In the matter of the Estate of Lingati(1985)

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL. 1

[1 P. S. Ct. R 319]

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

DURUKO LINGATI, a/k/a ROSIDA ARDOS,

Deceased

JEREMIAH RUPELY,

Petitioner

PCA No. 156-85

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

December 12, 1985

Petitioner seeking an order of the Court naming petitioner, an adopted son of an intestate, as successor to the intestate, and being entitled to inherit parcels of land belonging to the intestate. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, held (1) that the petitioner and another person as adopted children of the intestate are members of the first class of successors to the intestate; and (2) that the Land Commission has the authority and responsibility to determine successors in interest to an intestate's homestead under S.L. 2L-43-80.

1. Public Trust lands - Distribution - Governing Law

Where a certificate of compliance is issued evidencing a homesteader's compliance with homestead permit requirements prior to November 12, 1980, registration of his title will be governed by 67 TTC 117, and by S.L. 2L-43-80 where the certificate is issued on that date or thereafter.

2. Statutes - Construction

The intent of the legislature in enacting Public Law 4L-52 was to give the authority and responsibility to determine and register titles specifically to the Land Commission.

3. Statutes - Construction

Where in section 119(a) of Chapter 3 of title 67 of the Trust Territory Code the legislature mandates that "upon the death of a decedent, the land commission shall conduct a hearing ...within sixty days after being requested to do so", and also in section 119(b) thereof ft is provided that "The land commission shall make a finding ...within thirty days after

[1 P. S. Ct. R 320]

the conclusion of such hearing", the statutory construction of section 119 does not give the Land Commission discretion with respect to the time to conduct hearing and make findings, because the use of the word "shall" requires or commands the commission to act within the time frame.

4. Statutes - Construction

To the extent that a provision of an earlier statute is in conflict with a later statute on the same subject the later statute prevails.

5. Statutes - Construction

Where state law violates the provisions of section (a) through (h) of the enabling Secretarial Order 2969 which imposed limitations on the enactment of laws by district legislatures for the protection of existing leases and land use and occupancy agreements previously entered into by the central or district governments of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, their agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions, the intent of the Secretarial Order shall govern.

6. Public Trust Land - Homestead - Intestacy - Succession

The Land Commission has the authority and responsibility to determine the successors in interest to public land which has been homesteaded (S.L. 2L-43-80, s.12)

7. Domestic Relations - Intestacy - Succession - Adopted Child

For the purpose of devolution of an intestate's property an adopted child is considered the child and descendant of the adoptive parents, and not of the natural parents. (D.L. 4L-155-78, s.6)

8. Domestic Relations - Intestacy - Succession - Rights of Adopted Children

The adopted children of an intestate are (with the natural children) members of the first class of successors to the intestate and the real and personal property of the intestate shall devolve in equal undivided shares to all members of the first class successors. (D.L.4L-155-78, s.3)

Counsel for Petitioner: Ander Norman Micronesian Legal Services Corp.

[1 P. S. Ct. R 321]

JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice

This matter comes on to be heard before me on September 23, 1985, in Kolonia, State of Pohnpei. There is no adverse claimant.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

From the evidence adduced at the hearing I find the following facts:

1. The parcel of land situated in Wapar, Madolenihmw Municipality, State of Pohnpei, more specifically identified as Parcel No. 017-E-13, (Tract T-71009 or H-211 j, shown on the Division of Lands and Survey Property Manuscript Sheet No. 151, was determined to be private land under 67 TTC 109, pursuant to which, determination of ownership was issued by the Ponape District Land Commission on March 9, 1982, placing conditional fee simple ownership in Duruko Lingati.

2. The tract of land located in Meitik, Nett Municipality, State of Pohnpei, more specifically described as being Tract No. 72954, shown on Division of Lands and Survey Property Sketch No. 232 was determined to be public land with

[1 P. S. Ct. R 322]

conditional fee simple ownership in the Pohnpei State Public Lands Authority on July 27, 1984.

