.S.R. 231.

Prior to the raising of the American Flag in Samoa, according to Samoan custom a “matai” designated his successor. Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.

A “pule” can resto only in one person or title and “pule” in a title means that that title has authority over another title or titles. Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.

“Pule” or power to select “matai” gradually transferred to the family members and out of the hands of the individual “matai.” Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.

Where family is closely split in selection of “matai”, former “matai”, if living, may choose successor and if not living, the closest male blood descendant in the highest degree of the “matai” name may choose the successor. Sapapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.

In considering selection of “matai,” family should take into account the true descendant, rendering of service to the family and taking care of the family property. Sagapolu v. Tanielu, 1 A.S.R. 331.

Court will take judicial notice of custom in most jurisdictions where award of title, name or position depends on descent that holder from male line will be chosen where possible. Fava v. Moso’oi, 1 A.S.R. 375.

The Annual Fono of 1926 determined that, in the trial of “matai” cases, question of hereditary right would take precedence over question of fitness of applicant to hold “matai” title. Fia v. Pine, 1 A.S.R. 387.

Where candidates for title have equal hereditary right, question of fitness to hold title becomes relevant. Fia v. Pine, 1 A.S.R. 387.

Where two candidates for matai title have equal hereditary right to hold title, name should be given to the applicant who filed for the title first and applicant with the greatest number of supporters. Muavae v. Ui, 1 A.S.R. 399.

Court does not favor awarding title to candidate selected by one who has pule over the title on that basis alone. Mulivai v. Atofau, 1 A.S.R. 409.

Court favors title candidate who will be agreeable to as many of the family members as possible and who is familiar with the material affairs of the family. Mulivai v. Atofau, 1 A.S.R. 409.

Under Samoan custom the holder of a matai name was selected by the family whereas the right to select a rules was vested in certain families. Young v. Tufele, 1 A.S.R. 429.

The name “Tuimanua” is that of a ruler and not a matai name in the sense that matai is commonly understood in Samoa. Young v. Tufele, 1 A.S.R. 429.

In considering appointment of matai, court will inquire whether candidate is a member of and supported by a large majority of the family and whether candidate is familiar with and capable of handling family affairs. Fonoti v. Galo, 1 A.S.R. 442.

Court will award matai title to candidate having best hereditary right, and who has lived with an renders service to the family and who is the choice of a large majority of the family. Malu v. Ene, 1 A.S.R. 446.

Court awards matai titles on basis of who is the true descendant of the last holder of the name, who is the choice of the family and who would make a good matai. Kalala v. Ekuati, 1 A.S.R. 454.

Court will not discuss relative fitness of matai candidates unless both have equal hereditary rights to the name, then the balance will tip in favor of the candidate best prepared to hold the name by reason of education. Uele v. Taleni, 1 A.S.R. 458.

Court is bound to choose matai candidate strictly on basis of heredity and may not consider worth or ability. Taofi v. Foster, 1 A.S.R. 464.

Court may choose to appoint none of the candidates before it to assume matai title and may leave title vacant pending the application of a suitable candidate. Sami v. Semaia, 1 A.S.R. 481.

While Fono declared that matai names should be awarded on the basis of heredity, court will not appoint candidate who has hereditary right to title but is otherwise unfit to assume it. Sami v. Semaia, 1 A.S.R. 481.

Matai name and land case parties who do not take their cases before the Judicial Commission but instead waive this right to go directly to the High Court face court’s final decision from which no appeal can be taken. Moelupe v. Pisa, 1 A.S.R. 491.

Where matai name candidate is ineligible to hold title from standpoint of heredity and there is no other qualified candidate before the court, court will dismiss the case subject to reopening upon the petition of a new candidate. Moelupe v. Pisa, 1 A.S.R. 491.

First criterion court uses to select new matai is that of heredity; i.e., is the candidate a true member of the family to which the matai name belongs. Moelupe v. Pisa, 1 A.S.R. 491.

Matai title “Tuitele” is one of the oldest and most important titles in Samoa; several of the Tuiteles having been classed as kings. Magauli v. Save, 1 A.S.R. 509.

Court may call disinterested parties as its own witnesses in matai title cases to testify as to existence of alleged title holder. Moelupe v. Savali, 1 A.S.R. 517.

Court will not appoint matai candidate to hold vacant title where such action would serve no useful purpose and only cause trouble. Fanene v. Yandall, 1 A.S.R. 535.

At the direction of the Annual Fono of 1936, Court will inquire only as to which candidate has best hereditary right to title and questions such as fitness of candidates will not be considered. Foleni v. Faateleupu, 1 A.S.R. 541.

Wish of Samoan people has been indicated by two separate Fonos that court select matai strictly on basis of hereditary right to name. Teutusi v. Faga, 1 A.S.R. 543.

Because heredity is sole criterion for matai selection, all testimony bearing on character, ability and past service of title candidate is irrelevant. Teutusi v. Faga, 1 A.S.R. 543.

Where hereditary rights of candidates are equal, Court may consider general fitness of candidates to hold title. Petelo v. Sope, 1 A.S.R. 557.

1937 law which requires Court to select matai on basis of four considerations rules out award of matai title by one having pule over that title. Ioasa v. Aivao, 1 A.S.R. 567.

Custom of American Samoa requires that losing candidate in matai title case abide by decision of Court and effect reconciliation with selected candidate to end that family may live in peace and harmony. Mauga Family v. Mauga, 1 A.S.R. 587.

Prior decision of court determining matai title holder is inapplicable since it preceded legislation establishing more democratic procedures and eligibility requirements in selection of matai. Simaile v. Lafoa’i, 2 A.S.R. 170.

Court will not order man registered as matai if he does not wish to be so registered. Faagata v. Taupo, 2 A.S.R. 271.

Decisions of court which based selection of matai on old custom of choice of one man, before enactment of legislation providing specific procedures, are not applicable to present disputes over matai titles, and right to resort to court for public trial in accordance with present law is not barred by such prior decisions. Simaile v. Lafoa’i, 2 A.S.R. 170.

When court awards matai title, it is not bound by prior practice of family of alternating titles among branches of family but is bound only by statute. Tiumalu v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 502.

“Mauga” is not split title. In re High Chief Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

Evidence that prior litigants treated title as not split, tends to show “Mauga” is single title. In re High Chief Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

Fact there is only one objector to claimant of matai title holder indicates objector was selected at meeting to hold title. Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

Only a registered matai has power, authority and pule of a matai. Malaga v. Alaga, 4 A.S.R. 735.

“Maugaoali’i” has never been used as matai title in American Samoa. Mailo v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757.

Under Samoan custom “Mauga” title is among oldest and most influential matai titles of American Samoa. Taufaasau v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 947.

