8 FSM Intrm. 567-569

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Choisa v. Osia ,

8 FSM Intrm. 567 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998)

[8 FSM Intrm. 567]

SAKIE LUCHU CHOISA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JUAN OSIA et al.,

Defendants,

vs.

KACHUO WALTER et al.,

Intervenors.

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 161-95

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO LAND COMMISSION

Wanis R. Simina

Associate Justice

Decided: April 18, 1998

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor

P.O. Box 123

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants: Gideon Doone, trial counselor

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Intervenors: Frank Casiano, trial counselor

Micronesian Legal Services Corporation

P.O. Box D

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Administrative Law; Property ) Land Commission

When a court case containing a count for trespass and injunctive relief raises the issue of who holds title to the land in question, the case will be transferred to the Chuuk Land Commission for adjudication of the parties' claims to ownership pursuant to its administrative procedure. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 568 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

[8 FSM Intrm. 568]

Administrative Law; Property ) Land Commission

Administrative agencies in the form of Registration Teams and the Land Commission are created and an administrative procedure are provided for the purpose of determining the ownership of land and the registration thereof. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 568 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law ) Judicial Review

When an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief ordinarily must not only be sought initially from the appropriate administrative agency but such remedy usually must be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law ) Judicial Review

The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a wholesome one and an aid to the proper administration of justice. One of the important reasons, is to prevent the transfer to courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Administrative Law ) Judicial Review

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that no one is entitled to bring a land dispute to court until the Land Commission has been given a chance to decide the case because the Land Commission is the proper forum for the determination of land ownership. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice:

This case comes before the Court on motion of the Intervenors raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Trial Division in this case. The original complaint contains a count for trespass and injunctive relief over which there is no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction. However, in view of the conclusions reached herein, a decision of jurisdiction in this case is not necessary,

The underlying issue, and that issue which will determine the rights of all parties, is: "Who holds legal title to the land in question?"

Provisions for the determination of ownership of land and the registration thereof is provided for by Title 67 of the Trust Territory Code. Administrative agencies in the form of Registration Teams and the Land Commission are created and their powers and duties are defined for this purpose. In other words, Title 67 of the Trust Territory Code provides an administrative procedure to determine the issue of who owns the land in dispute in this case. There is no indication in the record of this case that the land in dispute has ever been brought to the attention of the Land Commission.

The Court finds that this case is due to be transferred to the Chuuk State Land Commission for the adjudication of the various claims of the parties and the determination of ownership pursuant to the administration procedure required by 67 TTC §§ 101-120.

The Court finds it appropriate to discuss the authorities at length so that the conclusion reached in this case may be fully explained and clearly understood for future reference.

In 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 41 the rule of law is stated as follows:

[8 FSM Intrm. 569]

Where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief ordinarily must not only be sought initially from the appropriate administrative agency but such remedy usually must be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts. . . . The rule which requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a long settled rule of judicial administration . . .

This rule means that both the Plaintiff and the Intervenor in this case must first file their claims of ownership with the Land Commission and follow the entire procedure required by Title 67 and the rules and regulations of the Land Commission.

Section 41, supra, explains further that: "The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a wholesome one and an aid to the proper administration of justice. One of the important reasons, is to prevent the transfer to courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies."

This is a simple rule and is intended to allow Public Administrative agencies such as the Chuuk State Land Commission to perform their responsibilities and duties required by the TT Code.

The rule is seen in 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 595 (1962) (footnotes omitted) as follows:

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. This doctrine is well established, is a cardinal principle of practically universal application and must be borne in mind by the courts . . . .

The rule says that no one is entitled to bring a land dispute to court until the Land Commission has been given a chance to decide the case because the rule will promote proper relationships between the Court and the Land Commission and is necessary for goodwill and convenience. There is a presumption that the Land Commission will decide issues of land ownership correctly and will not fail in the performance of its duty under the law.

This Court concludes that the Land Commission is the proper forum for the determination of ownership of the land in dispute and this case is due to be transferred to that agency for such further action as is provided for by law.

It is so ordered.