3. The following persons are listed on the Determination of Ownership as "rightful designees" to T-72954.

a. Bernardo Ardos

b. Nobuko Paul

c. Konsepsion Hairens

d. Rosida Ardos

e. Tunado Ardos

4. Rosida Ardos, is also known as Duruko Lingati, one of the named designees in respect of T-72954.

5. Duruko Lingati died on June 27, 1982, intestate.

6. Decedent is survived by Jeremiah Rupeley and Pedra John, both children by adoption. There is no natural issue.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The petitioner brings this matter, seeking an order of this Court to name him the successor of Duruko Lingati to the parcels of land described above.

It appears that the relief sought in this matter is before this Court at first instance. Being so, this Court will ordinarily ascertain

[1 P. S. Ct. R 323]

the following legal questions before it proceeds to touch upon the merits of the case.

First, this Court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter. There appears what I might call, some legal disagreement or confusion with respect to the intent of the statute giving the land commission the authority and responsibility to act as found in 67 TTC 119. It seems that the confusion is the result of the failure of the Chief, Lands and Survey, to promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 119(c) supra., to implement the provisions of the section, and partly because of the transfer of functions and the transitional period following the return of public lands to the farmer Trust Territory districts under the United States Department of Interior Secretarial Order 2969. It is therefore important that we research the law to determine whose function it is to rule on the relief being sought and what statute should guide such ruling. To do so, we look at the nature of relief sought and the facts supporting such intended relief.

As shown in the findings, there are two different land holdings before the Court. One pertains to land parcel No. p17-E-13 which is privately-owned land of the intestate, and the other pertains to

[1 P. S. Ct. R 324]

Tract No. 72954 which is public land.

With respect to the private property Parcel No. 017-E-13 this is land, title to which was obtained pursuant to 67 TTC 117, and 118. Title was placed in Duruko Lingati, and presently, of record, she remains the registered owner, notwithstanding her death. Statutory provision for the transfer and registration of title in intestate lands, titles to which were registered in accordance with 67 TTC 118 is governed by 67 TTC 119(2), which reads:

"...when an owner of any interest in land dies, without having devised the same by will, the person or persons entitled thereto may submit the owner's duplicate certificate, issued to the intestate and the senior commissioner or registrar shall cancel he intestate's owner's [sic] duplicate certificate and the original certificate of title and the land commission shall issue new certificates of title..

[1 ] Statutory provision for the transfer and registration of title in intestate lands, titles to which were issued and registered on and after November 12, 1980, is governed by the Public Trust Lands Distribution Act of 1980. (S.L. 2L-43-80). Therefore, since title was granted to Duruko Lingati prior to November 12,1980, 67 TTC 119 shall govern transfer of title to land parcel No. 017-E-13. It should be recognized, incidentally, that a right to the issuance of a deed of conveyance of any and all right, title and interest of the govern

[1 P. S. Ct. R 325]

ment in the property is created in the homesteader once a certificate of compliance is issued pursuant to.67 TTC 208. See 67 TTC 212 and 213. This is why Congress in its Standing Committee Report No. 199, dated February 25, 1974 (Judiciary and Governmental Operations) reporting on Senate Bill 260, which became Public Law 5-71, and now 67 TTC 212 and 213, stated in the second paragraph,

"...since the law does not provide for rights under certificate of compliance Courts in the Trust Territory have apparently assumed that permit rights continue until the deed of conveyance is issued. We do not believe. that this was the intention of the Congress. It is clear to us that new rights inure to the benefits of the, certificate holder upon his compliance with the terms of the permit and the issuance of a certificate in evidence thereof. These rights should not be subject to the severe limitations by Section 209 on imperfected permits."

Therefore, I hold even though it was not made definite when a "certificate of compliance" was issued to Duruko Lingati evidencing her compliance with the permit requirements, so long as that was made prior to November 12,1980, that registration of her title will be governed by 67 TTC 117 and 118, and the transfer of that title to her successor shall be governed by 67 TTC 119,

In determining heirship of an intestate, the statute provides,

"The Land Commission shall make a determination of the devisee or devisees or heir or heirs and the interest

[1 P. S. Ct. R 326]

or respective interests to which each are [sic] entitled in accordance with the following procedure.