§4(2) Split Titles

Court does not favor splitting “matai” titles among two or more persons. Tupua v. Aumavae, 1 A.S.R. 231.

Court does not favor splitting “matai” title among two or more persons. Mauga-Moimoi v. Taelase, 1 A.S.R. 276.

Court will not appoint two people to hold the same matai name. Kalala v. Ekuati, 1 A.S.R. 454.

A matai title may be split, and once established by founder, section of family descending has right to title as well as descendants of original title holder. In re Matai Title Salave’a, 4 A.S.R. 44.

Splitting paramount title would lessen its influence in Samoan affairs, disintegrate important family, and be inconsistent with constitutional obligation of court to protect Samoan family organization. Rev. Con. of Am. Samoa, Art. I, Section 3 (1968). In re High Court Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

Conclusion in Tauvevematalio v. Fanene Filo, Trial Division, Civil No. 1035 (1970) that title may be “split” is reversed—two (2) persons may only hold same title jointly. In re High Chief Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

Where register of matai title holders shows that two persons have been registered as “Fanene” matai at the same time, title is split title. Fanene v. Fanene, 4 A.S.R. 603.

Where prior decision held that two persons may hold “Fanene” matai title and applicant has qualifications, court may make him matai even though another matai holds title concurrently. Fanene v. Fanene, 4 A.S.R. 603.

§4(3) Joint Title Holders

Joint title holders share single matai title, with attributes of that single title, with right of survivorship. In re High Chief Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

Two (2) persons holding same matai title jointly share all duties, responsibilities, honors, privileges and respect due titleholder, including tenancy in common of communal lands. In re High Chief Title Mauga, 4 A.S.R. 132.

§4(4) Holding Two Titles

Under Samoan custom, man cannot have two matai titles at same time, and must resign present title to accept higher ranking one. Kosi v. Viliamu, 2 A.S.R. 349.

Man cannot hold two matai titles at same time, and determination of candidate as matai is subject to his resignation from present title. Saufea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Since person cannot hold two matai titles at the same time, he must resign title presently held before he can be registered for new title. Veve v. Faatama, 4 A.S.R. 418.

After court determines matai title holder, she must resign all presently held matai titles held within three weeks after date of judicial decree. Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

§ 5 Initial Qualifications

In matai title cases, no evidence may be admitted attacking the validity of previously held titles as all previous holders of matai titles are assumed to have held their names legally. Teutusi v. Faga, 1 A.S.R. 543.

Assault with deadly weapon is infamous crime and disqualifies candidate from eligibility for matai title. Akeimo v. Mulu, 2 A.S.R. 89.

Candidate for matai who has committed infamous crime cannot be registered as matai. Akeimo v. Mulu, 2 A.S.R. 89.

Determination as to whether crime is infamous, and therefore excludes matai convicted thereof from registration, depends on maximum punishment which court is authorized to impose and not what court in fact did impose. Akeimo v. Mulu, 2 A.S.R. 89.

Candidate for matai title who has not resided in American Samoa for five years preceding vacancy in title is ineligible, since statute insures that matai is familiar with customs of American Samoa and of needs and habits of family. Titi v. Suiava, 2 A.S.R. 160.

Applicant for matai title who has been convicted of burglary is ineligible to hold matai title. Simaile v. Lafoa’i, 2 A.S.R. 170.

Where person is registered as matai after he fails to notify court of conviction for forgery and embezzlement as he is required to do by law, registration is of no effect and void, since person cannot be matai who has been so convicted. Taliutafa v. Toaga, 2 A.S.R. 218.

Candidate for matai title who has not resided continuously within limits of American Samoa for five years preceding vacancy in title is not eligible to become matai. Hunkin v. Pio, 2 A.S.R. 233.

Applicant to be registered as matai title holder who was born in Western Samoa and who was not registered in American Samoa within thirteen years after birth, is ineligible to become matai. Faagata v. Taupo, 2 A.S.R. 271.

Mere temporary absence from American Samoa with intention to return does not effect a change in domicile so as to render candidate ineligible on grounds that he has not resided in Samoa for five years preceding vacancy in title. Kosi v. Viliamu, 2 A.S.R. 349.

Requirement of Code that candidate for matai title have continuous residency in American Samoa for five years preceding vacancy in title means having domicile in American Samoa for that time, and mere temporary presence in another place for purpose of pleasure, health, or business does not affect domicile. Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Candidate for matai title who was born in Western Samoa and who has not registered as inhabitant of American Samoa is ineligible. Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Eligibility of person to be matai title holder requires that he be resident of American Samoa for five years preceding date of his application or objection. Stevens v. Tee, 2 A.S.R.627.

Applicant for matai title is eligible therefore, even if he lacks any blood of family, if he is member of family under Samoan custom. Atoa v. Meredith, 3 A.S.R. 159.

Sec. 926(b) (amended) of Code requires 5 years continuous residence in American Samoa immediately preceding vacancy in title for eligibility for matai title. Tago v. Hunkin, 3 A.S.R. 427.

Code requires that matai title holder must be at least one-half Samoan blood. (CAS 926.) Malaga v. Mase, 3 A.S.R. 518.

Adopted person or person who has married into family may become matai. Betham v. Faumuina, 3 A.S.R. 537.

Court will seek to preserve “Faa-Samoa” in construing Matai Determination Statute. In re Matai Title Fagaima, 4 A.S.R. 83.

Matai title candidate must meet statutory residence requirement by being actually present in American Samoa for required period and have intent to remain. R.C.A.S. 6.0112. In re Matai Title Fagaima, 4 A.S.R. 83.

1 A.S.C. 752(a) requires on year of actual residence in American Samoa immediately preceding any claim for or objection to a matai title. In re Matai Title Afoafouvale, 4 A.S.R. 145.

1 A.S.C. 752(d) provides statutory procedure for those not physically present in American Samoa to register as absent residents. In re Matai Title Afoafouvale, 4 A.S.R. 145.

1 A.S.C. 752(b)(1) and (2) allows absences from American Samoa for education or military service, without disqualifying absent resident from claiming or objecting to matai title. In re Matai Title Afoafouvale, 4 A.S.R. 145.

Registering as an absent resident solely to qualify for matai title is not sufficient under 1 A.S.C. 752. In re Matai Title Afoafouvale, 4 A.S.R. 145.

Eligibility requirements of 1 A.S.C. 752 for matai applicants and objectors will be strictly construed to preserve “Fa’a Samoa.” In re Matai Title Afoafouvale, 4 A.S.R. 145.

Ambiguous statute will not be construed literally so as to frustrate obvious intent of legislature that court select matai if family is unable to do so. Aseuga v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

Law setting forth eligibility for matai title requires that person succeed to matai title, which implies that there must have been previous title holder (CAS 6.0101.) Mailo v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757.