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION Cite as Choisa v. Osia , 8 FSM Intrm. 567 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998) [8 FSM Intrm. 567] SAKIE LUCHU CHOISA, Plaintiff, vs. JUAN OSIA et al., Defendants, vs. KACHUO WALTER et al., Intervenors. CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 161-95 ORDER OF TRANSFER TO LAND COMMISSION Wanis R. Simina Associate Justice Decided: April 18, 1998 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor P.O. Box 123 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 For the Defendants: Gideon Doone, trial counselor Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 For the Intervenors: Frank Casiano, trial counselor Micronesian Legal Services Corporation P.O. Box D Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 * * * * HEADNOTES Administrative Law; Property ) Land Commission When a court case containing a count for trespass and injunctive relief raises the issue of who holds title to the land in question, the case will be transferred to the Chuuk Land Commission for adjudication of the parties' claims to ownership pursuant to its administrative procedure. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 568 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). [8 FSM Intrm. 568] Administrative Law; Property ) Land Commission Administrative agencies in the form of Registration Teams and the Land Commission are created and an administrative procedure are provided for the purpose of determining the ownership of land and the registration thereof. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 568 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Administrative Law ) Judicial Review When an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief ordinarily must not only be sought initially from the appropriate administrative agency but such remedy usually must be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Administrative Law ) Judicial Review The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a wholesome one and an aid to the proper administration of justice. One of the important reasons, is to prevent the transfer to courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Administrative Law ) Judicial Review The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that no one is entitled to bring a land dispute to court until the Land Commission has been given a chance to decide the case because the Land Commission is the proper forum for the determination of land ownership. Choisa v. Osia, 8 FSM Intrm. 567, 569 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). * * * * COURT'S OPINION WANIS R. SIMINA, Associate Justice: This case comes before the Court on motion of the Intervenors raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Trial Division in this case. The original complaint contains a count for trespass and injunctive relief over which there is no doubt that this Court has jurisdiction. However, in view of the conclusions reached herein, a decision of jurisdiction in this case is not necessary, The underlying issue, and that issue which will determine the rights of all parties, is: "Who holds legal title to the land in question?" Provisions for the determination of ownership of land and the registration thereof is provided for by Title 67 of the Trust Territory Code. Administrative agencies in the form of Registration Teams and the Land Commission are created and their powers and duties are defined for this purpose. In other words, Title 67 of the Trust Territory Code provides an administrative procedure to determine the issue of who owns the land in dispute in this case. There is no indication in the record of this case that the land in dispute has ever been brought to the attention of the Land Commission. The Court finds that this case is due to be transferred to the Chuuk State Land Commission for the adjudication of the various claims of the parties and the determination of ownership pursuant to the administration procedure required by 67 TTC §§ 101-120. The Court finds it appropriate to discuss the authorities at length so that the conclusion reached in this case may be fully explained and clearly understood for future reference. In 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 41 the rule of law is stated as follows: [8 FSM Intrm. 569] Where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief ordinarily must not only be sought initially from the appropriate administrative agency but such remedy usually must be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts. . . . The rule which requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a long settled rule of judicial administration . . . This rule means that both the Plaintiff and the Intervenor in this case must first file their claims of ownership with the Land Commission and follow the entire procedure required by Title 67 and the rules and regulations of the Land Commission. Section 41, supra, explains further that: "The rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a wholesome one and an aid to the proper administration of justice. One of the important reasons, is to prevent the transfer to courts of duties imposed by law on administrative agencies." This is a simple rule and is intended to allow Public Administrative agencies such as the Chuuk State Land Commission to perform their responsibilities and duties required by the TT Code. The rule is seen in 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 595 (1962) (footnotes omitted) as follows: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. This doctrine is well established, is a cardinal principle of practically universal application and must be borne in mind by the courts . . . . The rule says that no one is entitled to bring a land dispute to court until the Land Commission has been given a chance to decide the case because the rule will promote proper relationships between the Court and the Land Commission and is necessary for goodwill and convenience. There is a presumption that the Land Commission will decide issues of land ownership correctly and will not fail in the performance of its duty under the law. This Court concludes that the Land Commission is the proper forum for the determination of ownership of the land in dispute and this case is due to be transferred to that agency for such further action as is provided for by law. It is so ordered. * * * *