Upon the death of a decedent, the Land Commission shall conduct a hearing at which evidence shall be heard for the purpose of determining the heir or heirs or devisee or devisees entitled to the, decedent's land. The Land Commission shall conduct such hearing within sixty days after being requested to do so by any person claiming to be heir or devisee.

The Land Commission shall make a finding as to the heir or heirs or devisee or devisees and the respective interest or interests to which each are [sic] entitled within thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing." Subsection 3(a) and (b) supra."

[2] It should be emphasized that when the Congress of Micronesia enacted Public Law 4L-52 (S.B. No. 146; S.D. 1, S.D. 2) In 1972 which amended 67 TTC 119, the original bill proposed to establish the law to require heirs or devisees of a deceased land owner "to petition the High Court for a finding, identifying the heirs or devisees entitled to the land and for the Senior Commissioner or Registrar to cancel the original certificate of title and the Owner's Duplicate Certificate and issue a new certificate of title in accordance with the High Court order." That bill was amended "to hasten and simplify the procedure for determining the identity of the heirs or devisees entitled to the land." The Senate amended the bill . so

[1 P. S. Ct. R 327]

that the Land Commission will hold a hearing and determine the identity of the rightful heirs and devisees."(Emphasis added) (See SCREP No. 116 (February 18, 1972, Resources and Development). There is no question , here but that the intent of the legislature was to give the authority and responsibility to determine and register titles specifically to the Land Commission.

[3] It is important to note that Chapter 3 of title 67 of the Trust Territory Code is enacted to govern the expedited registration of land holdings in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Sections 101 through 118 ,provide for the establishment of the Land Commission, and place upon it the responsibility for the determination of land ownerships and the registration therefor. After ownership has been determined and registered (Sections 117 and 118),

Section 119 is added to govern the determination and registration.

of transfer and encumbrances of such lands. To that end, the legislature mandates in 119(a)

"Upon the death of a decedent, the land commission shall conduct a hearing... within sixty days after being requested to do so..." (emphasis added)

Again in 119(b)

. The land commission shall make a finding ...within thirty

[1 P. S. Ct. R 328]

days after the conclusion of such hearing." (emphasis added)

The statutory construction of Section 119 (supra) does not give the Land Commission discretion with respect to the time to conduct hearing and make findings. The use of the word "shall" requires or commands the Commission to act within the time frame.

United States Department of Interior Secretarial Order No. 2969 which was issued on December 28, 1974, to implement the United States Policy Statement of November 4, 1983, to return public lands to the control and management of the Micronesian people in the districts, empowers each district legislature to enact laws providing for the exercise of eminent domain and "to establish adjudicatory bodies.., for settlement of claims to title or rights in the lands transferred..." Section 1, supra, (emphasis added)

Under that authority, the Ponape State Legislature enacted S.L. 2L-43-80 to govern the distribution of public lands which were homesteaded and yet to be conveyed by the Trust Territory High Commissioner to the homesteader, at the time of the return of public lands, and to establish the procedure for the transfer of such lands. Following November 12,1980, to the extent that a provision of Title 67 Sections 201 to 213 is in conflict with S.L. 2L-43-80, I

[1 P. S. Ct. R 329]

think the latter prevails.

I must caution however, that while Section 4 of Order 2969 authorized the High Commissioner to transfer and convey title, rights and interest of the Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to each district legal entity, Section 6 imposed limitations, preventing the High Commissioner from conveying those rights until the district legislatures had enacted laws, satisfactory to the High Commissioner providing for various conditions, one of which reads,

"compliance with all provisions of existing leases and land use and occupancy agreements previously entered into by the central or district Governments of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, their agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions."

[4-5] Hence, where S.L. 2L-43-80 violates the conditions of Secretarial Order 2969 Section 6, (a) through (h), the intent of the Order shall govern.