Statute requires that applicant for matai title must show right to succession which implies that title name existed before claim was filed but has been vacated. (CAS 6.0104.) Mailo v. Fuimaono, 4 A.S.R. 757.

No one is eligible to claim or object to the succession to a matai title unless he has resided in American Samoa for one calendar year immediately preceding the date of the claim or objection. A.S.C.A. § 1.0404. In re Matai Title Niuatoa, 16 A.S.R.2d 25.

Matai who for the last ten years has lived, worked, and owned a home in the United States, but occasionally visited American Samoa and was registered to vote there, was not an American Samoan resident and could not claim succession to a matai title. In re Matai Title Niuatoa, 16 A.S.R.2d 25.

An applicant for matai-title registration is normally required to submit, among other things, a "certificate from the chiefs of the village to which the title is attached to the effect that the matai title is an old and traditional title of the Samoan people." A.S.C.A. § 1.0405(b). In re Matai Title Seva'aetasi, 19 A.S.R.2d 133.

Despite a written objection by the leading chiefs of the village, a matai title was ordered to be registered in the applicant's name as an "old and traditional title of the Samoan people" when the Territorial Registrar's records pointed to recognition of the title's status in a village prior to its registration, and court cases affirmed the family's landholdings. A.S.C.A. § 1.0405(b). In re Matai Title Seva'aetasi, 19 A.S.R.2d 133.

Application for matai title was dismissed when the applicant failed to comply with requirements and showed no real interest in pursuing the title. In re Matai Title Fonoti, 20 A.S.R.2d 22.

In order to register for a matai title under the absent resident provision, which requires that absence from the Territory in the year preceding the filing of matai claim or counterclaim was due to medical reasons, an applicant must produce more than a cursory and equivocal statement from a doctor. A.S.C.A. § 1.0404(b)(3). In re Matai Title Fonoti, 20 A.S.R.2d 22.

Candidates who do not meet the residency requirements of A.S.C.A. § 1.0404 will be, at that time, ineligible to claim succession to a matai title. In re Matai Title Fonoti, 20 A.S.R.2d 22.

Active service for the matai and the family is necessary to have the requisite standing to petition for a matai's removal for cause; however, only family membership is necessary to have standing to petition for the removal of a matai who has been absent from American Samoa for more than one year. A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0411, 1.0412. Aoelua v. Aoelua Family, 21 A.S.R.2d 1.

As long as a matai-title candidate acts within his legal rights, he remains eligible for the title, even if he abuses the traditional selection process by a premature offer of registration which forces other candidates to object to protect their interests. In re Matai Title Atiumaletavai, 22 A.S.R.2d 94.

In regards to a candidate's matai-title qualifications, American Samoa follows the traditional rule of determining domicile or permanent residency by the union of physical presence at a particular place and intent to indefinitely fix habitation there, frequently denoted as the place to which, when a person is absent, he or she intends to return. In re Matai Title Atiumaletavai, 22 A.S.R.2d 94.

A citizen of Western Samoa, born in that country of parents who were not inhabitants of American Samoa, is ineligible to hold a matai title in American Samoa. A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(a). Toilolo v. Poti, 23 A.S.R.2d 130.

A person born outside American soil is eligible for a matai title only if both parents were inhabitants of American Samoa and were temporarily residing outside of American Samoa or engaged in foreign travel at the time of that person's birth. A.S.C.A. § 1.0403. Toilolo v. Poti, 24 A.S.R.2d 1.

Regarding the statutory exception for families having fewer than 25 adult, blood family-members, the term "family" is equated with the claimant's or counter-claimant's clan for purposes of testing the validity of matai-title petitions. A.S.C.A. § 1.0405, 1.0407. Registration of Matai Title Le'aeno, 24 A.S.R.2d 117.

Until there is further legislated direction, the word "family" is equated with the claimant's or counterclaimant's clan for purposes of testing the validity of the petitions. In Re Matai Title Leano, 25 A.S.R.2d 4.

Requirement of A.S.C.A. § 1.0407 that a counterclaim or objection to succession to a matai title must be supported by a petition signed by no less than 25 persons related by blood to the title in question is not a mere "formality." Rather, the Fono has determined that at least twenty‑five or more qualified family members constitutes a serious enough contention within a family to warrant access to the judicial process. In re the Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 116.

Pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(b) the requirement that parents are" temporarily residing outside of American Samoa" connotes a short time, or at least a definite intention to return to American Samoa. In re the Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 116.

The fact that person was born and raised in Western Samoa strongly suggests, without anything further, that his parents were not "temporarily residing outside of American" at the time of his birth. In re the Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 116.

Fact that one is a U.S. national from American Samoa is not necessarily equivalent to being an "inhabitant" of American Samoa since the place where one lives may be different than the place of one's legal nationality. In re the Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 116.

The physical presence requirement is excepted by A.S.C.A. § 1.0404(b) only by registering with the Territorial Registrar absences for attendance at an educational institution, service in the United States armed forces, medical treatment and recuperation, temporary traveling, or missionary work as a minister. In re Matai Title Patea, 25 A.S.R.2d 139.

A person who is not born "on American soil" is eligible for a matai title only if (1) he is born of parents who were inhabitants of American Samoa but temporarily residing outside American Samoa at the child's birth, and (2) as applicable to this case, he has resided in American Samoa for a continuous period of at least ten years prior to filing his claim to a title. A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(b). In re Matai Title Patea, 25 A.S.R.2d 139.

Patea family does not come within the statutory small‑family exception. Affidavit stating that clan had fewer than 25 eligible members insufficient in light of contradictory testimony by affiant at trial that family had between 100 and 200 members. In re Matai Title Patea, 25 A.S.R.2d 139.

Matai‑title claimants and counter‑claimants/objectors are not held to different standards regarding the supporting petitions. In re Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 155.

Eligibility to be a candidate for a matai title is not an incident of one's nationality and therefore A.S.C.A. § 1.0403 does not abridge a constitutionally‑guaranteed privilege. In re Matai Title I`aulualo, 25 A.S.R.2d 155.

For a matai title claimant to qualify under A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(b)(2), he still must show both that a parent was an inhabitant of American Samoa, and that the parent's residence outside of the territory was temporary. In Re Matai Title “I`aulualo” of the Village of Afono, 29 A.S.R.2d 128.

An inhabitant is one who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there. In Re Matai Title “I`aulualo” of the Village of Afono, 29 A.S.R.2d 128.

