Camacho v Estate of Paciano G. Gumataotao [2010] GUSC 1; 2010 Guam 01 (7 January 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DARLEEN S. CAMACHO, JENNIFER P. SGAMBELLURI,
and PAMELA S. QUINATA (aka PAMELA S. SGAMBELLURI),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

V

THE ESTATE OF PACIANO G. GUMATAOTAO,
Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA09-015
Superior Court Case No.: CV0957-07

OPINION

Filed: January 7, 2010
Cite as: 2010 Guam 1

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 20, 2009
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Leilani V. Lujan, Esq. Lujan Aguigui & Perez LLP 238 Archbishop Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Louie J. Yanza, Esq. Maher, Yanza, Flynn, Timblin, LLP 115 Hesler Pl., Ground Flr. Gov. Joseph Flores Bldg. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Presiding Justice¹; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore²

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Plaintiffs-Appellants Darleen S. Camacho, Jennifer P. Sgambelluri, and Pamela S. Quinata (aka Pamela S. Sgambelluri) (collectively the “Sgambelluris”) appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee The Estate of Paciano G. Gumataotao (“Gumataotao”) in relation to a dispute as to who owns seven parcels of real property in Piti. The Sgambelluris argue that the Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Gumataotao because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to: (1) the validity and enforceability of a deed of conveyance dated September 17, 1980, in which the Sgambelluris conveyed the disputed parcels to Gumataotao after defaulting on a promissory note and mortgage in favor of the latter; and (2) the validity of certificates of title issued by the Department of Land Management on July 18, 2008, which identify Gumataotao as the fee simple owner of said parcels.

[2] We find that the recording of a deed is not essential to an effective conveyance of title as between a grantor and a grantee. We also find that certificates of title are evidence of ownership, but are not determinative of ownership to real property. A grantor cannot employ, as against a grantee, various provisions of Guam’s Land Title Registration Law, 21 GCA § 29101 et seq., to invalidate an otherwise properly-executed deed of conveyance solely because said grantee did not record the instrument. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gumataotao.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] This is a real property dispute involving statutory interpretation of Guam’s Land Title Registration Law, 21 GCA § 29101 et seq. On April 22, 1971, Paciano G. Gumataotao and his wife entered into an option agreement with Joseph T. Gumataotao, giving the latter, in exchange for $25,000.00, an option to purchase for $800,000.00 a single parcel of property in Piti, Guam, containing an area of 400,000 square meters. The option’s purchase terms required a down payment of $100,000.00 (less the $25,000.00 paid for the option) together with a promissory note for the remaining balance. The balance was to be payable in ten annual installments of $70,000.00 each, beginning one year after closing, with 6% interest per year on the unpaid balance.

[4] On December 28, 1973, Joseph T. Gumataotao notified Paciano Gumataotao and his wife that he had, on that same day, assigned the option agreement to the Sgambelluris. That same day, the Sgambelluris executed a promissory note in favor of Paciano Gumataotao with a payment schedule reflecting the terms set forth in the option agreement. As security for the note, the Sgambelluris gave Paciano Gumataotao a mortgage on the land set forth in the option. In exchange, that same day, Paciano Gumataotao and his wife executed a warranty deed for the same, in favor of the Sgambelluris. The notice of assignment, the mortgage, and the warranty deed were recorded with the Department of Land Management (“DLM”) on January 9, 1974. The record reflects that on March 15, 1974, a check in the amount of $299,345.14 was made out to Joseph T. Gumataotao, for his sale of the option to the Sgambelluris.

[5] At some point, the parcel was subdivided into sixteen separate lots, including the seven at issue in this case. On February 6, 1975, certificates of title for Lots 1-7 (“1975 certificates of title”) were issued by the DLM, naming the Sgambelluris as the fee simple owners thereof. On February 18, 1976, the Sgambelluris executed a second, junior mortgage on the land in favor of Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”). This second mortgage was recorded that same day.

[6] Because the Sgambelluris failed to make any payments on the 1973 promissory note and first mortgage in favor of Paciano Gumataotao, the Sgambelluris, in a settlement agreement, agreed to convey Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (“Lots 1-7”) back to Paciano Gumataotao in exchange for a credit of $142,460.00 against the amount still owed to the latter under the fore-mentioned instruments (i.e., $700,000.00 plus an interest of 6% per annum on the unpaid balance). As part of this settlement agreement, Citibank agreed to release, as to Paciano Gumataotao, its mortgage on Lots 1-7 in exchange for the latter’s agreeing to release, as to Citibank, its mortgage on Lots 8-16. This settlement agreement was memorialized in a writing dated September 19, 1980. On September 23, 1980, Citibank executed a Partial Release of Mortgages and Judgment, formally relinquishing its claims to Lots 1-7 to Paciano Gumataotao. This release was recorded on December 13, 2000. On September 17, 1980, the Sgambelluris executed a deed of conveyance (“1980 deed”), conveying Lots 1-7 to Paciano Gumataotao in fee simple. This 1980 deed was never recorded.