|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Palau |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION
| IGNACIO RENGULBAI and LUKES CLAN, Appellee. |
Cite as: 2019 Palau 12
Civil Appeal No. 18-028
Appeal from Civil Action No. 17-220
Decided: April 16, 2019
Counsel for Appellants Salvador Remoket
Counsel for Appellee Johnson Toribiong
BEFORE: ARTHUR NGIRAKLSONG, Chief Justice
JOHN K. RECHUCHER, Associate Justice
ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Associate Justice
Appeal from the Trial Division, the Honorable Oldiais Ngiraikelau, Presiding Justice, presiding.
OPINION[2]
PER CURIAM:
INTRODUCTION
[ 1] This casolves a dispute pute surrounding the burial of the remains of several of Appellee’s relatives on the stone platform at a site known as Lukes, CadasLot No. 010 C 11, in Melekeok State. Appellants (two of thef the three Plaintiffs below – Plaintiff Teruko R. Aitaro, Appellant Ignacio Rengulbai’s sister, does not appeal) filed a lawsuit alleging trespass by Appellee, contending that the burial of the remains was not authorized, and seeking damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Although Appellants did not bring a complaint for declaratory judgment or permanent injunction, they sought declaratory and equitable relief in their trespass complaint, requesting declarations that Appellants are senior strong members of Lukes Clan, Appellants bear the highest clan titles (Ruluked and Ebil Ruluked), and that Appellees are not members of Lukes Clan and did not have permission to enter the property. They further sought exhumation of the remains and a permanent injunction preventing Appellee and his relatives from entering Lukes.
[ 2] The Trial Div found that that Appellee and his relatives are members of Lukes Clan; Appellee and Naomi Ueki, not Appellant and Aitaro, bear the titles Ruluked and Ebil Ruluked, respectively; ppellee did not need Plaintlaintiffs’ permission to enter Lukes or to bury his relatives on the stone platform located there. For the reasons set forth below, the Court now AFFIRMS the Trial Division’s decision and judgment.
FACTS
[ 3] This casolves Lukes Clan Clan and clan land. Lukes Clan owns several parcels of land in Melekeok, including the site known as Lukes. The male chief titleholder, luked, is listed on Lukes’s Certificate ofte of Title as trustee of the property. In 2016, Appellee entered the land Lukes and buried the remains of six of his relatives at the stone platform. He did not seek permission from Appellant or Aitaro to do so. Appellant and Aitaro claim to hold the highest-ranking chief titles in Lukes Clan, Ruluked and Ebil Ruluked, respectively, and assert that because they bear these titles, their permission was required for Appellee to bury his relatives at Lukes.
[ 4] Appellant is aated with with Lukes Clan through his father, Rengulbai, the only child of Ngeburch and Trachol. Trachol was the daughter of Besul, father, and Okard, mother. Trachol is connected to Lukes Claough her father, Besul. Ren. Rengulbai is then an ulechell member of Lukes Clan, and Appellant is a third-generation ulechell member of Lukes Clan. Rengulbai; Baudista, Rengulbai’s son; and one of Besul’s sons are buried at Babellukes, a different Lukes Clan property.
[ 5] Rengulbai held ttle R Ruluked, as did Appellant’s brother, Kazumoto Rengulbai (“Kazumoto”), until his removal for failing to carry out his basic traditional obligation of paying hinglosch. Ebil Rulukeuluked Kyarii Mellil appointed Appellee to replace Kazumoto as Ruluked. On October 13, 2011, the Melekeok State Legislature adopted a Resolution to approve Appellee’s appointment and his admission into the Melekeok State Legislature through his Ruluked title.
[ 6] One of Trachol’s niece’s and Aitaro have previously held the Ebil Ruluked title. Aitaro held the title until October 25, 2017, when she was replaced by Naomi Ueki.STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ 7] This Cous previously andy and succinctly explained the appellate review standards as follows:
A trial judge decides issues that come in three forms, andcision on each type of issue requires a separate standard oard of review on appeal: there are conclusions of law, findings of fact, and matters of discretion. Matters of law we decide de novo. We review findings of fact for clear error. Exercises of discretion are reviewed for abuse of that discretion.
Kiuluul v. Elilai Clan, 2017 Palau 14 4 (internal citations omitted).
[ 8] is appeal, the issues raes raised by Appellant regard the Trial Division’s declining to determine whether 1) Appellants are senior strong members of Lukes Clan and 2) the status of Appel8217;s membership in Lukes ukes Clan.[3] “‘[A] decision by a Trial Division whether to intervene in a customary matter and issue a declaratory judgment . . . is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Trial Division and cannot be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.’” Id. at 6 (quoting Filibert v. Ngirmang, 8 ROP Intrm. 273, 276 (2001)). The issues on appeal here, therefore, involve the Trial Division’s exercise of discretion, and the question on appeal is whether the Trial Division abused its discretion. “Under the abuse of discretion standard, a Trial Division’s decision will not be overturned on appeal unless the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable or because it stemmed from an improper motive.” W. Caroline Trading Co. v. Kinney, 18 ROP 70, 71 (2011) (citing Ngoriakl v. Gulibert, 16 ROP 105, 107 (2008)).