A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(b) is not a prohibited bill of attainder or ex post facto law because it is not a criminal law. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

Age groupings have been consistently upheld for regulatory objectives such as voting, jury selection, military service, and receiving Social Security and other benefits. In the context of matai title eligibility, the distinction between minority and majority is a logical differentiation. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

Eligibility to succeed to a vacant matai title is set forth in A.S.C.A. § 1.0403. Under § 1.0403(b), a person born on foreign soil is eligible to hold an American Samoa matai title only if: (1) that person was born of parents who were inhabitants of American Samoa, but were temporarily residing outside of American Samoa or engaged in foreign travel at the time of his birth; and (2) while later residing in American Samoa that person either (a) renounces, under oath, his allegiance to the foreign country of his birth, within one year after reaching age 18 years, or (b) has continuously resided in American Samoa for at least 10 years prior to claiming registration as a matai titleholder. To be eligible to succeed to a vacant matai title, each requirement of the A.S.C.A. § 1.0403(b) two-pronged test must be satisfied. In Re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele”, 29 A.S.R.2d 169.

A person is disqualified from registering a matai title when the person was born in Western Samoa of parents who then had permanent residential ties to that foreign country, despite the fact that the person’s mother was a U.S. National. In re Matai Title “Mulitauaopele” of the Village of Laulii, 30 A.S.R.2d 62.

§ 6 Statutory Qualifications

§6(1) General Provisions

Former law that matai be determined on basis of hereditary right has been superceded by legislation stating four considerations for court’s determination in selection of title holder. Ioasa v. Aivao, 1 A.S.R. 567.

Codification of regulations provides procedures and considerations for court in determining matai title holder. Lauvai v. Si’itupe, 2 A.S.R. 29.

Former rule that matai should be selected solely on basis of hereditary right has been abolished. Lauvai v. Si’itupe, 2 A.S.R. 29.

Code set forth considerations for court in determination of matai title holder. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Codification of Regulations sets forth considerations for court in determination of matai title holder. Sueuga v. Laisene, 2 A.S.R. 82.

Codification sets forth considerations for determination of matai title holder. Akeimo v. Mulu, 2 A.S.R. 89.

Codification of Regulations established eligibility requirements for matai title. (CAS 81.) Titi v. Suiava, 2 A.S.R. 160.

Codification of Regulations established procedures for determination of matai title holder. (CAS 79.) Titi v. Suiava, 2 A.S.R. 160.

Codification of Regulations provides procedure for selection of matai. (CAS 79.) Simaile v. Lafoa’i, 2 A.S.R. 170.

Court cannot overrule legislative requirement on eligibility of candidate for matai title. Hunkin v. Pio, 2 A.S.R. 233.

Code provides eligibility requirements for matai title holder. (CAS 926.) Hunkin v. Pio, 2 A.S.R. 233.

Code provides for considerations to be made by court in determination of matai title holder. (CAS 933.) Maea v. Alapeti, 2 A.S.R. 255.

Code sets forth considerations for court in determination of matai title holder. Fagafa v. Siuea, 2 A.S.R. 261.

Code sets forth requirements for eligibility to hold matai title. (CAS 926.) Faagata v. Taupo, 2 A.S.R. 271.

Code establishes eligibility requirements for matai title holders. (CAS 926.) Alalamua v. Young, 2 A.S.R. 391.

Code provides requirements for eligibility of candidate for title holder. (CAS 926.) Selusi v. Tasi, 2 A.S.R. 422.

Code provides for considerations to be made by court in determining matai title holder. Selusi v. Tasi, 2 A.S.R. 422.

Code provides eligibility requirements for holding of matai title. (CAS 926.) Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Code sets forth considerations to be made by court in determination of matai title holder. (CAS 933.) Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Code establishes requirements for registration as matai title holder. (CAS 926.) Stevens v. Tee, 2 A.S.R. 627.

Code prescribes qualifications for holding matai title. (CAS 926.) Siaosi v. Asoau, 3 A.S.R. 293.

Code prescribes law court must follow in determining matai title. (CAS 933.) Siaosi v. Asoau, 3 A.S.R. 293.

Code sets forth considerations for High Court in determination of matai title holder. (CAS 933.) Malaga v. Mase, 3 A.S.R. 518.

Code establishes qualifications and provides procedures for determination of matai title holders. (CAS 933, 926.) Tagoai v. Tuiafono, 4 A.S.R. 252.

Code prescribes qualifications which person must have to be eligible to succeed to matai title. (CAS 6.0101.) Veve v. Faatama, 4 A.S.R. 418.

Code prescribes law which court must follow in determining which one among opposing candidates shall be registered as holder of matai title. (CAS 6.0107.) Veve v. Faatama, 4 A.S.R. 418.

Code sets forth basic qualifications which person must have to be eligible to succeed to matai title. (CAS 6.0101.) Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Code sets forth considerations which shall guide court in determining which of opposing candidates shall be registered as holder of matai title. (CAS 6.0107.) Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Statute sets forth four considerations guiding court in determination of matai title holder. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

Code establishes eligibility requirements for matai title holders (CAS 6.0101, 6.0107.) Asuega v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

Statutory Provision (CAS 6.0104) setting forth requirements for matai title holder applies to every candidate for title—objectors as well as applicant. Asuega v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

Code prescribes qualifications of person to be eligible to succeed to matai title. (CAS 6.0101.) Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

Code provides four considerations which courts follow in determining who among opposing candidates shall be registered as hilder of matai title. Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

In considering statutory criteria for matai titles, court should always be guided by overriding purpose of the statute, which is to preserve Samoan culture. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.

Court should interpret statutes dealing with Samoan custom and matai titles so as to minimize the extent to which customary law is modified or overridden by the imported procedural framework. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.

Family tradition empowering senior matai to designate holder of a lesser title within the family would, if proven, be relevant to determination by court of whether candidates had hereditary rights to title, family support "as customary in the family," and value of candidates to the family, village, and country. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Ma'ae, 6 A.S.R.2d 75.

The matai-title statute does not give the court the power to retroactively apply the four statutory criteria to events that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

The matai-title statute may not divest any person of a title which was registered before November 1, 1932. A.S.C.A. § 1.0413. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

A family's establishing a "new" matai title for itself was not illegal until 1969, when the matai title registry was closed. A.S.C.A. § 1.0401(b). In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

The High Court will make findings of fact on the statutory criteria in awarding a matai title when the family had an opportunity to reach a consensus but failed to do so. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Atiumaletavai, 21 A.S.R.2d 88.

Although the High Court's matai-title decisions frequently include substantial comparative discussions of title candidates' qualifications under each of the four statutory criteria, the only legal requirement is a written decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law on each of the four statutory criteria. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c); T.C.R.C.P. 52(a). In re Matai Title Atiumaletavai, 22 A.S.R.2d 94.

In a matai-title case, the court is guided by four statutory criteria: (1) best hereditary right; (2) clan support; (3) forcefulness, character and personality, and knowledge of Samoan customs; and (4) value to family, village, and country. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c). In re Matai Title Paopaoailua, 24 A.S.R.2d 7.

