P.Iriarte v. M.Anton(1986)

Appeal against the determination of ownership of land to the entered by the Pohnpei Land Commission in favor of appellee who after the death of owner had taken over and cared for the land as owner's heir in accordance with the German Land Code, but disregarding the effect of an apparently valid holographic will introduced by appellant. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, E. H. Santos, Chief Justice, set aside the determination and remanded the case to the Land Commission for further proceeding.

On appeal the Trial Division may at its discretion decide the matter solely on the record and the appeal documents, affirming, reversing or remanding the case to the lower court or Land Commission for further proceedings, or it may grant trial de novo within the Trial Division of the State Court. (S.L.2L-160-82, s. 50(a))

A holographic will, that is, a will in the hand writing of the testator, may be made without any witness, but the signature and all its material provisions must be in the handwriting of the testator and his handwriting must be proved by two witnesses. (Chapter 5-A, TT Cod@66 ed; P.L. 2-14 1961, s. 348)

adverse possession against each other in the absence of a showing of a clear, positive, and continued disclaimer and disavowal of title, and an assertion of an adverse right brought home to the true owner a sufficient length of time to bar him under the statute of limitations from asserting his rights.

To constitute an effective adverse possession, the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; it must be actual; it must be open and notorious, it must be exclusive, and it must be continuous. M any of these constituents is wanting the possession will not effect a bar of the legal title.

This appeal was taken by appellant Plorensia Iriarte against the Determination of Ownership entered by the Pohnpei Land Commission [hereinafter PLC] on February 17, 1984, in favor of Masaro Anton relating to the captioned tract of land. The Determination of the PLC was based on its finding that Masaro Anton, being the eldest son of the former Etison Anton, succeeded in title in accordance with article 4 of the German Land Code in effect on Pohnpei. The record certified by the Ponape Land Commission contains enough information to proceed on this appeal on the basis of the record and the appeal documents. On appeal the Trial Division may at its discretion decide the matter solely on the record

and the appeal documents, affirming, reversing or remanding the case to the lower court or Land Commission for further proceedings, or it may grant trial de novo within the Trial Division of the State Court. S. 50(a) of S.L. 2L-160-82, as amended.

The Appellant stated five grounds for her appeal, two of which grounds merit some discussion as basic to the appeal. The two grounds are, as styled in the Notice of Appeal:

(b) The Commission erred as a matter of law in determining Appellee is the oldest natural surviving son of Etison Anton, original owner of the land in dispute.

(e) The Commission erred as a matter of law in not accepting and considering as part of commission's record the documentary evidence [a written will by original land owner] which was introduced into evidence by the Appellant concerning the original land owner's intention on the disposition of said property in question after he died."

"1. The Land involved is an island named Imwin Dekeh Mwahu registered in the name of Etison Anton also known as Meninlas, the name Meninlas is the name well known to the Public.

3. After the death of Etison Anton his oldest natural son Masaro Anton took over and take [sic] care of the land as his heir... (see Exhibit 6, page 1.)

5. There is a paper that Plorensia Iriarte submitted and she considered it is a will for his [sic] evidence and stated that it was made by Etison Anton."

The team have reviewed the paper that claim [sic] to be a will and found out that the paper is a letter and is not a will, it is not completed to be considered as a will, the paper is not signed by two witnesses. [For a copy of this paper pur porting to be a will, See Exhibit 12]

Accordingly, the team do not accept the claim by Plorensia Iriarte and Arthur Anton because of the inheritance law of German Land Deed Sec. 4." (See Exhibit No. 6, page 3.)

First, whether Etison Anton died in 1968 without a will. If the answer is in the affirmative, and that Masaro Anton is the eldest son, then the Land Commission's Determination must stand

The Trust Territory Law relating to wills in effect in 1968 when Etison Anton died is found in Chapter 5-A of the TT Code, 1966 edition. [P.L. 2-14, Sept 2, 1966] Section 348 reads:

"Holographic Will. A Holographic will, that is, a will in the handwriting of the testator, may be made underthis Act without any witness, but the signature and all its material provisions must be in the handwriting of the testator and his handwriting must be proved by two witnesses." Compare this provision with 13 TTC 6, 1980 Edition.

