|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Palau |
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU
APPELLATE DIVISION
| NGERDELOLK HAMLET, Appellant, v. PELELIU STATE PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY, Appellee. |
Cite as: 2021 Palau 15
Civil Appeal No. 20-024
Appeal from LC/R 20-00003 through LC/R 20-00022
Decided: May 27, 2021
Counsel for Appellant Johnson Toribiong
Counsel for Appellee Mariano W. Carlos
BEFORE: OLDIAIS NGIRAIKELAU, Chief Justice
JOHN K. RECHUCHER, Associate Justice
GREGORY DOLIN, Associate Justice
Appeal from the Land Court, the Honorable Rose Mary Skebong, Acting Senior Judge, presiding.
OPINION[1]
PER CURIAM:
[ 1] is appeal, Appellant chat challenges the Land Court’s rejection of its ownership claim to 21 islets in the lagoon of Peleliu State. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the Court’s decision.BACKGROUND
[ 2] The partispute the ownerownership of 21 “tiny, broken and uninhabitable, [] mostly limestone,” Adjudication and Determination at 2 (Aug. 17, 2020), islets ld near several large rock islands of Peleliu State and depi depicted on the Bureau of Lands and Surveys (“BLS”) Worksheets No. 2020 R 01 through 03 as Lots R 847 through 866 and R 860-A (the “Islets”). In the Land Court proceedings, there were three claimants, including Ngerdelolk Hamlet (Appellant), Peleliu State Public Lands Authority (“PSPLA,” Appellee) and Well Lineage. The ownership of some of the surrounding larger islands has been previously determined and the ownership of one of those islands, Ngedebus Island, was determined in favor of Appellant, see Adjudication and Determination in Case No. LC/R 00-05 (June 28, 2001), but the ownership of the Islets was not adjudicated in these prior cases and remains unresolved.
[ 3] All tharties claimed ownd ownership of the Islets based on different legal theories. PSPLA argued that the land belongs to Peleliu State on the basis of the “history of public use by the people of Peleliu,” whereas Appellant argued that the Islets have been “Ngerdelolk village land since ancient times, and people requested permission for their use from the chiefs of Ngerdelolk, particularly Chief Obakeldelolk.” Adjudication and Determination at 3.[2] The Land Court expressly noted that all of the “claimants assert that these 21 islets never became public land and claim ownership based on a superior title theory.” Id. at 4.
[ 4] Followiscovery and a heaa hearing held on July 23, 2020, the Land Court, on August 17, 2020, issued its “Adjudication and Determin,” finding the Islets to be “public property under the administration of”#8221; PSPLA. Id. at 6. This timely appeal followed.STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ 5] We revie Land Court̵’s findings of fact for clear error, see Ebilklou Lineage v. Blesoch, 11 ROP 142, 144 (2004), and such “findings will not be side as long as they are supported by such relevant evidencidence that a reasonable trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion,” Etpison v. Tmetbab Clan, 14 ROP 39, 41 (2006). When reviewing the record, “this Court will refrain from substituting its own judgment of the credibility of the witnesses or the weight of the evidence.” Dmiu Clan v. Edaruchei Clan, 17 ROP 134, 136 (2010). If this Court determines that the evidence supports two permissible competing views, the Land Court’s decision in favor of one of these views cannot be clearly erroneous. See Airai State Pub. Lands Auth. v. Baules II, 2020 Palau 6 7.DISCUSSION
[ 6] On appeaerdelolk Hamlet mlet raises two issues. First, it argues that PSPLA lacks the legal capacity to claim and hold the lands in dispute. Second, Ngerdelolk Hamletges that the Land Court “abused its discretion by disy disregarding the testimony of Obakeldelolk Isao Singeo, and the other witnesses.” Opening Br. at 11. We address these contentions in turn.