S.L. 2L-43-80 was enacted to govern the distribution of public lands held in trust for the people of the State of Pohnpei to beneficiaries of that trust who had entered upon, developed and possessed such lands for agricultural purposes pursuant to leasehold or other use agreements issued for that purpose by the

[1 P. S. Ct. R 330]

Government of Japan or the Trust Territory Government. While not specifically stated, S.L. 2L-43-80 is an adoption of the Trust Territory homestead law contained in Title 67, Sections 201 through 213 of the Trust Territory Code, with revisions to meet particular changes created by the transfer of functions and responsibilities over public lands to the former Trust Territory districts. There is no conflict in the provisions of S.L. 2L-43-80 and 67 TTC 119.

Section 119 remains effective and consequently is the rule of law in determining re-registration of title to parcel No. 017-E-13.

[6] With respect to Tract No. 72954. As noted above, Tract No. 72954 is public land which had been homesteaded. The July 27, 1984, determination of ownership names other persons in addition to Duruko Lingati (Rosida Ardos) as rightful designees. The procedure in the application and designation of successor in interest and transfer of title in such land holding is governed by S.L. 2L-43-80. Section 12 of S.L. 2L-43-80 gives the Land Commission the authority and responsibility to determine successors in interest to such land holding. The statute provides certain ministerial services to be performed by the Public Lands Authority and the

[1 P. S. Ct. R 331]

Land Commission, which are prerequisite to the transfer of title, such as the inspection for compliance of the homestead development standard, etc. Clearly, it is the intent of the legislature that these requirements are met, that the duty to determine eligibility be performed by the executive branch. This Court will not disturb those executive functions.

Second, is the statutory rule on the disposition the property of intestates. That is, what was the statutory provision on intestacy at the time of the death of Duruko Lingati on January 27,1982? The question is governed by the Intestate Act of 1977, D.L. No. 4-155-78. The Act, which took effect by legislative override on September 20, 1978, established classes of intestate succession as follows:

"1) To the children of the intestate;

2) If there be none, to the parents of the intestate;

3) If there be none, to the grandparents of the intestate;

4) If there be none, to the great grandparents of the intestate;

5) And so forth, ad infinitum, in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Section 3, supra.

[7-8] Here, petitioner is an adopted son. An adopted child for the purpose of the act is considered as the child and descendant of

[1 P. S. Ct. R 332]

the adoptive parents, and not of the natural parents. Section 6, supra. Accordingly, petitioner and Pedra Ardos are members of the first class of successors to the intestate.

The real and personal property of an intestate shall devolve in equal, undivided shares to all members of the first class of successors. Section 3, supra. Pedra Ardos has however by sworn affidavit waived her right to the intestate.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the confusion of authority and responsibility has resulted in the delay of the transfer and reregistration of lands which have been registered under 67 TTC 118. It is hoped that hereafter, petitions of this nature will be processed more expeditiously directly by the Land Commission.

While I recognize the grant of authority and responsibility by 67 TTC 119, it is believed that no harm will be inflicted if this Court would proceed to adjudicate the matter before it, only to the extent of identifying rightful successor or heirs, but refer the function of registration to the Land Commission to perform. This is done merely to avoid further delay, and with specific instruction that new petitions of this nature which have not been filed with this Court are directed to the Land Commission which is lawfully authorized by

[1 P. S. Ct. R 333]

law to act on them.

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED,

1. The parcel of land situated, in Wapar Section, Madolenihmw Municipality, State of Pohnpei, described as Parcel No. 017 E-13 (Tract T-71009 or H-211), shown on the Division of Lands and Survey Property Manuscript Sheet No. 151, is the private property of Jeremiah Rupely, as successor of Deruko Lingati. The Land Commission shall register ownership in accordance with this judgment and 67 TTC 119.

