In the Matter of the Parcel No.003-C-09

POHNPEI LAW REPORTS

VOL. 3

[3 PN.L.R. 185]

IN THE MATTER OF PARCEL No. 003-C-09,

NANPONMAL, SOKEHS MUNICIPALITY

HAINRICH ZARRED, DIHNA ZARRED, SUNIA PHILLIP,

Appellants

ANTONIA SARTIN (AKA) ANTONIA BOHL AND

POHNPEI PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY

Pohnpei Civil Action No. 132-87

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

July 14, 1988

Appeal from the determination of land title by the Land Commission on the ground that "no proper notice" was given to appellants of the Commission's hearing prior to its determination. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice, remanding the case to the Land Commission for further proceeding, held that there being nothing in the case file to show that any notice was given to any of the appellants justice required that the Commission reopen hearing on the case to allow the appellants to present their claims.

[3 PN.L.R. 186]

Evidence - Public Lands - Land Commission Hearing - Notice

Where there is nothing in the case record to show that notice was given to a party to Land Commission hearing prior to the Commission's determination of title to public land, the Court may set aside the determination and remand the case to the Commission to reopen hearing to allow the parties to present their claims.

Counsel for Appellants: Joses Gallen

Attorney-at-Law

Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

Counsel for Appellees: None

EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice

Following hearings held pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80 and the T.T. Land Commission Act, the Pohnpei Land Commission made its determination of ownership in the above parcel of land (003-C09), situated at Nanpohnmal, Sokehs Municipality, on March 9, 1987, in favor of the Pohnpei Public Lands Authority as trustee for the people of Pohnpei and that Antonia Sartis, aka Antonia Bohl, was the rightful entryman pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80.

The appellants appealed the determination of the Land Commission on the ground that "no proper notice" was given to the appellants of the Land Commission's hearing prior to its determi-

[3 PN.L.R. 187]

nation. Additionally, in a letter dated May 6, 1987, submitted by appellant Hainrich Zarred to the Senior Commissioner Tadasy Yamaguchi, Mr. Zarred alleged that the original leaseholder of Tract 70213 which was allegedly renumbered as Parcel 003-C-09 had died, leaving certain heirs who are entitled to succeed the original leaseholder pursuant to the provisions of S.L. 2L-43-80.

There is nothing in the case file to indicate that any notice was given to any of the appellants, and for this reason and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remand the case to the Land Commission for further proceedings.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED; Civil Action No. 132-87 is remanded to the Pohnpei Land Commission for further proceedings as follows:

1. Re-open hearing on Parcel 003-C-09 of Nanpohnmal, Sokehs, to allow appellants to present their claims.

2. Set aside earlier determination dated March 9, 1987.

3. Receive additional evidence and make new findings as justified by the entire evidence.

4. Render new determination as appropriate.


	POHNPEI LAW REPORTS VOL. 3 [3 PN.L.R. 185] IN THE MATTER OF PARCEL No. 003-C-09, NANPONMAL, SOKEHS MUNICIPALITY HAINRICH ZARRED, DIHNA ZARRED, SUNIA PHILLIP, Appellants v. ANTONIA SARTIN (AKA) ANTONIA BOHL AND POHNPEI PUBLIC LANDS AUTHORITY Pohnpei Civil Action No. 132-87 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court July 14, 1988 Appeal from the determination of land title by the Land Commission on the ground that "no proper notice" was given to appellants of the Commission's hearing prior to its determination. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice, remanding the case to the Land Commission for further proceeding, held that there being nothing in the case file to show that any notice was given to any of the appellants justice required that the Commission reopen hearing on the case to allow the appellants to present their claims. [3 PN.L.R. 186] Evidence - Public Lands - Land Commission Hearing - Notice Where there is nothing in the case record to show that notice was given to a party to Land Commission hearing prior to the Commission's determination of title to public land, the Court may set aside the determination and remand the case to the Commission to reopen hearing to allow the parties to present their claims. Counsel for Appellants: Joses Gallen Attorney-at-Law Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941 Counsel for Appellees: None EDWEL H. SANTOS, Chief Justice Following hearings held pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80 and the T.T. Land Commission Act, the Pohnpei Land Commission made its determination of ownership in the above parcel of land (003-C09), situated at Nanpohnmal, Sokehs Municipality, on March 9, 1987, in favor of the Pohnpei Public Lands Authority as trustee for the people of Pohnpei and that Antonia Sartis, aka Antonia Bohl, was the rightful entryman pursuant to S.L. 2L-43-80. The appellants appealed the determination of the Land Commission on the ground that "no proper notice" was given to the appellants of the Land Commission's hearing prior to its determi- [3 PN.L.R. 187] nation. Additionally, in a letter dated May 6, 1987, submitted by appellant Hainrich Zarred to the Senior Commissioner Tadasy Yamaguchi, Mr. Zarred alleged that the original leaseholder of Tract 70213 which was allegedly renumbered as Parcel 003-C-09 had died, leaving certain heirs who are entitled to succeed the original leaseholder pursuant to the provisions of S.L. 2L-43-80. There is nothing in the case file to indicate that any notice was given to any of the appellants, and for this reason and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remand the case to the Land Commission for further proceedings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED; Civil Action No. 132-87 is remanded to the Pohnpei Land Commission for further proceedings as follows: 1. Re-open hearing on Parcel 003-C-09 of Nanpohnmal, Sokehs, to allow appellants to present their claims. 2. Set aside earlier determination dated March 9, 1987. 3. Receive additional evidence and make new findings as justified by the entire evidence. 4. Render new determination as appropriate.