[ 9] “‘We mayrm oirm or reverse a decision of the Trial Division for any reason apparent in the record.’” Galo v. Bank of Hawa>, 2019 Palau 1 8 (quoting Rengiil v. Ongos, 22 ROP 48, 50 (2015)).DISCUSSION
[ 10] Appellawo questions on s on appeal follow:1. Did the lower court commit a reversible error when it decided that it is not necessary for the court to dene whether or not Appellants are strong senior members of L of Lukes Clan because Appellee Singenari Azuma was bearing the title Ruluked and did not need permission from Appellants to enter the odesongel [stone burial platform] of Lukes Clan to bury the remains of his family members[?]
2. Did the lower court commit a reversible error when [it] found that Appellees are members of Lukes Clan and did not specify the status of Appellees’ membership in Lukes Clan[?]
Opening Br. iii.
[ 11]ifically, Appellants args argue that the Trial Division erred in not declaring whether Appellants are senior strong members of Lukes Clan and in “ma[king] no findings as to the status ofllee . . . and his relativeatives in Lukes Clan[,] whether they are ochell, ulechell, adopted or drifted members of Lukes Clan.” Id. at 2.
[ 12] Appellant brought suit for trespass only. The Trial Division determined that Appellee did not need permission to be on the land Lukes, i.e., he was not trespassing, basing its conclusion on the finding Appellant and Aitaro were nere not the Ruluked and Ebil Ruluked titleholders when Appellee entered Lukes, and thus could not prevent or have a say in Appellee’s entrance on the land. Because Appellant neither appeals the Trial Division’s determination that he does not hold the Ruluked title nor its determination regarding the trespass action, he cannot now seek review of remedies sought but not granted in the trespass matter. Because the Trial Division concluded that there was no trespass, Appellant is not entitled to any remedies for that cause of action, including the two that he appeals. On this basis, we affirm the Trial Division’s decision and judgment.
[ 13] Even ifere to review thew the two questions brought on appeal, we would affirm the Trial Division’s determination not to address them. These questions are reviewr abuse of discretion. The Trial Division determined that &hat “it [was] not necessary for the Court to determine whether or not Plaintiffs are strong senior members of the Clan” because the Trial Division had already determined that all parties were members of Lukes Clan, Appellant and Aitaro did not hold the chief titles, and Appellee did not need Appellant’s or Aitaro’s permission to enter clan land and bury his relatives’ remains. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 14. It also concluded that, “[f]or the same reason, the Court need not address [Appellee’s] assertion that he and his relatives are the strongest members of Lukes Clan.” Id. Answers to the questions on appeal were not essential or even necessary to the Trial Division’s trespass analysis and subsequent determination. As such, the Trial Division’s decision not to address the issues was not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable [nor did] it stem[] from an improper motive.” W. Caroline Trading Co., 18 ROP at 71. It is completely reasonable for the Trial Division to have decided not to address issues not related to the cause of action before it. For this reason, were we to find it necessary to address the questions brought by the Appellant on appeal, we would nonetheless affirm the Trial Division’s decision.CONCLUSION
[ 14] The Cou>AFFIRMS the> the Trial Division’s decision and judgment for the reasons stated herein.[1]Esperanza v. City of New York, 325 F. Supp. 2d 288, 294 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotations and citiations omitted); see also Melimarang v. Debesol, 7 ROP Intrm. 263, 264 (Tr. Div. 1998) (dismissing John Doe defendants because “the presence of ‘John Doe’ defendants is, at best, surplusage”); ROP R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties”). As such, claims against the unnamed defendants should have been dismissed or removed at the trial level. Because they were not, this Court dismisses and removes them now. There is, thus, only one appellee in this matter: Singenari Azuma.[2] The parties did not request oral argument in this appeal. No party having requested oral argument, the appeal is submitted on the briefs. See ROP R. App. P. 34(a).
[3] Appellants raise an additional question in their reply brief, namely, “Did the [Trial Division erroneously find that the] expert witnesses agree[d] that adoption of a child plus contributions, work, and services can elevate the adopted to achieve more strength in a clan than ulechell member[s] of the same clan[?]” Reply iii. Because this question was not raised in Appellants’ opening brief, except as an argument in support of its positions regarding the two questions on appeal, the issue is deemed waived. See Anderson v. Kim, 2018 Palau 23 5 (“The reply brief is not the appropriate forum for an appellant to make her initial arguments. Rather, an appellant’s initial arguments should appear in her opening brief.”).
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pw/cases/PWSC/2019/12.html
