Government of Guam v Ungacta [2011] GUSC 15; 2011 Guam 17 (18 October 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM,
Plaintiff,

v.

162.40 SQUARE METERS OF LAND MORE OR LESS, SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF AGANA AND UNKNOWN OWNERS,
Defendants.

ENGRACIA UNGACTA AND FELIX F. UNGACTA,
Real Parties in Interest-Appellants

ARTEMIO M. ILAGAN AND CARMELITA ILAGAN,
Real Parties in Interest-Appellees.

Supreme Court Case No. CVA10-004
Superior Court Case No. CV0863-81

OPINION

Filed: October 18, 2011

Cite as: 2011 Guam 17

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted December 1, 2010
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Appellants: Mark S. Smith, Esq. The Law Offices of Mark S. Smith 456 W O’Brien Dr, Ste. 102-D Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Appellees: Seth Forman, Esq. Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP Ste. 201, Orlean Pacific Plz. 865 S Marine Dr. Tamuning, GU 96913

BEFORE: MIGUEL S. DEMAPAN[1], Presiding Chief Justice Pro Tempore; ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Justice Pro Tempore; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice Pro Tempore[2].

PER CURIAM:

[1] This appeal stems from a condemnation action of a piece of property in Hagåtña, Guam. In 1981, the Government of Guam condemned Lot 237-3-2-1 from Appellees Artemio M. Ilagan and Carmelita Ilagan (“Ilagans”), which it thereafter sold to Appellants Engracia Ungacta and Felix F. Ungacta (“Ungactas”).[3] The Ungactas appeal the trial court’s finding that the condemnation was wrongful, arguing that the taking was part of a wider and more comprehensive economic development plan. Accordingly, they submit that the taking satisfied the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Following United States Supreme Court precedent, we conclude that the taking was part of the Agana Plan, and was done pursuant to a valid public purpose. We, therefore, reverse the judgment, and remand this case to the trial court to determine whether just compensation was paid.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] Prior to World War II, the village of Hagåtña had grown with oddly shaped lots and twisting, crooked streets. See Gov't of Guam v. Moylan, 407 F.2d 567, 567 (9th Cir. 1969).[4]