2. That parcel of land situated in Meitik Section of Neff Municipality, Pohnpei State, described as Tract No. 72954, shown on Division of Lands and Survey Property Sketch No. 232 remains public land. Application for transfer of title by anyone claiming interest may be made pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. 1 [1 P. S. Ct. R 319] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DURUKO LINGATI, a/k/a ROSIDA ARDOS, Deceased JEREMIAH RUPELY, Petitioner PCA No. 156-85 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court December 12, 1985 Petitioner seeking an order of the Court naming petitioner, an adopted son of an intestate, as successor to the intestate, and being entitled to inherit parcels of land belonging to the intestate. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, held (1) that the petitioner and another person as adopted children of the intestate are members of the first class of successors to the intestate; and (2) that the Land Commission has the authority and responsibility to determine successors in interest to an intestate's homestead under S.L. 2L-43-80. 1. Public Trust lands - Distribution - Governing Law Where a certificate of compliance is issued evidencing a homesteader's compliance with homestead permit requirements prior to November 12, 1980, registration of his title will be governed by 67 TTC 117, and by S.L. 2L-43-80 where the certificate is issued on that date or thereafter. 2. Statutes - Construction The intent of the legislature in enacting Public Law 4L-52 was to give the authority and responsibility to determine and register titles specifically to the Land Commission. 3. Statutes - Construction Where in section 119(a) of Chapter 3 of title 67 of the Trust Territory Code the legislature mandates that "upon the death of a decedent, the land commission shall conduct a hearing ...within sixty days after being requested to do so", and also in section 119(b) thereof ft is provided that "The land commission shall make a finding ...within thirty days after [1 P. S. Ct. R 320] the conclusion of such hearing", the statutory construction of section 119 does not give the Land Commission discretion with respect to the time to conduct hearing and make findings, because the use of the word "shall" requires or commands the commission to act within the time frame. 4. Statutes - Construction To the extent that a provision of an earlier statute is in conflict with a later statute on the same subject the later statute prevails. 5. Statutes - Construction Where state law violates the provisions of section (a) through (h) of the enabling Secretarial Order 2969 which imposed limitations on the enactment of laws by district legislatures for the protection of existing leases and land use and occupancy agreements previously entered into by the central or district governments of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, their agencies, instrumentalities or political subdivisions, the intent of the Secretarial Order shall govern. 6. Public Trust Land - Homestead - Intestacy - Succession The Land Commission has the authority and responsibility to determine the successors in interest to public land which has been homesteaded (S.L. 2L-43-80, s.12) 7. Domestic Relations - Intestacy - Succession - Adopted Child For the purpose of devolution of an intestate's property an adopted child is considered the child and descendant of the adoptive parents, and not of the natural parents. (D.L. 4L-155-78, s.6) 8. Domestic Relations - Intestacy - Succession - Rights of Adopted Children The adopted children of an intestate are (with the natural children) members of the first class of successors to the intestate and the real and personal property of the intestate shall devolve in equal undivided shares to all members of the first class successors. (D.L.4L-155-78, s.3) Counsel for Petitioner: Ander Norman Micronesian Legal Services Corp. [1 P. S. Ct. R 321] JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice This matter comes on to be heard before me on September 23, 1985, in Kolonia, State of Pohnpei. There is no adverse claimant. FINDINGS OF FACTS From the evidence adduced at the hearing I find the following facts: 1. The parcel of land situated in Wapar, Madolenihmw Municipality, State of Pohnpei, more specifically identified as Parcel No. 017-E-13, (Tract T-71009 or H-211 j, shown on the Division of Lands and Survey Property Manuscript Sheet No. 151, was determined to be private land under 67 TTC 109, pursuant to which, determination of ownership was issued by the Ponape District Land Commission on March 9, 1982, placing conditional fee simple ownership in Duruko Lingati. 2. The tract of land located in Meitik, Nett Municipality, State of Pohnpei, more specifically described as being Tract No. 72954, shown on Division of Lands and Survey Property Sketch No. 232 was determined to be public land with [1 P. S. Ct. R 322] conditional fee simple ownership in the Pohnpei State Public Lands Authority on July 27, 1984. 