Matai titles created after the matai-title registration process closed on January 1, 1969, are not legally recognizable. Registration of Matai Title Le'aeno, 24 A.S.R.2d 117.

While some families or matai may still practice the old, autocratic custom, which allows a matai to appoint his own successor, this custom must be viewed under the law as only a relic from a bygone era. In re the Matai Title Iu, 25 A.S.R.2d 127.

Custom in conflict with law must give way. A.S.C.A. § 1.0202; In Re the Matai Title Iu, 25 A.S.R.2d 127.

The language of A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(d) is clear--the trial court shall issue a decision that covers each factor enumerated in A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c). The word "shall" has traditionally been interpreted as a mandatory direction, inconsistent with the idea of discretion. In re Matai Title Faumuina, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

Absent any clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the term "shall" is significantly commanding. In re Matai Title Faumuina, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

A failure to follow the clear meaning of A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(d) results in prejudice to all involved. The legislature has required that the judiciary issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court has no discretion to ignore that legislative mandate. In re Matai Title Faumuina, 26 A.S.R.2d 1.

There is nothing in law or custom to prevent reunification of a split matai title; however, reunification is something best left to the evolutionary process of Samoan custom, as opposed to yet another conflicting judicial pronouncement on the issue of split/joint matai titles. Fanene v. Fanene, 26 A.S.R.2d 8.

The matai title Misaalefua is title of paramount stature in the territory. In re Matai Title Misaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106.

§6(2) Best Hereditary Right

While court adheres to rule of hereditary right in selection of matai title holder, when two or more candidates have equal rights, court will inquire into general fitness of candidate for title. Malama v. Fepuleai, 1 A.S.R. 560.

Candidate with four times as much family blood as opponent prevails on issue of hereditary right in determination of matai. Sueuga v. Laisene, 2 A.S.R. 82.

Prior decision has established that candidate for matai is descendant of family. Titi v. Suiava, 2 A.S.R. 160.

“Hereditary right” as defined in Sec. 933 of Code means right based on blood relationship and not based on marriage to blood descendant or descent from adopted child. Gagamoe v. Toti, 2 A.S.R. 337.

Although adopted child of matai has legal relation of child to parent, including “rights of inheritance from each other,” he does not have hereditary right to title since title belongs to family and not matai. Selusi v. Tasi, 2 A.S.R. 422.

Hereditary right to matai title is based on blood and does not include marriage or adoption. Selusi v. Tasi, 2 A.S.R. 422.

Under Samoan custom, matai will not be selected unless he has some hereditary right to title. Malaeola v. Nu’u, 2 A.S.R. 549.

Right to claim matai title once held by ancestor is sacred. In re Matai Title Salave’a, 4 A.S.R. 44.

Prior holder of matai title does not have 100% hereditary right to title by virtue of this fact alone. Ailua Maga v. Ativalu Tago, 1955, Civil, insofar as it holds to the contrary, is overruled. In re Matai Title Alalamua, 4 A.S.R. 93.

Blood sons of former matai prevail equally over grandson on issue of hereditary right in determination of matai title holder. Veve v. Faatama, 4 A.S.R. 418.

Candidate for matai title with 1/8 blood of previous title holder prevails over candidate with 1/32 blood on issue of hereditary right. Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Blood daughter prevails over grandson on issue of hereditary right to matai title under Samoan custom. (CAS 6.0107.) Tuaolo v. Tutogi, 4 A.S.R. 488.

Person who is grandson of former title holder prevails over person who is great-grandson on issue of hereditary right. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

Son of former matai title holder prevails over great-grandson in priority consideration of hereditary right for courts in determining matai title holder because son has greater blood relationship. Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

A candidate for a matai title, who previously held that title, but was removed by petition of family, has a 100% hereditary right to that title. Fesili v. Ativalu, 4 A.S.R. 688.

Applicant for matai title has no hereditary right to title because his uncle once held title. Reed v. Polone, 4 A.S.R. 726.

Where there was insufficient evidence to resolve dispute among candidates for matai title about the identity of the original titleholder, and where recent trial court opinion announcing a rule that ancestry of matai title candidates should be traced to the original titleholder had been criticized in subsequent opinions of appellate court, the trial court in a later case would attempt to calculate each candidate's ancestry both to the nearest titleholder and to the titleholder who was the nearest common ancestor of the candidates. In re Matai Title Fano, 4 A.S.R.2d 148.

Rule of heredity that arose in previous trial court decision was not binding precedent when rule resulted from "judicial notice" of Samoan custom that ignored stark variation among different families' practices, rule was stipulated by the parties rather than baccording to each party's closest proven relation to a previous titleholder. A.S.C.A § 1.0409(c). In re Matai Title Tauaifaiva, page 13.

When neither claimant to a contested matai title sustained his burden of proving superior hereditary entitlement, trial court's determination that both were related to the title by heritage but that neither prevailed on that issue was not an abrogation of the court's duty to make "findings." In re Matai Title Tauaisafune, 6 A.S.R.2d 59.

Since a matai title ordinarily has many successive holders, evidence concerning a person known by a particular matai name in 1912 should not be assumed to apply to a person who was called by the same name by a witness testifying in 1987. Satele v. Uiagalelei, 8 A.S.R.2d 97.

A reference to one person as the "sister" of another is not contradicted by evidence that they did not have identical ancestors, since in Samoan custom the terms "brother" and "sister" frequently refer to relatives of the same generation whether or not they are born of the same mother and father. Satele v. Uiagalelei, 8 A.S.R.2d 97.

Candidate for a matai title who best satisfied the statutory criterion of hereditary right to the title did so by showing the shortest route of descent from a past title holder, even though such descent was via an adopted side of the family. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c). In re Matai Title Iuli, 14 A.S.R.2d 116.

The "Sotoa Rule," whereby the blood relationship of matai candidates is calculated not to the nearest titleholder in a candidate's genealogy but to the original titleholder, while criticized and not often used, may nevertheless be appropriate in certain cases. In re Matai Title Tuiteleleapaga, 15 A.S.R.2d 90.

A blood right to a matai title is based on direct descent from the title he claims; no decisions of this Court support a blood right to a matai title solely based on "blood descent" from the titleholder's sister, nor is such consistent with any of the Court's formulae employed to determine "hereditary right." A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(1). In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 16 A.S.R.2d 63.