The Land Commission needs to satisfy itself as to whether the document marked Exhibit 12 is really a will handwritten and signed by Etison Anton himself.

In order to do this, the law requires at least two witnesses to prove the signature and that all material provisions of Exhibit 12 are in the handwriting of Etison Anton.

The PLC need not dwell itself on the "adverse possession" doctrine as the parties are brothers and sisters, and the 20-year limitation beginning from the year Etison Anton died in 1968 has not yet ran out.

It is a general principle that members of a family may not acquire adverse possession against each other in the absence of a showing of a clear, positive, and continued disclaimer and disavowal of title, and an assertion of an adverse right brought home to the true owner a sufficient length of time to bar him under the statute of limitations from asserting his rights. 3 AM JUR 2d Adverse Possession, Sec. 147.

The Appellate Division of the Trust Territory High Court in "In the Matter of Determination of Ownership of Land ...Truk Trading Company v. Koro Paul, Civil Appeal No. 409 discussed the rulerelating to adverse possession, as the Court says:

"to constitute an effective adverse possession, the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; it must be actual; it must be open and notorious; it must be exclusive, and it must be continuous.

If any of these constituents is walling, the possession will not effect a bar of the legal title." Citing Castle Associates v. Schwartz, 63 AD 2d 481, 407 NYS 2d 717.