3. The following persons are listed on the Determination of Ownership as "rightful designees" to T-72954. a. Bernardo Ardos b. Nobuko Paul c. Konsepsion Hairens d. Rosida Ardos e. Tunado Ardos 4. Rosida Ardos, is also known as Duruko Lingati, one of the named designees in respect of T-72954. 5. Duruko Lingati died on June 27, 1982, intestate. 6. Decedent is survived by Jeremiah Rupeley and Pedra John, both children by adoption. There is no natural issue. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The petitioner brings this matter, seeking an order of this Court to name him the successor of Duruko Lingati to the parcels of land described above. It appears that the relief sought in this matter is before this Court at first instance. Being so, this Court will ordinarily ascertain [1 P. S. Ct. R 323] the following legal questions before it proceeds to touch upon the merits of the case. First, this Court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter. There appears what I might call, some legal disagreement or confusion with respect to the intent of the statute giving the land commission the authority and responsibility to act as found in 67 TTC 119. It seems that the confusion is the result of the failure of the Chief, Lands and Survey, to promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 119(c) supra., to implement the provisions of the section, and partly because of the transfer of functions and the transitional period following the return of public lands to the farmer Trust Territory districts under the United States Department of Interior Secretarial Order 2969. It is therefore important that we research the law to determine whose function it is to rule on the relief being sought and what statute should guide such ruling. To do so, we look at the nature of relief sought and the facts supporting such intended relief. As shown in the findings, there are two different land holdings before the Court. One pertains to land parcel No. p17-E-13 which is privately-owned land of the intestate, and the other pertains to [1 P. S. Ct. R 324] Tract No. 72954 which is public land. With respect to the private property Parcel No. 017-E-13 this is land, title to which was obtained pursuant to 67 TTC 117, and 118. Title was placed in Duruko Lingati, and presently, of record, she remains the registered owner, notwithstanding her death. Statutory provision for the transfer and registration of title in intestate lands, titles to which were registered in accordance with 67 TTC 118 is governed by 67 TTC 119(2), which reads: "...when an owner of any interest in land dies, without having devised the same by will, the person or persons entitled thereto may submit the owner's duplicate certificate, issued to the intestate and the senior commissioner or registrar shall cancel he intestate's owner's [sic] duplicate certificate and the original certificate of title and the land commission shall issue new certificates of title.. [1 ] Statutory provision for the transfer and registration of title in intestate lands, titles to which were issued and registered on and after November 12, 1980, is governed by the Public Trust Lands Distribution Act of 1980. (S.L. 2L-43-80). Therefore, since title was granted to Duruko Lingati prior to November 12,1980, 67 TTC 119 shall govern transfer of title to land parcel No. 017-E-13. It should be recognized, incidentally, that a right to the issuance of a deed of conveyance of any and all right, title and interest of the govern [1 P. S. Ct. R 325] ment in the property is created in the homesteader once a certificate of compliance is issued pursuant to.67 TTC 208. See 67 TTC 212 and 213. This is why Congress in its Standing Committee Report No. 199, dated February 25, 1974 (Judiciary and Governmental Operations) reporting on Senate Bill 260, which became Public Law 5-71, and now 67 TTC 212 and 213, stated in the second paragraph, "...since the law does not provide for rights under certificate of compliance Courts in the Trust Territory have apparently assumed that permit rights continue until the deed of conveyance is issued. We do not believe. that this was the intention of the Congress. It is clear to us that new rights inure to the benefits of the, certificate holder upon his compliance with the terms of the permit and the issuance of a certificate in evidence thereof. These rights should not be subject to the severe limitations by Section 209 on imperfected permits." Therefore, I hold even though it was not made definite when a "certificate of compliance" was issued to Duruko Lingati evidencing her compliance with the permit requirements, so long as that was made prior to November 12,1980, that registration of her title will be governed by 67 TTC 117 and 118, and the transfer of that title to her successor shall be governed by 67 TTC 119, In determining heirship of an intestate, the statute provides, "The