8 FSM Intrm. 574-576

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as Muritok v. William ,

8 FSM Intrm. 574 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998)

[8 FSM Intrm. 574]

APOLONIA MURITOK et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SANFI WILLIAM et al.,

Defendants.

CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 104-86

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Keske S. Marar

Associate Justice

Decided: July 20, 1998

Amended: July 23, 1998

[8 FSM Intrm. 575]

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor

P.O. Box 123

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Defendants: Frank Casiano, trial counselor

Micronesian Legal Services Corporation

P.O. Box D

Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Property

When a traditional and customary settlement provides a life estate in property, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs upon the life estate's owner's demise. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Property

A person may only transfer such title to land as that person lawfully possesses. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Property

If the seller had no authority to sell property, plainly, the buyer acquired no title to the property. Mere possession is not probative of title, because one in possession acquires no better title than his seller. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

Property

A party who purchased the land from the life estate owner only purchased a life estate and upon the seller's death has no further title or interest in the land. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

KESKE S. MARAR, Associate Justice:

This case comes before the Court for Final Judgment and Order after being submitted on written briefs of the parties.

Statement of the Case

The complaint filed by Plaintiff seeks to recover a parcel of land located in Sapeta Village in Fefan Municipality, Chuuk State, which Defendant claims to have purchased from one Roke Posisom, deceased. The purchase price of $5,000.00 is not disputed. Plaintiff's evidence establishes a chain of title resting in the Plaintiff to the present day. Defendant does not contest this chain of title prior to the time he contends that title passed from Plaintiff's father to Roke Posisom. Whether clear title as would give Roke Posisom the right to sell the land to Defendant, actually passed from Plaintiff's

[8 FSM Intrm. 576]

father to Roke Posisom, is the central issue in this case.

Findings of Fact

Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that a dispute between her father, Fabian Sot, and Roke Posisom was the subject of a traditional and customary settlement which provided that Roke Posisom would have a life estate in the land and upon his demise, clear title to the land would revert to Fabian Sot or his heirs. The Defendant offered no direct evidence to dispute the terms or the existence of this agreement.

Therefore, the Court must necessarily conclude that the restrictive use agreement existed in fact and that under the terms of the agreement, Roke Posisom had only a life estate in the land in question and upon his demise, the clear title to the land reverts to the Plaintiff, and heirs of Fabian Sot.

Conclusions of Law

It is cardinal rule of law that a person may only transfer such title to land as that person lawfully possesses. This rule was stated as far back as 1873, by the US Supreme Court in Deitsch v. Wiggins, 82 U.S. (Wall.) 539, 546-47, 21 L. Ed. 228, 229 (1873) that if the seller had no authority to sell property, plainly, the buyer "had acquired no title" to the property. And in American Int'l Pictures, Inc. v. Foreman, 576 F.2d 661, 665 (5th Cir. 1978) the Court said: "Mere possession is not probative of title, because one in possession acquires no better title than his seller."

The Court concludes that the Defendant purchased only a life estate from Roke Posisom, which is the only interest Roke Posisom held in the land. Upon the death of Roke Posisom, the Defendant had no further title or interest in the land.

Judgment

It is ordered, that Plaintiff and other heirs of Fabian Sot now hold title to the land free and clear of all claims of Defendant and his heirs.

Further ordered, that Defendant and all others claiming title to the land under him, are hereby restrained and forever enjoined from entering upon the said land and from interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession of the said land by Plaintiff and other heirs of Fabian Sot.

* * * *

The case comes before the Court for the purpose of amending the Judgment and Order entered in the case on the 20th day of July, 1998. The said order inadvertently failed to specifically identify the parcel of land in dispute, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the Judgment and Order of the Court entered on the 20th day of July, 1998 is hereby amended to include the description of the parcel of land in dispute as "Winikai/Esa."