No. 027-D-06 [T-74278] re: Dekehmwahu, in Madolenihmw is set aside, and the case is REMANDED to the Land Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Order.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. 2 [2 P. S. Ct. R. 8] PLORENSIA IRIARTE, Appellant v. MASARO ANTON, Appellee PCA NO. 80-84 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court January 10, 1986 Appeal against the determination of ownership of land to the entered by the Pohnpei Land Commission in favor of appellee who after the death of owner had taken over and cared for the land as owner's heir in accordance with the German Land Code, but disregarding the effect of an apparently valid holographic will introduced by appellant. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, E. H. Santos, Chief Justice, set aside the determination and remanded the case to the Land Commission for further proceeding. 1. Appeal and Error - Courts - Powers On appeal the Trial Division may at its discretion decide the matter solely on the record and the appeal documents, affirming, reversing or remanding the case to the lower court or Land Commission for further proceedings, or it may grant trial de novo within the Trial Division of the State Court. (S.L.2L-160-82, s. 50(a)) 2. Wills - Holographic Will A holographic will, that is, a will in the hand writing of the testator, may be made without any witness, but the signature and all its material provisions must be in the handwriting of the testator and his handwriting must be proved by two witnesses. (Chapter 5-A, TT Cod@66 ed; P.L. 2-14 1961, s. 348) 3. Land - Adverse Possession - Members of family It is a general principle that members of a family may not acquire [2 P. S. Ct. R. 9] adverse possession against each other in the absence of a showing of a clear, positive, and continued disclaimer and disavowal of title, and an assertion of an adverse right brought home to the true owner a sufficient length of time to bar him under the statute of limitations from asserting his rights. 4. Land - Adverse Possession To constitute an effective adverse possession, the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; it must be actual; it must be open and notorious, it must be exclusive, and it must be continuous. M any of these constituents is wanting the possession will not effect a bar of the legal title. Counsel for Appellant: Herbert Gallen Counsel for Appellee: Sungiwo Hadley EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice This appeal was taken by appellant Plorensia Iriarte against the Determination of Ownership entered by the Pohnpei Land Commission [hereinafter PLC] on February 17, 1984, in favor of Masaro Anton relating to the captioned tract of land. The Determination of the PLC was based on its finding that Masaro Anton, being the eldest son of the former Etison Anton, succeeded in title in accordance with article 4 of the German Land Code in effect on Pohnpei. The record certified by the Ponape Land Commission contains enough information to proceed on this appeal on the basis of the record and the appeal documents. On appeal the Trial Division may at its discretion decide the matter solely on the record [2 P. S. Ct. R. 10] and the appeal documents, affirming, reversing or remanding the case to the lower court or Land Commission for further proceedings, or it may grant trial de novo within the Trial Division of the State Court. S. 50(a) of S.L. 2L-160-82, as amended. The Appellant stated five grounds for her appeal, two of which grounds merit some discussion as basic to the appeal. The two grounds are, as styled in the Notice of Appeal: "(a) ... (b) The Commission erred as a matter of law in determining Appellee is the oldest natural surviving son of Etison Anton, original owner of the land in dispute. (c) ... (d)... (e) The Commission erred as a matter of law in not accepting and considering as part of commission's record the documentary evidence [a written will by original land owner] which was introduced into evidence by the Appellant concerning the original land owner's intention on the disposition of said property in question after he died." The PLC record shows certain evidentiary facts which are crucial in the determination of this case, "1. The Land involved is an island named Imwin Dekeh Mwahu registered in the name of Etison Anton also known as Meninlas, the name Meninlas is the name well known to the Public. [2 P. S. Ct. R. 11] 2. Etison Anton died in 1968. 3. After the death of Etison Anton his oldest natural son Masaro Anton took over and take [sic] care of the land as his heir... (see Exhibit 6, page 1.) 4. Prior to the death of Etison Anton, he verbally told Piorensia that shewillownsuchplace. (See Exhibit 6, page 2.) 5. There is a paper that Plorensia Iriarte submitted and she considered it is a will for his [sic] evidence and stated that it was made by Etison Anton." The team have reviewed the paper that claim [sic] to be a will and found out that the paper is a letter and is not a will, it is not completed to be considered as a will, the paper is not signed by two witnesses. [For a copy of this paper pur porting to be a will, See Exhibit 12] Accordingly, the team do not accept the claim by Plorensia Iriarte and Arthur Anton because of the inheritance law of German Land Deed Sec. 4." (See Exhibit No. 6, page 3.) ANALYSIS This case presents two main legal issues as follows: First, whether Etison Anton died in 1968 without a will. If the answer is in the affirmative, and that Masaro Anton is the eldest son, then the Land Commission's Determination must stand affirmed. Second, whether the paper introduced in evidence by [2 P. S. Ct. R. 12] Plorensia Iriarte [Exhibitl2] is a holographic will. If it is, then the Land Commission must give efficacy to it. The Trust Territory Law relating to wills in effect in 1968 when Etison Anton died is found in Chapter 5-A of the TT Code, 1966 edition. [P.L. 2-14, Sept 2, 1966] Section 348 reads: "Holographic Will. A Holographic will, that is, a will in the handwriting of the testator, may be made underthis Act without any witness, but the signature and all its material provisions must be in the handwriting of the testator and his handwriting must be proved by two witnesses." Compare this provision with 13 TTC 6, 1980 Edition. The Land Commission needs to satisfy itself as to whether the document marked Exhibit 12 is really a will handwritten and signed by Etison Anton himself. In order to do this, the law requires at least two witnesses to prove the signature and that all material provisions of Exhibit 12 are in the handwriting of Etison Anton. The PLC need not dwell itself on the "adverse possession" doctrine as the parties are brothers and sisters, and the 20-year limitation beginning from the year Etison Anton died in 1968 has not yet ran out. [2 P. S. Ct. R. 13] It is a general principle that members of a family may not acquire adverse possession against each other in the absence of a showing of a clear, positive, and continued disclaimer and disavowal of title, and an assertion of an adverse right brought home to the true owner a sufficient length of time to bar him under the statute of limitations from asserting his rights. 3 AM JUR 2d Adverse Possession, Sec. 147. The Appellate Division of the Trust Territory High Court in "In the Matter of Determination of Ownership of Land ...Truk Trading Company v. Koro Paul, Civil Appeal No. 409 discussed the rulerelating to adverse possession, as the Court says: "to constitute an effective adverse possession, the possession must be hostile and under a claim of right; it must be actual; it must be open and notorious; it must be exclusive, and it must be continuous. If any of these constituents is walling, the possession will not effect a bar of the legal title." Citing Castle Associates v. Schwartz, 63 AD 2d 481, 407 NYS 2d 717. The record on appeal here does not justify application of the common law doctrine of adverse possession. Accordingly, the Determination of Ownership entered by the Ponape Land Commission on February 17,1984, relating to Parcel [2 P. S. Ct. R. 14] No. 027-D-06 [T-74278] re: Dekehmwahu, in Madolenihmw is set aside, and the case is REMANDED to the Land Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Order.