In construing the customary and statutory requirement of "hereditary right" to matai titles, courts have generally employed two formulas to calculate such right: direct descent from the original title holder and direct descent from the nearest title holder. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

A statement regarding "hereditary right" in matai-title cases involving one, unrelated branch of a family did not have res judicata effect as to the other branch of the family when the question of the "hereditary right" of the latter was not before the Court and no member of the latter family was a party to the those cases. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

Adoption itself does not confer a hereditary right to a matai title; in tracing a candidate's ancestry to the nearest title holder, the formula applied in the vast majority of cases, only blood relationships count. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

The statutory "best hereditary right" criterion does not require the court to extinguish a family line whenever it appears that a matai obtained his title, prior to the enactment of the statute, for a reason other that blood descent. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

Although the exception, ancient Samoan traditions abound with stories of matai who obtained their titles for reasons other than blood descent from a previous title holder, such as "igagato" (conferral as a reward) and "matu`upalapala" ("commission" to avoid the extinction of the line). In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

Since the statutory adoption of the "hereditary right" criterion, the court is not free to award a disputed matai title to a person who is not descended from a previous titleholder. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

The "Sotoa rule" for determining the best hereditary right of matai candidates may sometimes be appropriate for clans which have not held the title for several generations but whose members, according to the tradition in many families, remain entitled to a fair chance at each new vacancy and perhaps even to some affirmative credit on the theory that each clan should have its turn at the title. In re Matai Title Laie, 18 A.S.R.2d 35.

For the limited purpose of calculating a matai candidate's blood relationship to a title, relation to a former titleholder who never registered the title will be accepted under the limited conditions where: 1) there was no indication that the titleholder was not recognized by the entire family; 2) the titleholder held the title for only three or four years; 3) the idea of title registration was a fairly new practice at the time (1920's or 1930's); 4) transportation between Tutuila (where registration was required to be filed) and Manu`a (where the title was located) was difficult and irregular; and 5) there was no indication of any legal obstacle to his registration of the title. In re Matai Title Laie, 18 A.S.R.2d 35.

A sister of the last titleholder was a generation ahead of his daughter and so prevailed on the hereditary-right criterion under the Sotoa rule. In re Matai Title Fonoti, 21 A.S.R.2d 113.

Determining best hereditary right is traditionally guided by the percentage of matai-title candidates' blood relationship to a former titleholder, though in unusual cases it may be appropriate to calculate blood relationships from the original titleholder or the nearest common ancestor. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(1). Registration of Matai Title Le'aeno, 24 A.S.R.2d 117.

This factual determination of "Best Hereditary Right" is traditionally guided by the percentage of the candidates' blood relationship to a former holder of the matai title. In re Matai Title Leano, 25 A.S.R.2d 4.

In circumstances in which family history is by and large harmonious, the "Sotoa rule" is the less arbitrary method of assessing hereditary entitlement. In re Matai Title Lolo, 25 A.S.R.2d 175.

The traditional rule determines hereditary rights based on a candidate's direct relationship to his closest ancestor holding the title. In re the Matai Title Tuaolo, 27 A.S.R.2d 97.

The "Sotoa rule" is inappropriate where the candidates do not agree on the identity of the original titleholder or any common ancestor. In re Matai Title Tuaolo, 28 A.S.R.2d 137.

§6(3) Clan Support

In determining which candidate family wishes to assume matai title, Court will look not only to which candidate has the most names on petition but also to which candidate has been selected at family meetings. Ioasa v. Aivao, 1 A.S.R. 567.

While total number of names on petition is important for purposes of evidencing which matai candidate has wish of family, Court also places significance on number of petitioners who actually live in village to which matai name belongs. Ioasa v. Aivao, 1 A.S.R. 567.

In determining which candidate family wishes to assume matai title, court will look not only to see which candidate has the most names on petition but also to which candidate has been selected at family meetings. Elekana v. Sefe, 1 A.S.R. 573.

Children under eight years old who signed petition expressing preference for candidate for matai title should be discounted. Lauvai v. Si’itupe, 2 A.S.R. 29.

Members of family, who allegedly signed petition expressing preference for candidate for matai title but who are residing in Hawaii and concerning whom there is no proof that signatures were authorized, must be discounted. Lauvai v. Si’itupe, 2 A.S.R. 29.

Child under ten does not have education, experience and mental development to express preference for matai on petition. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Children eight years of age or under who signed petition expressing preference for candidate for matai title should be discounted. Aano v. Sitau, 2 A.S.R. 107.

Fact that candidate has support of majority of family in bid for title is not alone sufficient as candidate must meet other requirements of the law. Utu v. Tu’itu’I, 2 A.S.R. 184.

Code requirement that applicant, to be eligible for title, must be “chosen by his family for the title” requires that applicant be a direct blood descendant of the family who holds the title sought. Utu v. Tu’itu’I, 2 A.S.R. 184.

Child of fourteen is considered of sufficient age to sign petition selecting candidate for matai. Maea v. Alapeti, 2 A.S.R. 255.

Signers of matai petition must be over fourteen years of age. Kosi v. Viliamu, 2 A.S.R. 349.

“Wish of majority or plurality of family” means just that, and not “wish of majority or plurality of family residing in village to which title is attached.” Eneliko v. Mano, 2 A.S.R. 393.

Signatures on petition for matai title holder which represent persons not living in Samoa and are without authorization cannot be considered. Selusi v. Tasi, 2 A.S.R. 422.

Where Samoan family selects matai, it frequently passes title from branch to branch as matter of fairness and to promote harmony in family. Saufea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Where names on petition for matai title are also on another petition for another candidate, names will not be counted for either candidate. Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Where evidence indicates that signatures on petition for selection of matai title holder are in same handwriting, such signatures should not be counted. Sauafea v. Filipo, 2 A.S.R. 477.

Persons related to man who holds matai title, but not related to title nor rendering service to the title, may not be counted in determining wish of family. Gi v. Maaele, 2 A.S.R. 506.

Members of spouse’s clan are not members of family for purposes of voting for matai. Mea v. Talio, 2 A.S.R. 528.

Claim of withdrawing candidate for matai title that his supporters favored another candidate is not satisfactory proof thereof. Siaosi v. Asoau, 3 A.S.R. 293.

Contract among family members to alternate matais among various branches of family would not be binding on future generations since title belongs to all of family and not any branch tereof. Tiumalu v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 502.

Matai title holder need not be blood member of family of which he is matai, but those members of family who indicate their wish must be blood members, and this means that preferences of persons married into family may not be considered by court in determination of which candidate has the majority or plurality of family support. Malaga v. Mase, 3 A.S.R. 518.

Family member may only represent his clan at family meeting to select matai. In re Matai Title Tupua, 4 A.S.R. 53.

All members of Samoan family enjoy equal rights and privileges under clan system—one clan cannot be “favored” over others in selecting matai. R.C.A.S. 6.0107. In re Matai Title Faiivae, 4 A.S.R. 71.

Although R.C.A.S. 6.0104 requires twenty-five (25) family members to sign petition supporting matai title claim, this is not mandatory if affidavit discloses family has less than twenty-five (25) qualified members. R.C.A.S. 6.0104. In re Matai Title Fagaima, 4 A.S.R. 83.