Land Commission shall make a determination of the devisee or devisees or heir or heirs and the interest [1 P. S. Ct. R 326] or respective interests to which each are [sic] entitled in accordance with the following procedure. Upon the death of a decedent, the Land Commission shall conduct a hearing at which evidence shall be heard for the purpose of determining the heir or heirs or devisee or devisees entitled to the, decedent's land. The Land Commission shall conduct such hearing within sixty days after being requested to do so by any person claiming to be heir or devisee. The Land Commission shall make a finding as to the heir or heirs or devisee or devisees and the respective interest or interests to which each are [sic] entitled within thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing." Subsection 3(a) and (b) supra." [2] It should be emphasized that when the Congress of Micronesia enacted Public Law 4L-52 (S.B. No. 146; S.D. 1, S.D. 2) In 1972 which amended 67 TTC 119, the original bill proposed to establish the law to require heirs or devisees of a deceased land owner "to petition the High Court for a finding, identifying the heirs or devisees entitled to the land and for the Senior Commissioner or Registrar to cancel the original certificate of title and the Owner's Duplicate Certificate and issue a new certificate of title in accordance with the High Court order." That bill was amended "to hasten and simplify the procedure for determining the identity of the heirs or devisees entitled to the land." The Senate amended the bill . so [1 P. S. Ct. R 327] that the Land Commission will hold a hearing and determine the identity of the rightful heirs and devisees."(Emphasis added) (See SCREP No. 116 (February 18, 1972, Resources and Development). There is no question , here but that the intent of the legislature was to give the authority and responsibility to determine and register titles specifically to the Land Commission. [3] It is important to note that Chapter 3 of title 67 of the Trust Territory Code is enacted to govern the expedited registration of land holdings in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Sections 101 through 118 ,provide for the establishment of the Land Commission, and place upon it the responsibility for the determination of land ownerships and the registration therefor. After ownership has been determined and registered (Sections 117 and 118), Section 119 is added to govern the determination and registration. of transfer and encumbrances of such lands. To that end, the legislature mandates in 119(a) "Upon the death of a decedent, the land commission shall conduct a hearing... within sixty days after being requested to do so..." (emphasis added) Again in 119(b) . The land commission shall make a finding ...within thirty [1 P. S. Ct. R 328] days after the conclusion of such hearing." (emphasis added) The statutory construction of Section 119 (supra) does not give the Land Commission discretion with respect to the time to conduct hearing and make findings. The use of the word "shall" requires or commands the Commission to act within the time frame. United States Department of Interior Secretarial Order No. 2969 which was issued on December 28, 1974, to implement the United States Policy Statement of November 4, 1983, to return public lands to the control and management of the Micronesian people in the districts, empowers each district legislature to enact laws providing for the exercise of eminent domain and "to establish adjudicatory bodies.., for settlement of claims to title or rights in the lands transferred..." Section 1, supra, (emphasis added) Under that authority, the Ponape State Legislature enacted S.L. 2L-43-80 to govern the distribution of public lands which were homesteaded and yet to be conveyed by the Trust Territory High Commissioner to the homesteader, at the time of the return of public lands, and to establish the procedure for the transfer of such lands. Following November 12,1980, to the extent that a provision of Title 67 Sections 201 to 213 is in conflict with S.L. 2L-43-80, I [1 P. S. Ct. R 329] think the latter prevails. I must caution however, that while Section 4 of Order 2969 authorized the High Commissioner to transfer and convey title, rights and interest of the Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to each district legal entity, Section 6 imposed limitations, preventing the High Commissioner from conveying those rights until the district legislatures had enacted laws, satisfactory to the High Commissioner providing for various conditions, one of which reads, "compliance with all provisions of existing leases and land use and occupancy agreements previously entered into by the central or district Governments of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, their agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions." [4-5] Hence, where S.L. 2L-43-80 violates the conditions of Secretarial