[ 7] It is well settled thas this Court will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. See Sugiyama v. Han, 2020 16 38 (“No axiom of law is better settled than that a party who raises an issn issue for the first time on appeal will be deemed to have forfeited that issue.”) (quoting Kotaro v. Ngirchechol, 11 ROP 235, 237 (2004)). There are two exceptions to this general rule, which allow this Court to consider an issue first raised on appeal: “(1) ‘to prevent the denial of fundamental rights,’ and (2) ‘when the general welfare of the people is at stake.’” Rechucher v. Lomisang, 13 ROP 143, 149 (2006) (quoting Tell v. Rengiil, 4 ROP Intrm. 224, 226 (1994)). Appellant’s argument regarding PSPLA’s legal incapacity to claim and hold the Islets was never raised before the Land Court. We therefore will not consider the argument unless it fits one of the aforementioned exceptions. Because a dispute between two entities about ownership of land does not affect “the general welfare of the people,” id., and because losing a court case after having been afforded due process during litigation is not a “denial of fundamental rights,” id., we decline to address Appellant’s argument about PSPLA’s legal capacity to claim or hold the Islets.
[ 8] Turning to Apnt’s 17;s argument that the Land Court “abused its discretion by disregarding” what Appellant considers to be relevant testimony, Opening Br. at 11, having reviewed the record, we are not “left with a definite and firm conviction that an error has been made.” Sungino v. Ibuuch Clan, 2021 Palau 6 14 (quoting Koror State Pub. Lands Auth. v. Idid Clan, 2016 Palau 9 9).
[ 9] As atial matter, we disa disagree that the Land Court “disregard[ed]” the relevant testimony. To the contrary, the court considered the testimony of Apnt’s witnesses and discussed the testimony in its opis opinion. See Adjudication and Determination at 3-5. That the court found the testimony not to be credible, id. at 4-5, does not mean that the court failed to consider it.[3]
[ 10] Appellanerstandably disy disagrees with the Land Court’s view of the evidence. However, “[w]here there are several plausible interpretations of the evidence, the Land Court’s choiceeen them shall be affirmed rmed even if this Court might have arrived at a different result.” Eklbai Clan v. KSPLA, 22 ROP 139, 141 (2015). “It is not the appellate panel’s duty to reweigh the evidence, test the credibility of witnesses, or draw inferences from the evidence.” Children of Antonio Fritz v. Ibuuch Clan, 2021 Palau 7 4 (quoting Esuroi Clan v. Roman Tmetuchl Family Trust, 2019 Palau 31 12). Indeed, “an appeal that merely re-states the facts in the light most favorable to the appellant and contends that the Land Court weighed the evidence incorrectly borders on frivolous.” Ngiraked v. Koror State Pub. Lands Auth., 2016 Palau 1 8 (internal quotation marks omitted).
[ 11] When twoeting entities ties claim the same land in Land Court proceedings, the Land Court’s job is to choose the best claimant before it. See Andres v. Aimeliik State Pub. Lands Auth., 2020 Palau 18 11 (“[I]n a superior title case, the Land Court has no choice but to choose [the strongest claim] between the claimants who come forward.”) (quoting Eklbai Clan, 22 ROP at 146). In the present case the Land Court did exactly that, and we find no fault with its conclusions.CONCLUSION
[ 12] The Lanrt’s deterdetermination of ownership is AFFIRMED.
[1] Although Appellant requestel argument, we denied the request in our April 27, 2021 ord1 order and resolve this matter on the briefs pursuant to ROP R. App. P. 34(a).
[2] Well Lineage claimed that it owns eight of the islets as spoils of a war fought long ago between Ngemelis and “Ulong, its longtime enemy.” Adjudication and Determination at 3. The Land Court denied this claim, finding that although the story of war between these two clans “is a well-recited [one] . . . , the connection between the story and eight small islets now claimed is just not sustainable.” Id. at 5. Well Lineage chose not to seek review of the adverse determination of its claim and is not a party to the current appeal.
[3] The Land Court need not discuss all the evidence it relies on to support its decision. Rather, its decision need only “reveal an understanding analysis of the evidence, [and] a resolution of the material issues of ‘fact.’” Eklbai Clan v. Imeong, 13 ROP 102, 107 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, in the present case, the Land Court did discuss the relevant evidence.
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pw/cases/PWSC/2021/15.html
