Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Kenyul v Tamangin [1964] TTLawRp 4; 2 TTR 648 (3 June 1964)

2 TTR 648

APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

Civil Appeal No. 16

KENYUL, TITHIMED and UAAYAN

(the latter being of weak mentality and represented

by FAREN as temporary guardian)

Appellants

v

TAMANGIN, YOU, and YANGRUW

Appellees

June 3, 1964

Appeal from the Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District. Appellants contend that judgment was not supported by evidence and was contrary to Yapese custom. The Appellate Division of the High Court, in a Per Curiam opinion, held that where trial judge could have reasonably reached conclusion, appellate court will review only questions of law and that where custom is unclear, it is a mixed question of law and fact which must be proved by party relying upon it.

Affirmed.

1. Appeal and Error-Scope of Review-Witness Credibility

Appellate courts are constituted for dealing with questions of law and not for passing on credibility of witnesses or weighing of evidence.

2. Appeal and Error-Scope of Review-Facts

Where judicial mind, upon consideration of all evidence, could reasonably have reached conclusion of court below, appellate court will re-view only questions of law.

3. Custom-Burden of Proof

Where there is dispute as to existence or effect of local custom, custom becomes mixed question of law and fact and party relying upon it must prove it to satisfaction of court.

Before KINNARE, Associate Justice, PEREZ, Temporary Judge, DUENAS, Temporary Judge

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from the judgment entered in Civil Actions No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12, Trial Division of the High Court, Yap District. The above actions were tried together.

Both sides filed written argument and both sides waived oral argument. Therefore, this appeal is considered on the briefs and the record.

Although the "Notice of Appeal" filed herein purported to be filed on behalf of the "People of Palau Village" it is to be noted that the "People of Palau Village" were not parties in Civil Actions No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12. All the parties named in the caption are residents of Palau Village, and the judgment in Civil Actions No. 10, No. 11, and No; 12 specifically provides "as between the parties, all of whom live in Palau Village, Maap Municipality, Yap Islands, and all persons claiming under them . . . ". The appellants named in the caption were the defendants in Civil Actions No. 10, No. 11, and No. 12, and the appellees were, in the order named in the caption, the plaintiffs in those actions.