Order 2969 Section 6, (a) through (h), the intent of the Order shall govern. S.L. 2L-43-80 was enacted to govern the distribution of public lands held in trust for the people of the State of Pohnpei to beneficiaries of that trust who had entered upon, developed and possessed such lands for agricultural purposes pursuant to leasehold or other use agreements issued for that purpose by the [1 P. S. Ct. R 330] Government of Japan or the Trust Territory Government. While not specifically stated, S.L. 2L-43-80 is an adoption of the Trust Territory homestead law contained in Title 67, Sections 201 through 213 of the Trust Territory Code, with revisions to meet particular changes created by the transfer of functions and responsibilities over public lands to the former Trust Territory districts. There is no conflict in the provisions of S.L. 2L-43-80 and 67 TTC 119. Section 119 remains effective and consequently is the rule of law in determining re-registration of title to parcel No. 017-E-13. [6] With respect to Tract No. 72954. As noted above, Tract No. 72954 is public land which had been homesteaded. The July 27, 1984, determination of ownership names other persons in addition to Duruko Lingati (Rosida Ardos) as rightful designees. The procedure in the application and designation of successor in interest and transfer of title in such land holding is governed by S.L. 2L-43-80. Section 12 of S.L. 2L-43-80 gives the Land Commission the authority and responsibility to determine successors in interest to such land holding. The statute provides certain ministerial services to be performed by the Public Lands Authority and the [1 P. S. Ct. R 331] Land Commission, which are prerequisite to the transfer of title, such as the inspection for compliance of the homestead development standard, etc. Clearly, it is the intent of the legislature that these requirements are met, that the duty to determine eligibility be performed by the executive branch. This Court will not disturb those executive functions. Second, is the statutory rule on the disposition the property of intestates. That is, what was the statutory provision on intestacy at the time of the death of Duruko Lingati on January 27,1982? The question is governed by the Intestate Act of 1977, D.L. No. 4-155-78. The Act, which took effect by legislative override on September 20, 1978, established classes of intestate succession as follows: "1) To the children of the intestate; 2) If there be none, to the parents of the intestate; 3) If there be none, to the grandparents of the intestate; 4) If there be none, to the great grandparents of the intestate; 5) And so forth, ad infinitum, in accordance with the provisions of this Act." Section 3, supra. [7-8] Here, petitioner is an adopted son. An adopted child for the purpose of the act is considered as the child and descendant of [1 P. S. Ct. R 332] the adoptive parents, and not of the natural parents. Section 6, supra. Accordingly, petitioner and Pedra Ardos are members of the first class of successors to the intestate. The real and personal property of an intestate shall devolve in equal, undivided shares to all members of the first class of successors. Section 3, supra. Pedra Ardos has however by sworn affidavit waived her right to the intestate. Finally, it is unfortunate that the confusion of authority and responsibility has resulted in the delay of the transfer and reregistration of lands which have been registered under 67 TTC 118. It is hoped that hereafter, petitions of this nature will be processed more expeditiously directly by the Land Commission. While I recognize the grant of authority and responsibility by 67 TTC 119, it is believed that no harm will be inflicted if this Court would proceed to adjudicate the matter before it, only to the extent of identifying rightful successor or heirs, but refer the function of registration to the Land Commission to perform. This is done merely to avoid further delay, and with specific instruction that new petitions of this nature which have not been filed with this Court are directed to the Land Commission which is lawfully authorized by [1 P. S. Ct. R 333] law to act on them. JUDGMENT It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, 1. The parcel of land situated, in Wapar Section, Madolenihmw Municipality, State of Pohnpei, described as Parcel No. 017 E-13 (Tract T-71009 or H-211), shown on the Division of Lands and Survey Property Manuscript Sheet No. 151, is the private property of Jeremiah Rupely, as successor of Deruko Lingati. The Land Commission shall register ownership in accordance with this judgment and 67 TTC 119. 2. That parcel of land situated in Meitik Section of Neff Municipality, Pohnpei State, described as Tract No. 72954, shown on Division of Lands and Survey Property Sketch No. 232 remains public land. Application for transfer of title by anyone claiming interest may be made pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80.