Musu v Suapilimai [1988] SPLawRp 35; [1988] SPLR 9 (22 March 1988)

[1988] SPLR 9

IN THE HIGH COURT

LAND AND TITLES DIVISION

FALEAFINE MUSU

v

MALIA SUAPILIMAI

Rees C.J.; Afuola and Tuiafono Associate Judges
22 March 1988

Land law — communal land — title held in accordance with customs application to boundary dispute.

Title to communal land — function of court issue of better right to occupation — actual owner not party to case court will not quiet title or otherwise adjudicate the right of that party.

Nature of evidence — circumstantial — evidence of historic boundary — straight line — coconut trees strong circumstantial evidence of that boundary.

Boundary identification — best evidence — identification — eye witness — withdrawal of dwelling — strong circumstantial evidence of boundary.

Historic licence — continued use undisturbed — cookhouse — no objection by the other side power of court — case grounded in a historic licence.

Title to communal land — accrual by registration — statutory requirement and law — procedure covered under A.S.C.A., ss. 37.0102, 37.0201 et seq.

Procedure for registration — survey of land — role of senior matai — where vacant, family must select senior matai before offer land for registration: A.S.C.A., s. 37,0201. Registration — confers indefeasible title — title protected even though party who might have objected did not discover proposed registration in time to object. A.S.C.A., s. 37.0101 at seq.

This is an action in a boundary dispute of land held communally under customary laws. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment to an area slightly less than a fifth of an acre which they occupy jointly with the defendant, but for which the boundary between them is the issue in contest. The land is actually owned by the title Letuligasenoa, whose holder is not a party to the case. The issue, ultimately, is which party has the better right to occupation of the land.

Both parties have occupied the land for a long time, and the relationship between them had been good and friendly — each performing maintenance chores on the area. For at least twenty years prior to 1973, the defendant family built and lived in a small Samoan-style house on their portion of the land together with an umu-Samoan cooking house — which is still there.

The plaintiff family also has a dwelling-house a few feet from this, which it uses and occupies.

At one point a dispute arose between the families as to their boundary.

In 1973, both families met with Chief Letuligasenoa, who walked the boundary line with them and identified it. Coconut trees were eventually planted along this line to show the boundary. Evidence establishes this straight line of trees stretches from the road to the fence at the back of the property. The Court confirmed this on a visit to the property.

The plaintiffs were represented by the husband (now deceased) and one Felili Faleafine, who now occupies the house just to the west of the disputed portion.

The other parties were represented by the defendant and her husband, now also deceased. Shortly after the boundary was marked, the defendant family removed their dwelling-house, but not the umu, which they continued to use without objection from the plaintiffs.

By 1981 the plaintiff's family, who had occupied the house in the area in dispute, were in Hawaii temporarily. Meanwhile, the defendant ordered a survey of the whole area, including the one in dispute. The survey was made under her name: "Malia L. Suapilimai", calling the land Niva, and subsequently offered for registration in the name of "Suapilimai family" and not under any matai family name. Nobody objected to the registration within the statutory time period, and it was accordingly inscribed in the Territorial Registration. (In effect, the defendant sought alienation of communal ownership of the land to her and her family in their own right as free individual owners.)

At trial, however, she testified that the registration under "Suapilimai family" was an error and should have been under "Leituala family". (Evidence, however, 60 suggests both the Suapilimai and Leituala are lesser titles of the Lealaimatafao family.)

When the plaintiff family returned from Hawaii, they found that the defendant and her family had begun to use again the disputed portion of the land they had withdrawn from after 1973.

HELD:

The application for declaratory judgment is granted. The defendant and her family are permanently enjoined from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff family to use and occupy the land. They are further enjoined from using the land themselves, except that they may use the umu so long as they do so without disturbing the plaintiff in their peaceful enjoyment of the remainder of the land.

(1) The true boundary between the parties' families is the line of coconut trees along the eastern boundary of the Faleafine survey. The very existence of the straight line of coconut trees between two tracts of land is strong circumstantial evidence of this. This was identified by Chief Letuligasenoa. Both families had recognized that boundary then and now: l. 224.
(2) The continued use of the umu by the defendants even after the boundary was marked and the dwelling-house removed, and without objection by the plaintiff until recently, is not conclusive evidence of title of ownership or the establishment of a new boundary line. At best that use was grounded in a historic licence: l 233.
(3) The registration in 1981 of the disputed portion by the defendant a part of "Niva" was invalid and void. That registration was not done in accordance with statutory procedures: l. 235.
(4) (a) An offer of registration of communal land must be accompanied by a survey requested by the senior matai of the family (A.S.C.A. section 37.1012). Where there is no senior matai in a family, one must be selected before land can be offered for registration (A.S.C.A. section 37.0102 (d)). Here, the defendant had no authority in 1981 to register land, whether on behalf of the Suapilimai family, the Leituala family, or any other family. Accordingly that registration is void and of no effect.