* * * *


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA CHUUK STATE TRIAL DIVISION Cite as Muritok v. William , 8 FSM Intrm. 574 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998) [8 FSM Intrm. 574] APOLONIA MURITOK et al., Plaintiffs, vs. SANFI WILLIAM et al., Defendants. CSSC CIVIL ACTION NO. 104-86 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Keske S. Marar Associate Justice Decided: July 20, 1998 Amended: July 23, 1998 [8 FSM Intrm. 575] APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: Ben K. Enlet, trial counselor P.O. Box 123 Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 For the Defendants: Frank Casiano, trial counselor Micronesian Legal Services Corporation P.O. Box D Weno, Chuuk FM 96942 * * * * HEADNOTES Property When a traditional and customary settlement provides a life estate in property, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs upon the life estate's owner's demise. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Property A person may only transfer such title to land as that person lawfully possesses. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Property If the seller had no authority to sell property, plainly, the buyer acquired no title to the property. Mere possession is not probative of title, because one in possession acquires no better title than his seller. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). Property A party who purchased the land from the life estate owner only purchased a life estate and upon the seller's death has no further title or interest in the land. Muritok v. William, 8 FSM Intrm. 574, 576 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 1998). * * * * COURT'S OPINION KESKE S. MARAR, Associate Justice: This case comes before the Court for Final Judgment and Order after being submitted on written briefs of the parties. Statement of the Case The complaint filed by Plaintiff seeks to recover a parcel of land located in Sapeta Village in Fefan Municipality, Chuuk State, which Defendant claims to have purchased from one Roke Posisom, deceased. The purchase price of $5,000.00 is not disputed. Plaintiff's evidence establishes a chain of title resting in the Plaintiff to the present day. Defendant does not contest this chain of title prior to the time he contends that title passed from Plaintiff's father to Roke Posisom. Whether clear title as would give Roke Posisom the right to sell the land to Defendant, actually passed from Plaintiff's [8 FSM Intrm. 576] father to Roke Posisom, is the central issue in this case. Findings of Fact Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that a dispute between her father, Fabian Sot, and Roke Posisom was the subject of a traditional and customary settlement which provided that Roke Posisom would have a life estate in the land and upon his demise, clear title to the land would revert to Fabian Sot or his heirs. The Defendant offered no direct evidence to dispute the terms or the existence of this agreement. Therefore, the Court must necessarily conclude that the restrictive use agreement existed in fact and that under the terms of the agreement, Roke Posisom had only a life estate in the land in question and upon his demise, the clear title to the land reverts to the Plaintiff, and heirs of Fabian Sot. Conclusions of Law It is cardinal rule of law that a person may only transfer such title to land as that person lawfully possesses. This rule was stated as far back as 1873, by the US Supreme Court in Deitsch v. Wiggins, 82 U.S. (Wall.) 539, 546-47, 21 L. Ed. 228, 229 (1873) that if the seller had no authority to sell property, plainly, the buyer "had acquired no title" to the property. And in American Int'l Pictures, Inc. v. Foreman, 576 F.2d 661, 665 (5th Cir. 1978) the Court said: "Mere possession is not probative of title, because one in possession acquires no better title than his seller." The Court concludes that the Defendant purchased only a life estate from Roke Posisom, which is the only interest Roke Posisom held in the land. Upon the death of Roke Posisom, the Defendant had no further title or interest in the land. Judgment It is ordered, that Plaintiff and other heirs of Fabian Sot now hold title to the land free and clear of all claims of Defendant and his heirs. Further ordered, that Defendant and all others claiming title to the land under him, are hereby restrained and forever enjoined from entering upon the said land and from interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession of the said land by Plaintiff and other heirs of Fabian Sot. * * * * The case comes before the Court for the purpose of amending the Judgment and Order entered in the case on the 20th day of July, 1998. The said order inadvertently failed to specifically identify the parcel of land in dispute, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the Judgment and Order of the Court entered on the 20th day of July, 1998 is hereby amended to include the description of the parcel of land in dispute as "Winikai/Esa." * * * *