Actual notice of matai title claim to two authentic clans of family and selection of claimant at meetings attended by two clans meets criteria of 1 A.S.C. 751(3) that claimant be selected by family. In re Matai Title Lea’eno, 4 A.S.R. 152.

1 A.S.C. 753 requires that 25 family members, listing names and ages, support matai title application. If list submitted to court meets statutory criteria, it is harmless error that list sent to objector omits ages of signatories. In re Matai Title Lea’eno, 4 A.S.R. 152.

Where there are number of instances where both husband and wife sign petition favoring matai candidate, court will consider it probable that some signers are not blood members of family since under Samoan custom. Person marries outside his clan, and husband and wife should be from different families. Tagoai v. Tuiafono, 4 A.S.R. 252.

Clan is a group of people who are descended from a common ancestor. Filipo v. Maiava, 4 A.S.R. 313.

Samoan custom appears to favor defining clan as all descendants of each of children of first title holder rather than all descendants of each and every title holder. Filipo v. Maiava, 4 A.S.R. 313.

When it becomes necessary, court will give definite interpretation to word “clan” as used in statute until such time as legislature clarifies definition. Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Legislature has not defined “clan” as used in consideration of wish of majority of clans in determination of matai title holder. Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Court will discount of who among candidates for matai title is favored by majority of clans where there is dispute as to definition of clans; where two parties claim there is only one clan; and where court can arrive at definite selection without necessity of defining “clan.” Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Where majority of family favor objector as title holder, and only applicant and her children prefer applicant, objector prevails on issue of wish of majority of family in determination of matai under Samoan custom. (CAS 6.0107.) Tuaolo v. Tutogi, 4 A.S.R. 488.

Under Samoan custom, individual unanimously selected by family to hold matai title is candidate for title. Tuaolo v. Tutogi, 4 A.S.R. 488.

Where there is much contradictory testimony as to wish of majority of clans in family as to who should be matai title holder, court may find candidates rank equally on this issue. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

Statutory requirement (CAS 6.0107) that Court consider “wish of the majority or plurality of those clans of the family as customary in that family” means that matai candidate must have full support of at least two out of three clans in three clan family. Asuega v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

If no candidate has support of majority or plurality of clans in family, Court will disregard this issue in choosing matai. Asuega v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

Where court finds clans have selected one candidate as matai title holder, he prevails over opponents with respect to wish of majority of clans. Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

If neither candidate for matai title has support of majority or plurality of clans, Court will rank candidates equally and disregard this issue in making decision. Fesili v. Ativalu, 4 A.S.R. 688.

If family chooses one applicant for matai title and presents kava cup to symbolize selection, and only other candidate admits family failed to choose him, former prevails on issue of family preference. Reed v. Polone, 4 A.S.R. 726.

In some villages, the bearer of ava cup for the village council is recognized as a matai. Moea`i v. Te`o, 9 A.S.R.2d 107.

Although designation by a living matai of his successor has its place in the customs of Samoa, it has always been understood that the whole family has the right to decide whether to accept the designee or to choose someone else. In re Matai Title Tauala, 14 A.S.R.2d 83.

Difficulty of assessing family or clan support for candidates for a matai title is compounded by the fact that Samoan families traditionally make decisions not by pure majoritarian democracy but by consensus. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Tauala, 14 A.S.R.2d 83.

Where one of the competing candidates has illegally undergone traditional ceremonies which made him the matai in the eyes of many family members, some of these members might regard themselves as bound to support him whether or not they believe he is or will be a good matai; it is thus practically impossible to make a fair and accurate comparison of his support with that of a candidate who has not illegally seized such a strategic advantage. A.S.C.A. §1.0409. In re Matai Title Tauala, 14 A.S.R.2d 83.

No candidate for a matai title best satisfied the statutory criterion of the support of the clans where the candidates disagreed on the identities of the original and subsequent titleholders and family meetings considering the candidates ended inconclusively. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c). In re Matai Title Iuli, 14 A.S.R.2d 116.

The Court must make its assessment of family support for a matai candidate as of the time of trial. In re Matai Title Tauala, 15 A.S.R.2d 65.

When two branches of a family are not related to each other by blood, it would be contrary to Samoan custom for them to meet together as one family to choose a single title holder with pule over both families' lands and internal affairs. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 16 A.S.R.2d 63.

Neither law nor Samoan custom forbids the continued existence of two unrelated families, which came into being after the original line of direct descendants from the first titleholder died out. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

Although having the same surname, families which are unrelated by blood and own separate lands do not have the option of participating in affairs of the other families or contending for their matai titles. In re Matai Title Mulitauaopele, 17 A.S.R.2d 75.

The number of individual supporters among a family's clans does not establish a majority or plurality of clan support for a matai-title candidate but is only one factor indicating support in those clans. In re Matai Title Atiumaletavai, 22 A.S.R.2d 94.

Clan support for matai-title candidates is traditionally measured by consensus and not by a mere numerical majority. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(2). Registration of Matai Title Le'aeno, 24 A.S.R.2d 117.

Clan support for a matai title can not be evaluated by counting heads and is traditionally measured by consensus. In re Matai Title Leano, 25 A.S.R.2d 4.

Presentation of the kava cup by family members, which included all but two of the claimants who sought registration of the title, is significantly indicative of family support favoring presentee. In re Matai Title Lolo, 25 A.S.R.2d 175.

Clans customarily consist of the lineal descendants of the original titleholder's children and take each such child's name. In re the Matai Title Tuaolo, 27 A.S.R.2d 97.

There are four customary clans of the Misaalefua family, namely: Agafala, Vaepala, Tuimalie, and Faliu. In re Matai Title Misaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106.

A tally of signatures does not provide proof of clan support for a matai candidate. In re Matai Title Misaalefua, 28 A.S.R.2d 106.

§6(4) Forcefulness, Character & Personality, Knowledge of Customs

Court takes judicial notice of reputation of candidates for high names as shown by their acts and records. Malama v. Fepuleai, 1 A.S.R. 560.

Age is an important consideration in determining which matai candidate is better qualified from standpoint of character and forcefulness. Ioasa v. Aivao, 1 A.S.R. 567.

Cutting copra, collecting tapa cloths for sale and experience in building houses are items tending to show forcefulness, character and personality by way of industry. Elekana v. Sefe, 1 A.S.R. 573.

Candidate with superior education has greater leadership capacity and thus better qualified on grounds of character, forcefulness and personality. Elekana v. Sefe, 1 A.S.R. 573.

