Hartman v Mailo [2018] FMCSC 9; 21 FSM R. 657 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018) (9 April 2018)

CHUUK STATE SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
CSSC-CIVIL ACTION NO. 002-2016

SAMUEL A. HARTMAN,
Petitioner,

vs.

CHUUK STATE SENIOR LAND COMMISSIONER
KM MAILO and CHUUK STATE,
Respondents.
_____________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND REMANDING MATTER TO THE LAND COMMISSION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Camillo Noket
Chief Justice

Decided: April 9, 2018

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner: Johnny Meippen, Esq.
P.O. Box 705
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

For the Respondents: Sabino S. Asor, Esq.
Attorney General
Office of the Chuuk Attorney General
P.O. Box 1050
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä Authority and Jurisdiction
The Chuuk State Supreme Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus because the Chuuk State Judiciary Act gives all state courts the power to issue writs for equitable and legal relief. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 659 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä Nature and Scope
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued to require a public official to carry out a clear, non-discretionary duty. The object of a writ of mandamus is not to cure a mere legal error or to serve as a substitute for appeal, but to require an official to carry out a clear non-discretionary duty. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 659-60 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä When May Issue
When a court has jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus in a matter, there are five elements that must be met: 1) the respondent must be a judicial or other public officer, 2) the act to be compelled must be non-discretionary or ministerial, 3) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act, 4) the respondent must have failed or refused to perform the act, and 5) there must be no other adequate legal remedy available. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 660, 661 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä Procedure
The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the writ of mandamus; they must show that the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 660 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä Nature and Scope
A writ of mandamus may only force a ministerial act or prevent a clear abuse of power and cannot be used to test or overrule a judge's exercise of discretion. As the land commission occupies a semi-judicial role, a writ of mandamus may be directed to a Land Commissioner’s decisions as well. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 660 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Property Ä Land Commission
The land registration team is designated to settle claims and adjudicate competing claims for parcels of land within a registration area, and if the Land Commission, upon review the record, is satisfied, it will issue a determination of ownership. If the Land Commission remains unsatisfied with the record, it can either remand with instructions to the registration team or hold further adjudications itself. It must provide notice of the determination of ownership to the interested parties, who then have 120 days to appeal, and if the time for appeal expires without any notice of appeal having been filed, the Commission must issue a certificate of title setting forth the names of all persons holding an interest in the land pursuant to the determination, and such certificate of title shall be conclusive proof upon all persons who have had actual or constructive notice of the proceedings. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 660 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Property Ä Land Commission
Land Registration Team findings are superseded by a legal presumption of ownership over a parcel when the Land Commission has issued a valid and un-appealed determination of ownership. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 660 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

Mandamus and Prohibition Ä When May Issue; Property Ä Land Commission
The Senior Land Commissioner is a public officer who oversees the Land Commission and who has the non-discretionary legal duty to issue a certificate of title to persons holding an interest in the land pursuant to the determination after the 120-day time limit for appeal has expired without an appeal. The Land Commission’s continuous failure to issue a certificate of title for over 37 years following an un-appealed determination of ownership constitutes a breach of its duty and leaves the petitioner without any legal remedy other than to petition for a writ of mandamus, and to prevent this manifest injustice, equity requires that the court compel the Land Commission to fulfill its legal duty to issue a certificate of title to petitioner. Hartman v. Mailo, 21 FSM R. 657, 661 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2018).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

CAMILLO NOKET, Chief Justice:

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Hartman requested that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Land Commission to issue a Certificate of Title over a land called to Neonong #2a to Petitioner.

II. ISSUES

The Court is faced with two issues within this litigation:

1. 1. Whether the Land Commissioner refused to execute a non-discretionary duty to issue a Certificate of Title, as required by Section 19 of CSL 07-04-06, after the Land Commission issued a Determination of Ownership to Petitioner, and no one appealed this Determination within 120 days.
   
2. 2. Whether this Court should remand this matter to the Land Commission to issue a Certificate of Title as Petitioner has exhausted all other legal remedies and equity so requires.
   

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, the Chuuk State Supreme Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus. The Chuuk State Judiciary Act gives all state courts the power to issue writs for equitable and legal relief. Narruhn v. Chuuk State Election Comm’n[2011] FMCSC 8; , 18 FSM Intrm. 16, 20 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2011). The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued to require a public official to carry out a clear, non-discretionary duty. Office of the Public Defender v. FSM Supreme Court, [1990] FMSC 12; 4 FSM Intrm. 307, 309 (App. 1990). Furthermore, the object of a writ of mandamus "is not to cure a mere legal error or to serve as a substitution for appeal, but to require an official to carry out a clear nondiscretionary duty." In re Raitoun[1984] FMSC 10; , 1 FSM Intrm. 561, 562 (App. 1984).

Where a court has jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus in a matter, there are five elements that must be met. The five elements that must be present before the court can exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus are: 1) the respondent must be a judicial or other public officer, 2) the act to be compelled must be non-discretionary or ministerial, 3) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act, 4) the respondent must have failed or refused to perform the act, and 5) there must be no other adequate legal remedy available. In re Failure of Justice to Resign, [1995] FMCSC 3; 7 FSM Intrm. 105, 109 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1995).

