|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands |
SARAPIN T. PELIPE,
Plaintiff
v.
ALFONSO PELIPE, BERNARDO LADORE, PASTOR PELIPE and ANNA
PELIPE,
Defendants
Civil Action No. 242
Trial Division of the High
Court
Ponape District
February 24, 1966
Action to determine ownership of land in Kitti Municipality, in which son of brother of deceased landholder under German title document claims ownership of land in opposition to adopted son of deceased. The Trial Division of the High Court, Associate Justice Joseph W. Goss, held that land belonged to defendant son since he was lawfully adopted under Ponape custom, but that since plaintiff made substantial plantings in bona fide belief he was entitled to possession, he has temporary right to harvest land.
1. Ponape Custom – Adoption
Adoption under Ponape custom did not require confirmation of Nanmarki or Governor under German Administration.
2. Ponape Land Law – German Land Title – Succession
Adopted son succeeds to property of his father under German land title system in Ponape.
3. Ponape Land Law – Crops
Where person makes substantial plantings on land in bona fide belief he is entitled to possession, court may grant equitable remedy such as temporary right to harvest.
GOSS, Associate Justice
This action concerns ownership of the land Pontui in the Olepal Section of Kitti Municipality, Ponape District which was formerly owned by Roke. Roke died without issue. The land is claimed by the Plaintiff as the son of Dido, a brother of Roke. Defendant Bernardo Ladore claims as purchaser from Defendant Alfonso Pelipe, son of Kerman who is alleged to have been the adopted son of Roke. Defendant Pastor Pelipe claims as the adopted son of Pastor, alleged to have been the adopted son of Kulian, Dido's older brother and brother of Roke. Anna Pelipe claims as the adopted daughter of Kulian.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Prior to 1912 a ceremony in which Roke adopted Kerman took place before the Naniken of Kitti.
2. Substantial plantings have been made on Pontui by the Plaintiff in the good faith belief that he was entitled to possession.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OPINION
This action turns on the issue of whether Kerman was adopted by Roke. In this regard the testimony of the Naniken of Kitti, Sarapin, is particularly important:-
"Mr. Makaya: You stated – or testified – that Kerman is an adopted child of Rake, is this true?
Answer: Yes.
Question: How do you know that Kerman was adopted by Rake?
Answer: I was present in this place when this adoption was made or when this document was made – I ... and the Secretary ....
Question: To your recollection, approximately what year was Kerman – how old was Kerman at this time?
Answer: Maybe ten, or more.
Question: That day when Kerman became an adopted child, was Rake present?
Answer: Yes, all of them were present, and the Secretary Kentiner.
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/other/TTLawRp/1966/4.html