Fact person had difficulties when Samoa was first ceded to United States should not be judged by standards of Western Civilization in consideration of character of candidate for matai title. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Matai who does not pay taxes on time and has to be brought in court is not setting right example for other taxpayers in family. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Court will consider whether any candidate has been convicted of a crime in determining prevailing candidate with regard to character, forcefulness, personality and leadership. Tootoo v. Faaea, 2 A.S.R. 94.

Candidate who has lived more years is a more experienced man and for this reason may prevail on the issue of forcefulness, character, personality and leadership. Taufaasau v. Soloi, 2 A.S.R. 98.

Candidate who lives with family is more familiar with family needs and members and is thus better qualified to assume leadership of family. Aano v. Sitau, 2 A.S.R. 107.

Candidate who has committed crime and has troublesome character cannot command respect of family and consequently his capacity for leadership will be limited. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate who has greatest income is in better position financially to assist family in times of difficulty or disaster and therefore more able to provide family leadership. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate whose family support comes from members who do not live in village to which name belongs and who does not live in such village and who is unfamiliar with family affairs is not in good position to assume leadership of family. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

From leadership standpoint, candidate in prime of life and good health is preferable to older candidate whose health is poor. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

“Character” of applicant for matai title means character at time of hearing and not character hoped for but by no means assured at some indefinite future time. Kosi v. Viliamu, 2 A.S.R. 349.

Candidate with superior practical experience may prevail over younger candidate with greater formal education. Atoa v. Meredith, 3 A.S.R. 159.

Character, forcefulness, personality, knowledge of Samoan customs, demeanor and happy personality make matai candidate more forceful with family than dour personality and is thus preferable. Scanlan v. Tuiasosopo, 4 A.S.R. 156.

Matai title applicant who on witness stand had chief in audience signal answers to him showed weakness and lack of character. Filipo v. Maiava, 4 A.S.R. 313.

In determining which candidate for matai title has greatest forcefulness, character, personality and knowledge of Samoan custom, court will consider demeanor, personality, presence of mind, clarity, speed and correctness with which answers are given, self-confidence, and other qualities reflected from speech and behavior of candidate. Reid v. Talalele, 4 A.S.R. 458.

Knowledge of English, education, kind of employment and responsibility, criminal record and familiarity with Samoan customs are considerations for court in determining matai title holder. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

Observation of personality in court of candidate for matai title holder is method of determining forcefulness, character, personality and knowledge of Samoan customs. Faagau v. Tulei, 4 A.S.R. 490.

In choosing matai candidate, Court will consider under third and fourth issues of CAS 6.0107: forcefulness, character, personality, knowledge of Samoan customs, value to family, village and country, personal demeanor, presence of mind, clarity, speed and correctness of answers, candidness, ability to withstand cross-examination, education, self-confidence, speech and behavior. Asuega v. Manuma, 4 A.S.R. 616.

Hearing testimony on character and background and observing personalities in court room enables court to select who of competing candidates for matai title holder has greatest forcefulness, personality and knowledge of Samona customs. Vainini v. Ala, 4 A.S.R. 683.

Candidate for matai title who lied under oath about his convictions by military tribunals, and who had deliberately violated numerous court orders, would not prevail on the statutory criterion of forcefulness, character, personality, and knowledge of Samoan custom. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409. In re Matai Title Tauala, 14 A.S.R.2d 83.

Candidate for a matai title who best satisfied the statutory criterion of forcefulness, character, personality, and knowledge of Samoan custom did so based on his longterm experience as a comparably ranked titleholder and administrator, which familiarized him with Samoan custom and enhanced his administrative and leadership skills and his ability to fulfill the responsibilities and duties of the title. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c). In re Matai Title Iuli, 14 A.S.R.2d 116.

Regarding the criterion of the forcefulness, character, and personality of a matai-title candidate and his knowledge of Samoan customs, factors considered include leadership ability, honesty, education, public service, involvement in church and village affairs, and previous experience as a matai. A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(3). Registration of Matai Title Le'aeno, 24 A.S.R.2d 117.

Leadership ability, honesty, education, public service, involvement in church and village affairs, and previous experience as a matai are some of the factors which aid in meeting the criterion of "Forcefulness, Character, and Personality; Knowledge of Samoan Customs." In re Matai Title Leaeno, 25 A.S.R.2d 4.

Such qualities as "demeanor, personality, presence of mind, the clarity speed and correctness with which the answers were given, the self-confidence and other qualities reflected from speech and behavior," which go towards the issue of forcefulness and personality. In re Matai Title Te’o, 25 A.S.R.2d 101.

Poor health and advanced age weigh against a candidate on the consideration of forcefulness and personality. In re Matai Title Te`o, 26 A.S.R.2d 101.

Age is a factor to consider in determining knowledge of Samoan customs but is no guarantee of supremacy. In re Matai Title Tualolo, 28 A.S.R.2d 137.

§6(5) Value to Family, Village and Country

Candidate for matai who spends half of time in village probably is better acquainted with members of family, their affairs and their needs than candidate who rarely visits village. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Court considers industry in making copra and exporting Samoan curios in consideration of value to government in determination of matai title holder. Tulei v. Valu, 2 A.S.R. 76.

Candidate for title who lives in village of family is more familiar with needs and affairs of family members than candidate who has never lived in village. Sueuga v. Laisene, 2 A.S.R. 82.

In consideration of value of matai to government, court looks for ability to handle family affairs. Sueuga v. Laisene, 2 A.S.R. 82.

Candidate who produces more wealth and possesses special skills such as carpentry is a good matai for a large family and therefore an asset to the Government. Tootoo v. Faaea, 2 A.S.R. 94.

A more experienced candidate is better qualified to handle family affairs and the better a matai handles family affairs, the more valuable he is to the Government. Taufaasau v. Soloi, 2 A.S.R. 98.

Candidate who lives with family is more familiar with family needs and members and is thus better qualified to assume leadership of family. Aano v. Sitau, 2 A.S.R. 107.

Matai who lives with family is able to see that family plantations are kept up and that family members live in peace and is thus more valuable to the Government. Aano v. Sitau, 2 A.S.R. 107.

Fact that candidate wears European clothing while working does not count against him in selection of matai. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate who has support of most family members is more able to unite family and prevent dissension and thus is more valuable to family and Government. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate who speaks English is more valuable to Government for purposes of Government dealings with family. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate who brings in most money from sources outside Samoa is more valuable to Government. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Candidate skilled in trade is more valuable to Government. Tuinei v. Ieliko, 2 A.S.R. 117.

Consideration by court as to which candidate for matai title is of greatest value to government includes his ability to handle affairs of family, approval of family as determined by number petitioning for matai, quality of goods produced by him, and lack of criminal record. Maea v. Alapeti, 2 A.S.R. 255.

Matai who lives away from family cannot look after family affairs as well as if he lived with family, and this is important consideration in determining which candidate has greatest capacity for leadershi