The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the writ of mandamus; they must show that the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. Senda v. Trial Division, [1994] FMSC 40; 6 FSM Intrm. 336, 338 (App. 1994). A writ of mandamus "may only force a ministerial act or prevent a clear abuse of power" and cannot "be used to test or overrule a judge's exercise of discretion." Id. As the land commission occupies a semi-judicial role, such holding extends to the Land Commissioner’s decisions as well.

A. Duty of the Land Commission

The land registration team is designated to settle claims and adjudicate competing claims for parcels of land within a registration area. Chk. S.L. No. (CSL) 07-04-06, §§ 9 & 10. Upon rt of (thf (the) adjudication from the land registration team and the record on which it is based, the Land Commission shall review the record: and if satisfied, shall issue a determination of ownership based on the record. Ckk. S.L. No. 07-04-06, § 1f the Commission remains uins unsatisfied with the record, it can either remand with instructions to the registration team or hold further adjudications itself. Id. The Land Commission must then provide notice of the Determination of Ownership to the interested parties. Ckk. S.L. No. 07-04-06, § 16. A dination of ownershiership by the Land Commission shall be subject to appeal by any party aggrieved thereby . . . within 120 from the date date of saidrmination. Ckk. S.L. No. 07-04-06, § 17. Sectioection 19 requires that after the time for appeal from the determination oershithe Commission has expired without any notice of e of appeaappeal having been filed . . . the Coion sisll issue a ce a certte of title setting for(th)r(th) the names of all persons . . . holditeresthen the land pand pursuant to the determination.. S.L 07-04-06, § 19. Such certificate of tiof title itle shall be conclusive proof upon all persons who have had actual or contive e of the proceediceedings. ngs. Id.

IV. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 30, 1981 the Land Commission issued a Determination of Ownership over Lot 64757 known as Neuonong #2a to the Hartman brothers. This Court’s records reveal that no one ever appealed this Determination. Despite a lack of appeal, the Land Commission never issued a Certificate of Title over Lot 64757 to Petitioner.

On May 28, 2016, Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus petition alleging that the Senior Land Commissioner failed to follow his statutory duty to issue a Certificate of Title to Petitioner for Lot 64757. Although the Petition focused on findings made by the land registration team in 2015, the Court found this discussion irrelevant as to resolving this matter. Land Registration Team findings are superseded by a legal presumption of ownership over a parcel when the Land Commission has issued a valid and un-appealed Determination of Ownership.

The Court held a hearing on January 24, 2018. Neither the Land Commission nor the Attorney General appeared, despite receiving proper notice of the hearing. Upon observing that the Land Commission failed to appear at previously scheduled status conferences despite proper service, this Court proceeded with the hearing and made the above-mentioned findings.

V. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Petitioner has met all the elements required for this Court is Issue a Writ of Mandamus

Five elements must be present before the court can exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus: 1) the respondent must be a judicial or other public officer, 2) the act to be compelled must be non-discretionary or ministerial, 3) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the act, 4) the respondent must have failed or refused to perform the act, and 5) there must be no other adequate legal remedy available. 7 FSM Intrm. at 109. The Senior Land Commissioner is a public officer who oversees the Land Commission. Section 19 of CSL 07-04-06 vests the Land Commission with a non-discretionary legal duty to issue a certificate of title to persons holding interest in the land pursuant to the determination after the 120 day time limit for appeal has expired. This Court found that the Land Commission issued a Determination of Ownership 37 years ago and that no one appealed that determination as of present day. In lieu of the above findings, the Land Commission’s continuous failure issuing a Certificate of Title for over 37 years following that determination constitutes a breach of its duty under Section 19. Finally, since the provisions of CSL 07-04-06 foreclose Petitioner from appealing the Land Commission’s delay in issuing Certificate of Title, Petitioner lacks any legal remedy other than to petition for a Writ of Mandamus from this Court. Thus, Petitioner has met all the elements required for the Court to consider granting a Writ of Mandamus.

B. Remand to Land Commission Proper

The Court’s ability to issue a Writ of Mandamus is an equitable power. The Court observed that more than 37 years transpired since the issuance of the Determination of Ownership over Lot 64757 known as Neuonong #2a to the Hartman Brothers. The record reveals of no appeal to that Determination of Ownership and the Court remains deeply disturbed by the fact that the Land Commission had failed to issue a Certificate of Title as required by the Act throughout this extensive period of time. Indeed, the Certificate of Title should have been issued in 1981. So as to prevent this manifest injustice, equity therefore requires that this Court compels the Land Commission to fulfill its legal duty to issue a Certificate of Title to Petitioner.

VI. CONCLUSION

This Court now finds that the Land Commissioner has refused to execute a non-discretionary duty to issue a Certificate of Title, as required by Section 19 of CSL 07-04-06, after the Land Commission issued a Determination of Ownership to Petitioner and no one had appealed this Determination within 120 days. Further, this Court finds that it should remand this matter to the Land Commission to issue a certificate of title as Petitioner has exhausted all other legal remedies and equity so requires. This Court now GRANTS this petition.

This matter is now remanded to the Land Commission with instructions that it shall issue a Certificate of Title to Petitioner over Lot 64757 known as Neuonong #2a within twenty days of this Order.

* * * *